PDA

View Full Version : Get Back in the Closet. Mike Adams



megimoo
06-22-2009, 09:20 AM
Dear UNC-Wilmington Students: Itís getting close to time to start another semester.

That means that itís time to lay down the rules for all of my classes. Iím going to continue to use all the rules Iíve used before, which can be found in my syllabus. But, starting this semester, Iím adding three more rules. Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgendered students (GILBERTS) need to pay especially close attention.

First of all, GILBERTS will not be allowed to mention their status as gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, or trans-gendered. A few semesters ago, a gay student in one of my classes said Ė right in the middle of class, mind you Ė ďIím gay.Ē It offended me when he said that. That is why I am banning such statements for the duration of the semester. The simple awareness of the presence of gays in my classes offends me. No other reason need be offered. Just shut up and comply with the rule

http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeAdams/2009/06/22/get_back_in_the_closet

Sheatwole
06-22-2009, 09:43 AM
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

enslaved1
06-22-2009, 10:17 AM
That is what we call hitting the nail on the head. Take almost any case of Christians being told to sit down and shut up, replace "Christian" with "gay" in the account, and you're an evil, oppresive dirtbag. Present the original case, you're a great champion of liberation.

PoliCon
06-22-2009, 02:03 PM
Mike Adams always makes me laugh :)

MrsSmith
06-22-2009, 06:32 PM
For those very few conservative instructors mired in the liberal cesspool of most colleges and universities, Mike Adams is a much-needed link to sanity.

FlaGator
06-22-2009, 06:46 PM
They really should make him Secretary of Education.

wilbur
06-22-2009, 07:09 PM
"b) offering very mild criticism of one assertion of Darwinism, and"


I wonder what said criticism was....

Gingersnap
06-22-2009, 10:00 PM
"b) offering very mild criticism of one assertion of Darwinism, and"


I wonder what said criticism was....

That's probably unimportant. His point is that the playing field is hardly level when it comes to injecting discussion in the classroom. I have suffered through numerous classroom discussions that were not enhanced by anecdotal revelations. However, because the anecdotes established victim status, left-of-center politics, sexual interests, or irrelevant social views, the instructor let it go on anyway.

I'm sure I wouldn't get the same treatment for expressing my views in an equally irrelevant way. I wouldn't get that level of polite regard if my expression was on-point and on-topic.

wilbur
06-23-2009, 12:03 AM
That's probably unimportant. His point is that the playing field is hardly level when it comes to injecting discussion in the classroom. I have suffered through numerous classroom discussions that were not enhanced by anecdotal revelations. However, because the anecdotes established victim status, left-of-center politics, sexual interests, or irrelevant social views, the instructor let it go on anyway.

I'm sure I wouldn't get the same treatment for expressing my views in an equally irrelevant way. I wouldn't get that level of polite regard if my expression was on-point and on-topic.

Well, that depends... I think it could be very important. It might be nothing, but we certainly don't have enough information to judge... searching around briefly revealed some pretty ignorant statements, (yet stated boldly and with certainty), about evolution on the part of this guy.

If he's as militant as he appears, I wouldn't be surprised to learn he was spouting off that same type of ignorant crap in his classes... in which case, the students would be right to complain.

Japandroid
06-23-2009, 10:29 AM
What if a professor said this about Christians? I would really appreciate if they'd "just shut up" when discussing topics that shouldn't have a religious agenda shoved in them.

Lager
06-23-2009, 11:00 AM
Of course the homosexual community is offended by this. Even if they don't know what the context was in which this professor made these rules. Consider the recent tabloid case of Perez Hilton. Hiltion alledgedly got clocked by someone in a bar, because Hiltion (who is gay) called the dude or one of his associates, a "faggot". Hilton admits he did this. Now compare what Hilton did to what Miss California said, that in her opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman. Which action deserves the most outrage? Now, ask yourself which one the gay and lesbian community are likely going to focus on, and be most upset about?
It's because it is all political theatre, that's all.

