Bible Discussion: WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK At The RRR Cult's Lies? The Possible ANSWER!

WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK At The RRR Cult's Lies? The Possible ANSWER!
Posts: 90

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)

Craig Chilton
2004-04-27 20:33:09 EST
Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>
> Ninure Saunders
> <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote:
>> "SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
at the RRR Cult's Lies?

>>>> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
>>>> America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
>>>> the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
>>>>
>>>> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
>>>> and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
>>>> Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
>>>> RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
>>>> lift a finger to help them.
>>>>
>>>> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
>>>> are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
>>>> of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
>>>> tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
>>>> in here for many years, now.
>>>>
>>>> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
>>>> some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
>>>> who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
>>>> into thinking their stance is Biblical.
>>>>
>>>> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
>>>> its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
>>>> society in general.
>>>>
>>>> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.

>>> So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as
>>> a group and denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as
>>> they do not do so, they are complicit and are sinning by silence.

>> We just can't seem to get the press coverage and/or access
>> as the "religious" right.
>>
>> When the so-called liberal press wants a "Christian" viewpoint,
>> do they contact the World Council of Churches?
>>
>> The President of the United Churches of Christ?
>>
>> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>
>> No, they don't contact anyone like them. They contact people
>> like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson. The Christian Coalition, and
>> the like.
>>
>> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but
>> even YOU can't hear us if the press/media ignores us.

The possible ANSWER!

*MAJOR* kudos to Eric Bohlman, who either is very intuitive...
has done his media homework **exceptionally** WELL... is in a position
to *know* that of which he speaks so well below... or any combination
of those possibilities. He just may have nailed the **cause** of this
squarely on the head! He wrote:

> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in
> recent decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others
> to do their work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is
> devoted to coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the
> celebrities' PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories
> to the media, stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's
> media runs is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news
> is really just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon
> President" because the media knew that if they covered him favorably,
> they'd have a steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them
> from the White House at little or no cost).
>
> People like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. *know* that. They've
> got slick, cheap-to-run "news" packages ready for the media whenever
> there's a controversy. Media outlets hardly need to spend any staff time
> (and therefore money) to run the RRR response to a story. But the
> mainline churches haven't yet bought into commercial PR culture.
> They've got the old-fashioned expectation that the media are actually
> going to have reporters contact them and do real interviews and shoot-
> ing. IOW, expect the media to spend money covering the story. Things
> ain't like that anymore.
>
> Covering the RRR's perspective on a story is a simple matter of
> making a phone call and then punching a couple of codes into a satellite
> receiver. A few minutes later, you've got your footage. Covering the
> mainline perspective involves sending out a whole crew, maybe putting
> them in a hotel, directing, and editing. All by highly-paid staff. It's an easy
> decision for a bottom-liner.
>
> So the problem is really that the mainline and liberal churches have
> to start marketing themselves as if they were selling cars or soft drinks.
> They have to start doing what used to be the media's work for them.
> They can't turn up their noses and sniff that Madison Avenue stuff is
> beneath them, or inappropriate for a religion. The landscape's changed.
> It's pretty disgusting, but it's the truth. In today's media culture, the only
> ways to be a newsmaker are to commit a serious crime or to be a news
> producer yourself.
>
> So if, say, the UCC hopes to get its perspective on, say, what's going to
> happen in MA on May 17 on national TV, it's gotta be prepared to call the
> networks and say "We've got an interview with our president ready to
> uplink to you. Here's the password to download all the time codes you
> need to cut out our interviewer's audio and video and dub in your own
> talking head, and the script for him to read."


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

CB
2004-04-27 20:42:56 EST

"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:409dfba4.19629417@netnews.mchsi.com...
> Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>
> > Ninure Saunders
> > <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote:
> >> "SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
> WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
> at the RRR Cult's Lies?

