User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Opinions

Friendly food-for-thought

 * Friendly food-for-thought. The following is the reference to Genesis mentioned above:
 * And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
 * And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
 * Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
 * And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
 * Not only does this not make a direct statement that woman is the only companion for man, it can just as easily be used as justification for public nudity. Once again, just food for thought. ;)  -- NGerda 05:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Without sin in the world, there would be nothing shameful of public nudity. Genesis 3:9-11 -
 * 9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?


 * 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.


 * 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
 * Public nudity wouldn't be an issue if sin didn't fall into the world. And there would be no such meaning of the word "nudity". --Mrmiscellanious 14:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

sorry but i can't stand this shit: religion, stuff and wikinews
quote from your 'belives': "I believe that Wikinews is a great concept, however I am disgusted in the lack of neutral point of view articles. While we are the only news source trying to make a difference in this field, it seems as though our progress is lacking."  are we??? sorry but this is complete nonsense. every standard bourgouise news source claims to have a neutral point of view, wich is impossible because no human being will ever have something like a neutral point of view. so why think of such a thing at all?! why not addmit that our news are expressed the way the author feels about it? what's bad about that anyway? if you can't accept this, maybe you didn't get the basic idea of a wiki yet?

furthermore you are trying to tell everybody that you, with your fundamentalist and extremly conservative views, want to find something like a neutral point of view!?!? hey, in which world are you living? don't you see this huge contradiction? everything you do, say, feel and express will be influenced by your beliefs and views, so please don't try telling me that you are the middle of the universe and owner of the neutral point of view.

i don't care about your political views, but please respect the fact that other people will want to live their lifes the way they like to. what the fuck do you care about my sexual habits? what the fuck do you mind if i, living thousands of kilometers away from your place, sleep with a person of my own gender and enjoy it? just mind your own buisness (and body!). if you want to live a life dictated by some old horrible book, go on and waste it! i will not stop you, just you too don't bother about other peoples views.

here's a movie that i would like you to watch: REMOVED LINK TO COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL -MrM ||| ''oh come on! there was a link to a torrent-file, nothing else ok? there's no copyright on that... anyway, find it in the history :)'' -me

Yes, a torrent that contains copyrighted material is illegal to link here. And no, you will not find it in the histroy - I have deleted that. --Mrmiscellanious 22:13, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

that's it. sorry but people like you are a real danger to free and open projects like wikinews. don't abuse your autority!

Can I canvass your opinions?
Hi Mr. Misc - As you've invited people to ask your opinion on various things, I have some questions! Some of these might seem a bit off-the-wall but I like off-the-wall discussions!


 * 1. Are deliberate attacks on civilians (as distinct from military attacks which unintentionally kill or injure civilians) ever justified?


 * 2. Some people believe that the US was right to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because it prevented the need for a seaborne invasion in which thousands of GIs would have died. Do you agree?


 * 3. Is state-sanctioned torture ever justified?


 * 4. If you could kill one innocent person to save ten, should you do it?


 * 5. If you could kill one innocent person to save ten million, should you do it?


 * 6. In 1946, a group of holocaust survivors, calling themselves "Dahm Y’Israel Nokeam", allegedly plotted to poison the water supply in Berlin and a number of other cities, as retribution for the atrocities of the Nazi regime ,. If they had succeeded, would the attack have been justified?


 * 7. If "Dahm Y'Israel Nokeam" had carried out such an attack against Germany in 1942, would it have been justified?


 * 8. If Al Qaeda set off a nuclear device on US territory, should the US nuke Mecca?


 * 9. Is it ever right to assassinate a tyrant?


 * 10. Is there such a thing as international law, in any meaningful sense?

212.139.54.23 15:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC) The above was from me, by the way! User:Rcameronw 08:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with following:

"sorry but this is complete nonsense. every standard bourgouise news source claims to have a neutral point of view, wich is impossible because no human being will ever have something like a neutral point of view. so why think of such a thing at all?! why not addmit that our news are expressed the way the author feels about it? what's bad about that anyway? if you can't accept this, maybe you didn't get the basic idea of a wiki yet?

furthermore you are trying to tell everybody that you, with your fundamentalist and extremly conservative views, want to find something like a neutral point of view!?!? hey, in which world are you living? don't you see this huge contradiction? everything you do, say, feel and express will be influenced by your beliefs and views, so please don't try telling me that you are the middle of the universe and owner of the neutral point of view."

For some reason, it is common to believe that whenever an article expresses truths you don't like, the simple thinker reasons the article musn't be neutral. If it were, there'd be no disagreement in ideas. Well, there is NO NEUTRAL. Mrmiscellanious holds strong conservative leanings. If he reads anything that disagrees with this, he believes he's reading a biased article. In other words, only strong conservative leanings deserve the title "nuetral". This very idea that you know what constitutes neutral is a joke. There is only artistic lens, and writing that comes from this. So, seeing Mrmiscellanious's views, it is clear he'll be expressing a decidedly conservatist view in the expression of his writing. Should he choose to omit facts not favorable to conservative views, he'll simply omit them, because they aren't "neutral" through his conservatist viewpoint. There is no neutral in this, only bias. Give me someone who can reason all sides of the issue fairly, without filtering only parts favorable to the same issue, then we'll talk. If Mrmiscellanious cannot rationalize the non-conservative pro-side of abortion, or any of the other contraversial issues through a non-conservative pro stance, then Mrmiscellanious does not merit the position.

Keeping us heathens in line
I don't think I agree with any of your personal views, but I'm glad you're here. When a single mindset dominates, the site runs a high risk of denigrating into another indymedia. Thanks for adding a little diversity. --69.12.132.54 09:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism created by Governments to further their plans
It is fact that the US Government was involved in 9-11. All you need to do is think who had the most to gain? Bush was able to illegally invade Iraq for their oil and the government implemented the unconstitutional patriot act.

Wake up America. our Government maybe spreading Democracy world wide and ridding countries of corrupt Governments, while our Democracy is being destroyed by the most corrupt Government in our countries history.

Who will save us from our Dictator and his war machine?


 * I have a serious problem with your implication here. You need to be very clear when you say "fact" without anything to back it up. I am certainly not pro-Bush, and certainly not pro-War. However, those are some awfully big shoes you just put on. ironiridis 05:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in opinions. I come to wiki for facts: who, what, when, where.

this humbug is a waste of resources/bandwidth.