FlaGator
06-23-2009, 11:51 AM
What if a professor said this about Christians? I would really appreciate if they'd "just shut up" when discussing topics that shouldn't have a religious agenda shoved in them.

Some do say that. Some organizations are so fearful of offending gays that it is easier to stifle the speech of Christians because more people are on board with that.

MrsSmith
06-23-2009, 07:01 PM
What if a professor said this about Christians? I would really appreciate if they'd "just shut up" when discussing topics that shouldn't have a religious agenda shoved in them.

Many, many professors do say things far more derogatory of Christians. In fact, legal groups have had to threaten universities with law suit to force them to allow Christians ANY free speech. :rolleyes:

http://www.thefire.org/

Japandroid
06-23-2009, 08:44 PM
The poor oppressed overwhelming majority.

Shannon
06-23-2009, 08:53 PM
The poor oppressed overwhelming majority.

Go fuck yourself.:rolleyes:

MrsSmith
06-23-2009, 09:14 PM
The poor oppressed overwhelming majority.

College and university professors are overwhelmingly liberal. They are in no way oppressed. They are quite thoroughly oppressing the minority Christian and conservative STUDENTS that are brave enough to actually speak up...in or out of class...to the authority that can fail them at will. The real "speaking truth to power" happens today on university campuses.

I suppose you actually looked over the FIRE site, right? :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Mission
The mission of FIRE is to defend and sustain individual rights at America's colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscienceóthe essential qualities of individual liberty and dignity. FIRE's core mission is to protect the unprotected and to educate the public and communities of concerned Americans about the threats to these rights on our campuses and about the means to preserve them.



Isn't it interesting that, in the land of the free, we need an organization to defend the rights of freedom of speech, legal equality, due process, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience on our university campuses...because they are so heavily dominated by "tolerant" liberals?

wilbur
06-23-2009, 09:49 PM
Its funny... many are quick to point out and complain about minority races or other protected groups unfairly playing the "race card" (or their particular "card") etc... but you will find very few in those groups who will actually admit (or perhaps even realize) that they are doing this... in other words, they actually believe they have legitimate complaints even when they don't, or have been legitimately wronged even when they haven't, in what appears to the outside world as something of little consequence... or at least unrelated to their particular protected status.

All should ask themselves what it would look like from the perspective of such a person under that kind of delusion... the world is against you... its always you or your group thats unfairly singled out, never the other guys... its everyone's fault but your own, your actions couldn't possibly have caused the troubles you now face, and you truly believe it... and are mystified and indignant that the world would conspire against you so unfairly.

I'm not sure what thats really like from the inside... but I can tell you what it looks like from the outside... it looks a lot like Mike S. Adams.


My experiences at college were quite the opposite of what others tell here.... in fact, professors seemed to be very careful to tiptoe around sensitive religious issues, lest they be flooded with angry emails and complaints from students who were trained and cultivated throughout their entire upbringing to scour every word that comes out of a professors mouth for any trace microscopic hints of liberal/anti-religious bias.... which they have been told to expect, and are eager to find.

MrsSmith
06-23-2009, 09:53 PM
Its funny... many are quick to point out and complain about minority races or other protected groups unfairly playing the "race card" (or their particular "card") etc... but you will find very few in those groups who will actually admit (or perhaps even realize) that they are doing this... in other words, they actually believe they have legitimate complaints even when they don't, or have been legitimately wronged even when they haven't, in what appears to the outside world as something of little consequence... or at least unrelated to the their particular protected status.

All should ask themselves what it would look like from the perspective of such a person under that kind of delusion... the world is against you... its always you or your group thats unfairly singled out, never the other guys... its everyone's fault but your own, your actions couldn't possibly have caused the troubles you now face, and you truly believe it... and are mystified and indignant that the world would conspire against you.

I'm not sure what thats really like... but I can tell you what it looks like from the outside... it looks a lot like Mike S. Adams...