Because their the once a week Christians who like normal Muslims prefer
apathy to action, Kinda like John Kerry being a summer soldier
--
CB
"These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the
service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the
love and thanks of man and woman." --Thomas Paine

John F'ing Kerry, Summer Soldier



W3
2004-04-27 20:47:05 EST
Craig Chilton wrote:

> Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>
>
>> Ninure Saunders
>><RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote:
>>
>>> "SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
> at the RRR Cult's Lies?
>
>
>>>>> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
>>>>>America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
>>>>>the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
>>>>>
>>>>> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
>>>>>and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
>>>>>Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
>>>>>RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
>>>>>lift a finger to help them.
>>>>>
>>>>> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
>>>>>are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
>>>>>of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
>>>>>tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
>>>>>in here for many years, now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
>>>>>some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
>>>>>who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
>>>>>into thinking their stance is Biblical.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
>>>>>its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
>>>>>society in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.
>
>
>>>> So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as
>>>>a group and denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as
>>>>they do not do so, they are complicit and are sinning by silence.
>
>
>>> We just can't seem to get the press coverage and/or access
>>>as the "religious" right.
>>>
>>> When the so-called liberal press wants a "Christian" viewpoint,
>>>do they contact the World Council of Churches?
>>>
>>> The President of the United Churches of Christ?
>>>
>>> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>>
>>> No, they don't contact anyone like them. They contact people
>>>like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson. The Christian Coalition, and
>>>the like.
>>>
>>> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but
>>>even YOU can't hear us if the press/media ignores us.
>
>
> The possible ANSWER!
>
> *MAJOR* kudos to Eric Bohlman, who either is very intuitive...
> has done his media homework **exceptionally** WELL... is in a position
> to *know* that of which he speaks so well below... or any combination
> of those possibilities. He just may have nailed the **cause** of this
> squarely on the head! He wrote:
>
>
>> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in
>>recent decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others
>>to do their work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is
>>devoted to coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the
>>celebrities' PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories
>>to the media, stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's
>>media runs is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news
>>is really just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon
>>President" because the media knew that if they covered him favorably,
>>they'd have a steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them
>>from the White House at little or no cost).
>>
>> People like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. *know* that. They've
>>got slick, cheap-to-run "news" packages ready for the media whenever
>>there's a controversy. Media outlets hardly need to spend any staff time
>>(and therefore money) to run the RRR response to a story. But the
>>mainline churches haven't yet bought into commercial PR culture.
>>They've got the old-fashioned expectation that the media are actually
>>going to have reporters contact them and do real interviews and shoot-
>>ing. IOW, expect the media to spend money covering the story. Things
>>ain't like that anymore.
>>
>> Covering the RRR's perspective on a story is a simple matter of
>>making a phone call and then punching a couple of codes into a satellite
>>receiver. A few minutes later, you've got your footage. Covering the
>>mainline perspective involves sending out a whole crew, maybe putting
>>them in a hotel, directing, and editing. All by highly-paid staff. It's an easy
>>decision for a bottom-liner.
>>
>> So the problem is really that the mainline and liberal churches have
>>to start marketing themselves as if they were selling cars or soft drinks.
>>They have to start doing what used to be the media's work for them.
>>They can't turn up their noses and sniff that Madison Avenue stuff is
>>beneath them, or inappropriate for a religion. The landscape's changed.
>>It's pretty disgusting, but it's the truth. In today's media culture, the only
>>ways to be a newsmaker are to commit a serious crime or to be a news
>>producer yourself.
>>
>> So if, say, the UCC hopes to get its perspective on, say, what's going to
>>happen in MA on May 17 on national TV, it's gotta be prepared to call the
>>networks and say "We've got an interview with our president ready to
>>uplink to you. Here's the password to download all the time codes you
>>need to cut out our interviewer's audio and video and dub in your own
>>talking head, and the script for him to read."
>
>
>
> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
>
> INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
>
> AND...
>
> http://www.blackboxvoting.com/
>
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*


Craig Chilton is a anal fag.

Thomas Trust
2004-04-27 21:00:29 EST
Why don't you abnormal folks realize that the only lies are yours?

Gee, I guess I answered my own question...... Keyword, "abnormal."



Craig Chilton
2004-04-27 22:02:26 EST
On 27 Apr 2004 19:47:05 -0500,
Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>
> Ninure Saunders
> <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote:
>> "SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
at the RRR Cult's Lies?

