Re: (Back-Talk) Kathy Lee Gifford

On Jul 2, 4:57=A0pm, "sarchasm" <sar.ch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Noinden" <thear...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "sarchasm" <sar.ch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "Noinden" <thear...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > "aine" <aine_nicne...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > "Noinden" <thear...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > "ren" <ren1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > > Where does she get-off calling us Pagans bad and nasty when she
i=
s
> > > > > the
> > > > > one who runs a Honduran child slave-labor camp.
> > >.
>
> > > > It was not directed at Neopagans, as anyone who watched the video
c=
lip
> > > > can see. It was not that funny either.
>
> > > I do not agree. I hardly ever read or hear the term "Neo" pagan by
> > > anyone including pagans except by Neo Druids.
>
> > Maybe neochristians are now calling anyone who isn't neochristian a
> > neopagan, eh?
>
> > > Neopaganism is the accepted term, it has been since Uncle Gerry
> > > onwards.
>
> > Accepted by whom, those who use the term to identify others?
> > Academically?
> > By the neopagans themselves, (or mainly just Bonewits)?
>
> > Try again, I believe the major proponent of it=92s use is Oberon Zell-
> > Ravenheart.
>
> That's even worse. =A0Mr. 'Green eggs and ham' propagandizing of his
agen=
da
> gives no solid basis for others to utilize the term.
>
>
>
> > > It is not my fault that people in the scene get lazy about it
> > > (or delusional).
>
> > If neochristians can call themselves christian, there's no reason
> > non-christians cannot call themselves whatever they like. =A0Whether
or=
 not
> > they are what the call themselves is a whole 'nother kettle of
electric
> > eels.
> > Indeed, except those =93neochrisitans=94 did not have a 1500 to 2000
ye=
ar
> > gap.
>
> No gaps? =A0There's no difference in how a christian of 1500 years ago
an=
d one
> today practices their 'faith'? =A0Curious indeed.

Nothing is static, however a 1500ish year gap is more than "not
static".

>
>
> > > Similarly as I have pointed out the accepted usage of
> > > the word (since the middle ages forward) is more likely what she was
> > > talking about than Neopagans, or Paleopagans.
>
> > That still means she was being disparaging of non-christians.
=A0Whethe=
r or
> > not any pagans were disparaged by her remarks is up to them,
individual=
ly
> > isn't it? =A0Some take offense, some do not. =A0One could wonder if
Kat=
hy Lee
> > would take offense at being termed as a 'nasty neochristian'.
>
> > Again you people give the vapid creature too much credit.
>
> You people? =A0Personally, I give such "born again" fundy neochristians
n=
o
> credit at all for having any functional critical thinking skills. =A0So,
=
why
> object you may wonder, when there are more egregious things they do to
> object to? =A0In my case, it is simply to point out the disparity were
th=
e
> positions reversed and someone noted a 'nasty neochristian' attitude
publ=
ic.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Out of curiosity did you sign or sup****t the petition?