My experiences at college were quite the opposite.... in fact, professors had to be very careful to tiptoe around sensitive religious issues, lest they be flooded with angry emails and complaints from students who were trained and cultivated throughout their entire upbringing to scour every word that comes out of a professors mouth for any trace microscopic hints of liberal/anti-religious bias.

Speaking as the wife of a college educator, I'd have to say that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. You and Bridget/Lanie were pretty thoroughly brainwashed. :D

wilbur
06-23-2009, 09:58 PM
Speaking as the wife of a college educator, I'd have to say that's the funniest thing I've heard all day. You and Bridget/Lanie were pretty thoroughly brainwashed. :D

Haha... the woman who was convinced by her college professor husband that the world was created in six days speaks to others about brainwashing (in academia no less)... I guess you do have firsthand experience.

Gingersnap
06-23-2009, 09:59 PM
All should ask themselves what it would look like from the perspective of such a person under that kind of delusion... the world is against you... its always you or your group thats unfairly singled out, never the other guys... its everyone's fault but your own, your actions couldn't possibly have caused the troubles you now face, and you truly believe it... and are mystified and indignant that the world would conspire against you.

Exactly. It took years and years before conservatives, traditional Christians, Orthodox Jews, and equality feminists realized that they could use the opposition's tactics against itself. Now we are seeing it. "Diversity" includes all of us - including traditional Christians, orthodox Jews, conservatives, equality feminists and many more. If gays are "diverse" and worthy to be celebrated in some way, then celibates, heterosexual virgins, and chaste heterosexual couples are worthy of the same celebration. Ditto for basic conservative viewpoints and equality feminists who disdain gender feminism.

Of course, in a PoMo world since it's all good - none of it really can be. Your sacred cow is just as worthless as mine. ;)

wilbur
06-23-2009, 10:04 PM
Exactly. It took years and years before conservatives, traditional Christians, Orthodox Jews, and equality feminists realized that they could use the opposition's tactics against itself.


Except its really less parts "strategy".. and more parts genuine "delusions of persecution".

:)

Gingersnap
06-23-2009, 10:09 PM
Except its really less parts "strategy".. and more parts genuine "delusions of persecution".

:)

No, it's pretty much 100% legal payback. Libs shaded and sanded the laws to allow these kinds of objections and other people are just using them.

*shrugs*

MrsSmith
06-24-2009, 06:29 PM
Except its really less parts "strategy".. and more parts genuine "delusions of persecution".

:)
Thank you for taking the time to look through the FIRE site at the "delusions" of which you speak. Your insistence on remaining completely ignorant about specific subjects has been noted repeatedly. You are a true product of the US education system.

wilbur, in real life:
http://lovehappybunny.com/img/HappyBunnyNotListeningSticker.jpg

wilbur
06-24-2009, 07:41 PM
Thank you for taking the time to look through the FIRE site at the "delusions" of which you speak. Your insistence on remaining completely ignorant about specific subjects has been noted repeatedly.

Why on earth should I trust this partisan organization (look at their funding) anymore than you trust the ACLU? Because they appear confirm your worst (but most desired) fears?



You are a true product of the US education system.

wilbur, in real life:


Evidence tells me you are a product of the absence of education.

Rockntractor
06-24-2009, 08:03 PM
Why on earth should I trust this partisan organization (look at their funding) anymore than you trust the ACLU? Because they appear confirm your worst (but most desired) fears?



Evidence tells me you are a product of the absence of education.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/whatever-happy-bunny.gif?t=1245888144

MrsSmith
06-24-2009, 10:11 PM
Why on earth should I trust this partisan organization (look at their funding) anymore than you trust the ACLU? Because they appear confirm your worst (but most desired) fears?



Evidence tells me you are a product of the absence of education.

Given your propensity for viewing only the evidence that favors your own beliefs, regardless of the preponderance of evidence against you, I'm sure you had no trouble "concluding" this. Oh, and thanks for admitting that you didn't bother looking into any of their cases. I'd hate to be the one that causes any cracks in your armor of deliberate ignorance. After all, it's truly bliss, right?

MrsSmith
06-24-2009, 11:41 PM
Haha... the woman who was convinced by her college professor husband that the world was created in six days speaks to others about brainwashing (in academia no less)... I guess you do have firsthand experience.
Oh, and by the way, Mr Smith thought this was quite funny, especially given the fact that the only Being with actual firsthand experience with the creation of this world is also the One Who said it was done in 6 days. :D:D However, Mr Smith is more than happy to be associated with that Being. :)

wilbur
06-25-2009, 02:54 PM
Oh, and by the way, Mr Smith thought this was quite funny,

I'm glad your handler got a chuckle.



especially given the fact that the only Being with actual firsthand experience with the creation of this world is also the One Who said it was done in 6 days.


There exists no possible means by which one can reliably declare your enormous claims above as fact... quite a perversion of the word.

Poor girl, I do pity you... your mind has been raped.

wilbur
06-25-2009, 03:03 PM
Oh, and thanks for admitting that you didn't bother looking into any of their cases. I'd hate to be the one that causes any cracks in your armor of deliberate ignorance. After all, it's truly bliss, right?

I did look into some cases... and no where did I "admit that I didn't bother looking into any". You, like several others here, really need to take the time to properly parse and interpret words... I said no such thing and you are injecting your own assumptions into my statements instead of taking them for what they say. This is how far too many conversations go... I respond to someone.. and they respond to their imagination.

Once you move beyond the site's rhetoric laden press releases, you'll find many of the cases are little to talk about.. minor bureaucratic snafus and misunderstandings trumped up with charged and dramatic language about rights and oppression and such. Its the pattern for advocacy groups such as this... its the same crap the ACLU does.

megimoo
06-25-2009, 04:29 PM
I did look into some cases... and no where did I "admit that I didn't bother looking into any". You, like several others here, really need to take the time to properly parse and interpret words... I said no such thing and you are injecting your own assumptions into my statements instead of taking them for what they say. This is how far too many conversations go... I respond to someone.. and they respond to their imagination.

Once you move beyond the site's rhetoric laden press releases, you'll find many of the cases are little to talk about.. minor bureaucratic snafus and misunderstandings trumped up with charged and dramatic language about rights and oppression and such. Its the pattern for advocacy groups such as this... its the same crap the ACLU does.
If that's the case why do you trouble yourself with us mere mortals ?

MrsSmith
06-25-2009, 06:34 PM
I'm glad your handler got a chuckle.



There exists no possible means by which one can reliably declare your enormous claims above as fact... quite a perversion of the word.

Poor girl, I do pity you... your mind has been raped.

Thanks! I have no doubt my hubby will need another good laugh tonight. :D

MrsSmith
06-25-2009, 06:39 PM
I did look into some cases... and no where did I "admit that I didn't bother looking into any". You, like several others here, really need to take the time to properly parse and interpret words... I said no such thing and you are injecting your own assumptions into my statements instead of taking them for what they say. This is how far too many conversations go... I respond to someone.. and they respond to their imagination.

Once you move beyond the site's rhetoric laden press releases, you'll find many of the cases are little to talk about.. minor bureaucratic snafus and misunderstandings trumped up with charged and dramatic language about rights and oppression and such. Its the pattern for advocacy groups such as this... its the same crap the ACLU does.

Yep, totally minor stuff. Throwing all Christian groups off campus. Silencing Christian students on pain of failure. Of course, if it were your lib friends being so grossly abused, I'm sure your attitude would undergo a sudden turnabout...but there's no reason for you to mind if the "delusional majority" is mistreated by the authorities on campus. If any of those "delusional" wingnuts really want an education, they can just go pay x3 or x4 in a private, Christian college instead of "smellling up" the public universities with their "mind-raped" ideas.

The land of the free...as long as they bow down and kiss liberal buttocks for their education, and learn to stay "in their place."

PoliCon
06-25-2009, 11:54 PM
Yep, totally minor stuff. Throwing all Christian groups off campus. Silencing Christian students on pain of failure. Of course, if it were your lib friends being so grossly abused, I'm sure your attitude would undergo a sudden turnabout...but there's no reason for you to mind if the "delusional majority" is mistreated by the authorities on campus. If any of those "delusional" wingnuts really want an education, they can just go pay x3 or x4 in a private, Christian college instead of "smellling up" the public universities with their "mind-raped" ideas.

The land of the free...as long as they bow down and kiss liberal buttocks for their education, and learn to stay "in their place."

don't forget the teachers aid who was fired for wearing a cross. . . .

PoliCon
06-26-2009, 12:47 AM
I'm glad your handler got a chuckle.



There exists no possible means by which one can reliably declare your enormous claims above as fact... quite a perversion of the word.

Poor girl, I do pity you... your mind has been raped.

wilbur you fucking pile of walking talking monkey shit. What the FUCK is wrong with you?? joking about rape? I thought I couldn't have a lower opinion of you - but I guess I was very much wrong. You are the most worthless glob of spooge your father ever expelled. Your mother should have swallowed you.

wilbur
06-26-2009, 01:01 AM
wilbur you fucking pile of walking talking monkey shit. What the FUCK is wrong with you?? joking about rape? I thought I couldn't have a lower opinion of you - but I guess I was very much wrong. You are the most worthless glob of spooge your father ever expelled. Your mother should have swallowed you.

It wasnt a joke.

CueSi
06-26-2009, 01:28 AM
It wasnt a joke.

Then you really are this patronizing, sexist, and condescending to someone on basis of ideology?

How about this? The next time you attempt to lecture us on the behalf of anyone being discriminated against, kindly shut the fuck up until you can address a woman with the temerity to oppose you ideologically as an equal.

:)

~QC

wilbur
06-26-2009, 01:31 AM
Then you really are this patronizing, sexist, and condescending to someone on basis of ideology?

How about this? The next time you attempt to lecture us on the behalf of anyone being discriminated against, kindly shut the fuck up until you can address a woman with the temerity to oppose you ideologically as an equal.

:)

~QC

Well, I can't say I ever make a point of taking the high road with MrsSmith... but the downhill spiraling conversations are always initiated by her aggressive name calling and personal attacks. Review the thread if you need an example.

In other words, she started it... and does almost every single time. I always work hard to criticize the idea or belief rather than the person, most of the time.

CueSi
06-26-2009, 01:37 AM
Well, I can't say I ever make a point of taking the high road with MrsSmith... but the downhill spiraling conversations are always initiated by her aggressive name calling and personal attacks.

In other words, she started it... and does almost every single time.

I did review the thread.

I don't like overly religious people, but I don't like smug atheists more. I'll admit it.

Having said that - - -I didn't see her imply anything about you based on gender.

Intelligence, yes, but gender, no. Intelligence is relevant to the thread...gender, not so much.

You escalated and played the "rape/handler/simple woman" card. . .hence at this point, I reached out and boxed your ears and not hers since she didn't use the gender card.



~QC

wilbur
06-26-2009, 01:39 AM
I didn't see her imply anything about you based on gender. Intelligence, yes, but gender, no.

You escalated. . .hence at this point, I reached out and boxed your ears and not hers since she didn't use the gender card.

~QC

I didnt use any gender card, at least not knowingly or purposefully. Had she been a man I would have said the same thing, as my comments weren't related to her sex. Equal opportunity offender, here.

CueSi
06-26-2009, 01:44 AM
I didnt use any gender card, at least not knowingly or purposefully. Had she been a man I would have said the same thing, as my comments weren't related to her sex. Equal opportunity offender, here.


NOT KNOWINGLY? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?


I'm glad your handler got a chuckle.

Poor girl, I do pity you... your mind has been raped.


UH, her name is MrsSmith. Combine that statement with the fact that her gender is an open fact to all really rings hollow here.

You knew what you were implying here. And if you didn't, you're a bigger fool than I thought. You were trying to belittle a woman using her gender.

~QC

wilbur
06-26-2009, 01:52 AM
NOT KNOWINGLY? WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS?

UH, her name is MrsSmith. Combine that statement with the fact that her gender is an open fact to all really rings hollow here.

You knew what you were implying here. And if you didn't, you're a bigger fool than I thought. You were trying to belittle a woman using her gender.

~QC

Gender has nothing to do with it... MrsSmith has revealed in conversations waaay back, that she used to be one of the ol' science believing evolutionists... till she met her husband and he gradually "convinced" her that it was all wrong and the world was created in six days and all that (the fact he's in academia is the icing on the cake)... hence the brainwash comment.. hence the handler comment.

But had the situation been the same and genders reversed, I *really* would say the same thing. It wasnt about gender, it was about being mentally controlled and coerced.

Now that youve quoted relevant bits I do see where that impression comes from.. but thats genuinely not what it meant.

CueSi
06-26-2009, 02:10 AM
Gender has nothing to do with it... MrsSmith has revealed in conversations waaay back, that she used to be one of the ol' science believing evolutionists... till she met her husband and he gradually "convinced" her that it was all wrong and the world was created in six days and all that (the fact he's in academia is the icing on the cake)... hence the brainwash comment.. hence the handler comment.

But had the situation been the same and genders reversed, I *really* would say the same thing. It wasnt about gender, it was about being mentally controlled and coerced.

Now that youve quoted relevant bits I do see where that impression comes from.. but thats genuinely not what it meant.

IIOFD : I no longer care how we got here. We're here now, dammit. But like I said earlier, I am exhausted by creationists- - but irritated by dogmatic evolutionists. I'd like to believe the Deity said to the universe, "Surprise me."

Moving on (.org) :

Do you think it's possible to have your mind actually changed in this fashion? Because it seems you hold the idea so cheap that you don't think it's possible w/o nefarious means.

To me, that's not the mark of an intellectual. . .that's the mark of someone way too convinced of his own superiority to think that someone may actually have a convincing case against his own system of belief.

Then again, I could ask her the same thing as well. . .but then again, she DID start off on your side of the fence. If you really want to take her seriously, I'd ask her what he handed her to make her change her mind instead of going off with "Brainwashed", because it shows you to be just as narrow minded as your image of her.

~QC

wilbur
06-26-2009, 02:47 AM
IIOFD : I no longer care how we got here. We're here now, dammit. But like I said earlier, I am exhausted by creationists- - but irritated by dogmatic evolutionists. I'd like to believe the Deity said to the universe, "Surprise me."


Fair enough.



Moving on (.org) :

Do you think it's possible to have your mind actually changed in this fashion? Because it seems you hold the idea so cheap that you don't think it's possible w/o nefarious means.


Changed in what fashion? To the side of theism or creationism? Possible, sure... but not likely, I imagine... but one doesnt ever really know what tomorrow holds, even if we can make likely guesses. :P.



To me, that's not the mark of an intellectual. . .that's the mark of someone way too convinced of his own superiority to think that someone may actually have a convincing case against his own system of belief.


Occasionally I'm surprised, but I haven't encountered a new argument for either in quite a while that I haven't already examined at some point in time.



Then again, I could ask her the same thing as well. . .but then again, she DID start off on your side of the fence. If you really want to take her seriously, I'd ask her what he handed her to make her change her mind instead of going off with "Brainwashed", because it shows you to be just as narrow minded as your image of her.

~QC

Well, we've had that conversation before... suffice to say I'm not convinced she had good reasons for accepting evolution way back when.... I seem to remember her working knowledge of the subject to be very poor.

Sonnabend
06-26-2009, 06:21 AM
It wasnt about gender, it was about being mentally controlled and coerced.I'd say you are giving her no credit for having a mind of her own.MrsSmith, like me and millions of others are quite capable of deciding for ourselves...you sound like those moron DUmmies who say that Rush and others "tell us what to think"....God, you're a patronising little twerp.

I believe as she does, and if you were to tell anyone that knows me that I am "easily led" and "I was coerced into believing because of what others told me"...they'd die laughing.

BOOM goes that meme.

"Mentally controlled"?