>>>> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
>>>> America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
>>>> the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
>>>>
>>>> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
>>>> and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
>>>> Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
>>>> RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
>>>> lift a finger to help them.
>>>>
>>>> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
>>>> are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
>>>> of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
>>>> tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
>>>> in here for many years, now.
>>>>
>>>> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
>>>> some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
>>>> who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
>>>> into thinking their stance is Biblical.
>>>>
>>>> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
>>>> its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
>>>> society in general.
>>>>
>>>> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.

>>> So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as
>>> a group and denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as
>>> they do not do so, they are complicit and are sinning by silence.

>> We just can't seem to get the press coverage and/or access
>> as the "religious" right.
>>
>> When the so-called liberal press wants a "Christian" viewpoint,
>> do they contact the World Council of Churches?
>>
>> The President of the United Churches of Christ?
>>
>> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>
>> No, they don't contact anyone like them. They contact people
>> like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson. The Christian Coalition, and
>> the like.
>>
>> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but
>> even YOU can't hear us if the press/media ignores us.

The possible ANSWER!

*MAJOR* kudos to Eric Bohlman, who either is very intuitive...
has done his media homework **exceptionally** WELL... is in a position
to *know* that of which he speaks so well below... or any combination
of those possibilities. He just may have nailed the **cause** of this
squarely on the head! He wrote:

> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in
> recent decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others
> to do their work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is
> devoted to coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the
> celebrities' PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories
> to the media, stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's
> media runs is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news
> is really just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon
> President" because the media knew that if they covered him favorably,
> they'd have a steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them
> from the White House at little or no cost).
>
> People like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. *know* that. They've
> got slick, cheap-to-run "news" packages ready for the media whenever
> there's a controversy. Media outlets hardly need to spend any staff time
> (and therefore money) to run the RRR response to a story. But the
> mainline churches haven't yet bought into commercial PR culture.
> They've got the old-fashioned expectation that the media are actually
> going to have reporters contact them and do real interviews and shoot-
> ing. IOW, expect the media to spend money covering the story. Things
> ain't like that anymore.
>
> Covering the RRR's perspective on a story is a simple matter of
> making a phone call and then punching a couple of codes into a satellite
> receiver. A few minutes later, you've got your footage. Covering the
> mainline perspective involves sending out a whole crew, maybe putting
> them in a hotel, directing, and editing. All by highly-paid staff. It's an easy
> decision for a bottom-liner.
>
> So the problem is really that the mainline and liberal churches have
> to start marketing themselves as if they were selling cars or soft drinks.
> They have to start doing what used to be the media's work for them.
> They can't turn up their noses and sniff that Madison Avenue stuff is
> beneath them, or inappropriate for a religion. The landscape's changed.
> It's pretty disgusting, but it's the truth. In today's media culture, the only
> ways to be a newsmaker are to commit a serious crime or to be a news
> producer yourself.
>
> So if, say, the UCC hopes to get its perspective on, say, what's going to
> happen in MA on May 17 on national TV, it's gotta be prepared to call the
> networks and say "We've got an interview with our president ready to
> uplink to you. Here's the password to download all the time codes you
> need to cut out our interviewer's audio and video and dub in your own
> talking head, and the script for him to read."


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Craig Chilton
2004-04-27 22:06:51 EST
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:00:29 GMT,
Bigoted Loser, "Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com>
spewed nothing but ignorant & clueless hate-tripe. As usual.

<flushed>

As I was saying *before* this latest demonstration of his
abject ignorance and immaturity---

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>
> Ninure Saunders
> <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote:
>> "SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
at the RRR Cult's Lies?

>>>> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
>>>> America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
>>>> the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
>>>>
>>>> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
>>>> and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
>>>> Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
>>>> RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
>>>> lift a finger to help them.
>>>>
>>>> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
>>>> are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
>>>> of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
>>>> tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
>>>> in here for many years, now.
>>>>
>>>> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
>>>> some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
>>>> who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
>>>> into thinking their stance is Biblical.
>>>>
>>>> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
>>>> its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
>>>> society in general.
>>>>
>>>> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.

>>> So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as
>>> a group and denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as
>>> they do not do so, they are complicit and are sinning by silence.

>> We just can't seem to get the press coverage and/or access
>> as the "religious" right.
>>
>> When the so-called liberal press wants a "Christian" viewpoint,
>> do they contact the World Council of Churches?
>>
>> The President of the United Churches of Christ?
>>
>> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>
>> No, they don't contact anyone like them. They contact people
>> like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson. The Christian Coalition, and
>> the like.
>>
>> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but
>> even YOU can't hear us if the press/media ignores us.

The possible ANSWER!

*MAJOR* kudos to Eric Bohlman, who either is very intuitive...
has done his media homework **exceptionally** WELL... is in a position
to *know* that of which he speaks so well below... or any combination
of those possibilities. He just may have nailed the **cause** of this
squarely on the head! He wrote:

> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in
> recent decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others
> to do their work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is
> devoted to coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the
> celebrities' PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories
> to the media, stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's
> media runs is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news
> is really just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon
> President" because the media knew that if they covered him favorably,
> they'd have a steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them
> from the White House at little or no cost).
>
> People like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. *know* that. They've
> got slick, cheap-to-run "news" packages ready for the media whenever
> there's a controversy. Media outlets hardly need to spend any staff time
> (and therefore money) to run the RRR response to a story. But the
> mainline churches haven't yet bought into commercial PR culture.
> They've got the old-fashioned expectation that the media are actually
> going to have reporters contact them and do real interviews and shoot-
> ing. IOW, expect the media to spend money covering the story. Things
> ain't like that anymore.
>
> Covering the RRR's perspective on a story is a simple matter of
> making a phone call and then punching a couple of codes into a satellite
> receiver. A few minutes later, you've got your footage. Covering the
> mainline perspective involves sending out a whole crew, maybe putting
> them in a hotel, directing, and editing. All by highly-paid staff. It's an easy
> decision for a bottom-liner.
>
> So the problem is really that the mainline and liberal churches have
> to start marketing themselves as if they were selling cars or soft drinks.
> They have to start doing what used to be the media's work for them.
> They can't turn up their noses and sniff that Madison Avenue stuff is
> beneath them, or inappropriate for a religion. The landscape's changed.
> It's pretty disgusting, but it's the truth. In today's media culture, the only
> ways to be a newsmaker are to commit a serious crime or to be a news
> producer yourself.
>
> So if, say, the UCC hopes to get its perspective on, say, what's going to
> happen in MA on May 17 on national TV, it's gotta be prepared to call the
> networks and say "We've got an interview with our president ready to
> uplink to you. Here's the password to download all the time codes you
> need to cut out our interviewer's audio and video and dub in your own
> talking head, and the script for him to read."


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Thomas Trust
2004-04-27 22:22:42 EST

"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40a61118.25122641@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 01:00:29 GMT,
> Bigoted Loser, "Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com>
> spewed nothing but ignorant & clueless hate-tripe. As usual.
>
> <flushed>
>
> As I was saying *before* this latest demonstration of his
> abject ignorance and immaturity---
>


More pseudo intellectuality from Chilton.....

LOL!



Thomas Trust
2004-04-27 22:23:49 EST

"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:40a510b9.25027067@netnews.mchsi.com...
>
> WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
> at the RRR Cult's Lies?
>

The only lies to strike back at are yours and those of your ilk.



Craig Chilton
2004-04-27 22:40:05 EST
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:22:42 GMT,
Bigoted Loser, "Thomas Trust" <ThomasTrust@newsworthy.com>
spewed nothing but ignorant & clueless hate-tripe. As usual.

<flushed>

As I was saying *before* this latest demonstration of his
abject ignorance and immaturity---

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>
> Ninure Saunders
> <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote:
>> "SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
at the RRR Cult's Lies?

>>>> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
>>>> America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
>>>> the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
>>>>
>>>> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
>>>> and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
>>>> Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
>>>> RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
>>>> lift a finger to help them.
>>>>
>>>> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
>>>> are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
>>>> of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
>>>> tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
>>>> in here for many years, now.
>>>>
>>>> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
>>>> some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
>>>> who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
>>>> into thinking their stance is Biblical.
>>>>
>>>> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
>>>> its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
>>>> society in general.
>>>>
>>>> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.