Rightttt.....:rolleyes:

RobJohnson
06-26-2009, 07:01 AM
My experiences at college were quite the opposite of what others tell here.... in fact, professors seemed to be very careful to tiptoe around sensitive religious issues, lest they be flooded with angry emails and complaints from students who were trained and cultivated throughout their entire upbringing to scour every word that comes out of a professors mouth for any trace microscopic hints of liberal/anti-religious bias.... which they have been told to expect, and are eager to find.


Trained & cultivated students? :rolleyes:

RobJohnson
06-26-2009, 07:03 AM
Well, I can't say I ever make a point of taking the high road with MrsSmith... but the downhill spiraling conversations are always initiated by her aggressive name calling and personal attacks. Review the thread if you need an example.

In other words, she started it... and does almost every single time. I always work hard to criticize the idea or belief rather than the person, most of the time.

"She started it"

Grow the fuck up.

MrsSmith
06-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Gender has nothing to do with it... MrsSmith has revealed in conversations waaay back, that she used to be one of the ol' science believing evolutionists... till she met her husband and he gradually "convinced" her that it was all wrong and the world was created in six days and all that (the fact he's in academia is the icing on the cake)... hence the brainwash comment.. hence the handler comment.

But had the situation been the same and genders reversed, I *really* would say the same thing. It wasnt about gender, it was about being mentally controlled and coerced.

Now that youve quoted relevant bits I do see where that impression comes from.. but thats genuinely not what it meant.

Actually, this is not true. When I was in high school, all the evolutionists were frantic to find "The Missing Link" that bridged the divide between ape and man. Years later, a National Geographic article was written on one of the missing links. It went into quite a lot of detail about the lives, habits and diets of one specific "pre-human," and, at the very end of the article, mentioned that this wealth of information was based on one arm bone and part of a jaw. :rolleyes: At that point, I gave up believing that evolution could possibly be true. If it were true, those writing the articles would have facts upon which to base them, not imagination.

After that point, I began to realize that there was seldom any mention of "The Missing Link." In fact, instead of finding the supposed link between ape and man, remains of modern humans have been found in deeper and deeper strata, and test older and older. So now articles are written as though that link was never required.

There comes into play a level of gullibility when a person is asked to continue to believe a preposterous story just because "everyone else does"...or, at least, those that consider themselves smart and important do.

A few years later, I met Mr Smith, who is a very intelligent and educated man. When he admitted that he believed the Genesis story, I looked into the evidence supporting it, and found it more convincing than the guess upon guess version of human evolution.

So, if anyone "raped" my mind, I'd have to say it happened in middle and high school...not years later. Not that you'll believe that, wil...but, oh well, the truth is still true despite your beliefs.

Sheatwole
06-29-2009, 02:43 PM
Well said!


Actually, this is not true. When I was in high school, all the evolutionists were frantic to find "The Missing Link" that bridged the divide between ape and man. Years later, a National Geographic article was written on one of the missing links. It went into quite a lot of detail about the lives, habits and diets of one specific "pre-human," and, at the very end of the article, mentioned that this wealth of information was based on one arm bone and part of a jaw. :rolleyes: At that point, I gave up believing that evolution could possibly be true. If it were true, those writing the articles would have facts upon which to base them, not imagination.

After that point, I began to realize that there was seldom any mention of "The Missing Link." In fact, instead of finding the supposed link between ape and man, remains of modern humans have been found in deeper and deeper strata, and test older and older. So now articles are written as though that link was never required.

There comes into play a level of gullibility when a person is asked to continue to believe a preposterous story just because "everyone else does"...or, at least, those that consider themselves smart and important do.

A few years later, I met Mr Smith, who is a very intelligent and educated man. When he admitted that he believed the Genesis story, I looked into the evidence supporting it, and found it more convincing than the guess upon guess version of human evolution.

So, if anyone "raped" my mind, I'd have to say it happened in middle and high school...not years later. Not that you'll believe that, wil...but, oh well, the truth is still true despite your beliefs.