>>> So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as
>>> a group and denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as
>>> they do not do so, they are complicit and are sinning by silence.

>> We just can't seem to get the press coverage and/or access
>> as the "religious" right.
>>
>> When the so-called liberal press wants a "Christian" viewpoint,
>> do they contact the World Council of Churches?
>>
>> The President of the United Churches of Christ?
>>
>> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>
>> No, they don't contact anyone like them. They contact people
>> like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson. The Christian Coalition, and
>> the like.
>>
>> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but
>> even YOU can't hear us if the press/media ignores us.

The possible ANSWER!

*MAJOR* kudos to Eric Bohlman, who either is very intuitive...
has done his media homework **exceptionally** WELL... is in a position
to *know* that of which he speaks so well below... or any combination
of those possibilities. He just may have nailed the **cause** of this
squarely on the head! He wrote:

> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in
> recent decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others
> to do their work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is
> devoted to coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the
> celebrities' PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories
> to the media, stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's
> media runs is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news
> is really just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon
> President" because the media knew that if they covered him favorably,
> they'd have a steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them
> from the White House at little or no cost).
>
> People like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. *know* that. They've
> got slick, cheap-to-run "news" packages ready for the media whenever
> there's a controversy. Media outlets hardly need to spend any staff time
> (and therefore money) to run the RRR response to a story. But the
> mainline churches haven't yet bought into commercial PR culture.
> They've got the old-fashioned expectation that the media are actually
> going to have reporters contact them and do real interviews and shoot-
> ing. IOW, expect the media to spend money covering the story. Things
> ain't like that anymore.
>
> Covering the RRR's perspective on a story is a simple matter of
> making a phone call and then punching a couple of codes into a satellite
> receiver. A few minutes later, you've got your footage. Covering the
> mainline perspective involves sending out a whole crew, maybe putting
> them in a hotel, directing, and editing. All by highly-paid staff. It's an easy
> decision for a bottom-liner.
>
> So the problem is really that the mainline and liberal churches have
> to start marketing themselves as if they were selling cars or soft drinks.
> They have to start doing what used to be the media's work for them.
> They can't turn up their noses and sniff that Madison Avenue stuff is
> beneath them, or inappropriate for a religion. The landscape's changed.
> It's pretty disgusting, but it's the truth. In today's media culture, the only
> ways to be a newsmaker are to commit a serious crime or to be a news
> producer yourself.
>
> So if, say, the UCC hopes to get its perspective on, say, what's going to
> happen in MA on May 17 on national TV, it's gotta be prepared to call the
> networks and say "We've got an interview with our president ready to
> uplink to you. Here's the password to download all the time codes you
> need to cut out our interviewer's audio and video and dub in your own
> talking head, and the script for him to read."


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

Craig Chilton
2004-04-27 22:45:43 EST
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 02:23:49 GMT,
Ignorant Bigot,"Thomas Trust"
<*t@newsworthy.com> spewed:
> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


>> WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
>> at the RRR Cult's Lies?

> The only lies to strike back at are yours and those of your ilk.

Which **explains**, of course, why you ignorant and hateful bigots
are **NEVER** able to DISPROVE **any** of the many facts that we
present?

LOL!!! Go back to kindergarten. You have a LOT to learn, petty
little hate-monger.

As I was saying before your INANE and fact-free interruption ---

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Eric Bohlman <ebohlman@earthlink.net>
> Ninure Saunders
> <RainbowChristiannohate@Rainbow-Christian.tk> wrote:
>> "SPQR" <PopUlist349@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote:


WHY Don't *Normal* Christians STRIKE BACK
at the RRR Cult's Lies?

>>>> The sensible, fair-minded and tolerant CHRISTIANS in
>>>> America want **nothing** to do with the hateful agendas of
>>>> the ignorant, PSEUDO-Christian losers of the RRR Cult.
>>>>
>>>> The former comprise about 99% of America's Chrisrians,
>>>> and the RRR cultists comprise less than the reamaining 1%.
>>>> Some of the 99% *passively* sympathize with some of the
>>>> RRR's objectives, but are FAIR enough to not so much as
>>>> lift a finger to help them.
>>>>
>>>> And tens of millions of *actual*, non-RRR-cult Christians
>>>> are Pro-Choice with respect to abortion, and support the right
>>>> of gays to marry their same-sex partners. I'm just ONE of those
>>>> tens of millions of people, and i've been setting that example
>>>> in here for many years, now.
>>>>
>>>> Please DON'T blame *actual* Christians for the loath-
>>>> some and ignorant hatefulness and bigotry of the cultists
>>>> who dishonestly pretend to be, or who have been CONNED
>>>> into thinking their stance is Biblical.
>>>>
>>>> The Bible appointed NO Gestapo to attempt to enforce
>>>> its precepts (or worse, its MISperceived precepts) upon
>>>> society in general.
>>>>
>>>> There is NOTHING Christian about the RRR Cult.

>>> So -- tell me -- when do the REAL Christians stand up as
>>> a group and denounce the radical "religious right?" So long as
>>> they do not do so, they are complicit and are sinning by silence.

>> We just can't seem to get the press coverage and/or access
>> as the "religious" right.
>>
>> When the so-called liberal press wants a "Christian" viewpoint,
>> do they contact the World Council of Churches?
>>
>> The President of the United Churches of Christ?
>>
>> The Society of Friends (Quakers)?
>>
>> No, they don't contact anyone like them. They contact people
>> like Jerry Falwell, or Pat Ribertson. The Christian Coalition, and
>> the like.
>>
>> We can scream our heads off..and sometimes we do, but
>> even YOU can't hear us if the press/media ignores us.

The possible ANSWER!

*MAJOR* kudos to Eric Bohlman, who either is very intuitive...
has done his media homework **exceptionally** WELL... is in a position
to *know* that of which he speaks so well below... or any combination
of those possibilities. He just may have nailed the **cause** of this
squarely on the head! He wrote:

> I've got a very strong hunch as to why that is. The media have, in
> recent decades, gotten extremely lazy and cheap. They expect others
> to do their work for them. Why do you think so much time and space is
> devoted to coverage of celebrities and entertainment? It's because the
> celebrities' PR people deliver pre-packaged, almost-ready-to-run stories
> to the media, stories that require only minor editing. Most of what today's
> media runs is slightly gussied-up press releases. Even a lot of the news
> is really just corporate or government PR (Reagan got to be the "Teflon
> President" because the media knew that if they covered him favorably,
> they'd have a steady diet of ready-to-run "stories" delivered to them
> from the White House at little or no cost).
>
> People like Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et.al. *know* that. They've
> got slick, cheap-to-run "news" packages ready for the media whenever
> there's a controversy. Media outlets hardly need to spend any staff time
> (and therefore money) to run the RRR response to a story. But the
> mainline churches haven't yet bought into commercial PR culture.
> They've got the old-fashioned expectation that the media are actually
> going to have reporters contact them and do real interviews and shoot-
> ing. IOW, expect the media to spend money covering the story. Things
> ain't like that anymore.
>
> Covering the RRR's perspective on a story is a simple matter of
> making a phone call and then punching a couple of codes into a satellite
> receiver. A few minutes later, you've got your footage. Covering the
> mainline perspective involves sending out a whole crew, maybe putting
> them in a hotel, directing, and editing. All by highly-paid staff. It's an easy
> decision for a bottom-liner.
>
> So the problem is really that the mainline and liberal churches have
> to start marketing themselves as if they were selling cars or soft drinks.
> They have to start doing what used to be the media's work for them.
> They can't turn up their noses and sniff that Madison Avenue stuff is
> beneath them, or inappropriate for a religion. The landscape's changed.
> It's pretty disgusting, but it's the truth. In today's media culture, the only
> ways to be a newsmaker are to commit a serious crime or to be a news
> producer yourself.
>
> So if, say, the UCC hopes to get its perspective on, say, what's going to
> happen in MA on May 17 on national TV, it's gotta be prepared to call the
> networks and say "We've got an interview with our president ready to
> uplink to you. Here's the password to download all the time codes you
> need to cut out our interviewer's audio and video and dub in your own
> talking head, and the script for him to read."


Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com>

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*

INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---

http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html

AND...

http://www.blackboxvoting.com/

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron