The Sayings Gospel "Q"

[epictetus]

Is anyone familiar with the sayings gospel "Q"?

I've been interested in its significance since first reading Burton Mack's The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins in the early 90s.

Recently I read a chapter in a book comparing the histories (biographies, or hagiographies) of Jesus and Muhammad that took up the question of "Q's" authenticity and significance and its bearing on Jesus's proclamation and mission. I think "Q" is an authentic source, but one that is a serious challenge to High Christology and to the mysticising proclamation of Paul.

If anyone would like to discuss or ask about "Q" in this forum I'd be happy to contribute. If no one's interested I'm still happy to have brought it to your attention.

[Pedro]

Epic, it is a WONDERFUL idea and an opportunity to satisfy OUR thirst of Biblical KNOWLEDGE!
Last Monday, a Senior Citizen of the Thirroul Chapter, provided for ALL of us Senior a copy of an article from Uncle Google. We all found it very interesting and puzzling.
I am sharing the article and...there is no need to read it, agree to the content or disagree or...ignore it! Remember that What Ever you will do...IT will NOT CHANGE OUR destiny or the results of the next Cricket match...or the results of the Lotto...results!!

1. T H E SAYINGS GOSPEL “ Q “
2.
For one hundred and fifty years scholars have argued that the earliest written
Gospel was that of Mark. They have further argued that in composing their Gospels Matthew and Luke made use of the Gospel of Mark as well as another source which contained sayings of Jesus which they term ed Q^. This two document hypothesis has been the backbone of studies on the Gospels ever since. T he success of any hypo¬thesis depends upon its ability to explain availab le d ata, an d as such th e two
docum ent hypothesis has dem onstrated its fruitfulness.
The term ‘Sayings G ospel Q ’ used throughout this paper needs some explana¬tion. The source behind the Gospel of M atthew and Luke is variously designated as simply ‘Q ’, or as ‘The Sayings Source Q ’, or more recently ‘The Sayings Gospel Q ’. I prefer this latter title for a number of reasons. The term ‘Gospel’ is used deli¬berately in order to argue that this source represents a theology of Jesus which did not, as with the canonical Gospels, place its center upon the death and resurrection (which is totally absent from ‘Q ’).

556 NTS 50/3 (1994)
Kúmmel had argued that a narrative was essentia) to the designation of Gospel,
because a collection o f sayings could not simply bear this title. However, he has been proved wrong by ‘The Gospel of Thom as’ which is exactly that, a collection of sayings which bears the title of ‘Gospel’. As with ‘Q ’ the Gospel o f Thomas also placed no interest in a theology of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Conse¬quently, the designation of Gospel is not to be limited to one expression of its nature as occurs in the canonical Gospels, but is a wider designation for the theological significance of Jesus, wherever one may place the emphasis. What is characteristic of a Gospel is that it tries to give a theological perspective on Jesus and his teaching.
In this sense ‘Q ’ can with justification be termed a Gospe P.
This view of ‘Q ’ as a Gospel was already recognized by W D Davies who indica¬ted that ‘Q ’ bears witness to ‘the crisis’ initiated by the proclamation of Jesus and it is this crisis, which forms the center of the Gospel'^. In arguing that ‘Q ’ is a Gospel the purpose is to prevent this document from being relegated to the margins of New .....

[epictetus]

Well done, Pedro!

You are my best and perhaps only student.

Can you go back to Dr Google and do the following research for me:

1. What are the main arguments against the theory that Q was the first collection of authentic sayings of Jesus?
2. Was Mark informed by Q and another source?
3. Is it significant that Q, alone of all the presumed authentic source texts for Jesus's life, makes no mention of Jesus's death and resurrection?
4. Is the Jesus of Q similar to the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels (don't worry about John for now)?
5. Is the Jesus of Q too counter-cultural and too radical for mainstream religion? If so, in what ways?
6. If Q is the earliest source we have for Jesus's teaching, and therefore the most authentic, why do the churches back away from it? For example, in Q: 16-18, Jesus says that anyone who divorces and marries again commits adultery and anyone who marries a divorcee commits adultery. How many churches are as strict as that?

I think that will do for now. Looking forward to your findings.

Acharya Epic 

[Pedro]

Eh, si'...there are NO doubts! Epic, I am VERY sorry/concerned. WHY, oh why you are so desperate to answer/comment on the content of ONE of Pedro's posts!!?!?!?
Pedro will Copy&Paste (From Magna GOOGLE) the answers to your 6 Deep and Meaningful Questions:
1) There is no need to read a post, just affirm/pretend that you did it.
2) Must agree to the content if you have nothing better/worse to do.
3) Free to disagree to WHAT & EVER was written after the fall of the Krostcroku Town State.
4) The “Q “Saying & Savings were NOT accepted by the Religious Pater Googlertack of 974 BC.
5) The results of Cricket matches were NOT recorded & written by Cretinullum ( 864 BC.)
6) As the Vaentram version of the Bible states: Should you desire to catch your opponents with their Toga UP and their Pants Down…you MUST get-up and READY, WELL BEFORE THEY DO!!
Pedro
PS. Thanks Epic, for your deep & meaningful posts!!! Are YOU really sure that YOU don’t know HOW to Copy&Paste from Advanced Google RE-SEARCH???

Al Krouparya Pedro

[cster]

The Gospel Source Book, that which all the other gospels have used to get their story out.
I have not read Burton l Mach's Book. But if its causing a stir then it must be worth a read.
The Book of Quelle is the book of Q. So tell us what you know Epic.

[epictetus]

Jun 1, 2018 9:10:16 GMT 10 cster said:

The Gospel Source Book, that which all the other gospels have used to get their story out.
I have not read Burton l Mach's Book. But if its causing a stir then it must be worth a read.
The Book of Quelle is the book of Q. So tell us what you know Epic.

Well, not all, Cster. Just Matthew and Luke.

I don't think anyone knows what Mark's sources were. Eyewitnesses? Recounts of what eyewitnesses told someone else? The "Q" collection or parts thereof? Unlike the Islamic hadiths there's no stated chain of transmission for the Gospel sources.

John's gospel is in another league. It's a highly Hellenised biography in which Jesus's short sayings and parables become lengthy speeches. Jesus is more than human, proclaiming himself to be a divine or semi-divine person. Paula Fredriksen said that in John's gospel Jesus is like a visitor from outer space.** The beginning of John's gospel betrays its Hellenic mysticism: "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God". Hardly the sort of thing your average first century Palestinian peasant would be familiar with, and pretty incomprehensible, too, to anyone not steeped in Hellenic philosophy of the period and up to the 5th century when all those weird Trinitarian formulae were worked out in ecumenical councils.

Matthew and Luke draw on Mark's gospel plus chunks of identical material found in both M and L. It's these chunks that are traced back to a source held by both evangelists, but not by Mark. Then there are verses in M that are not found in L and vice versa, so they had another or other sources of their own. Luke was written for a non-Jewish audience; Matthew for a Jewish audience engaged in a turf war with the Pharisees. Both date from the late first century, around 80 to 90 AD. John is about 100 AD, and Mark about 68. The earliest source for the existence and significance of Jesus is Paul whose earliest letter was to the Thessalonians in about 50 AD, but Paul had almost interest in Jesus's biography or everyday teachings. Having seen a vision of the "Risen Christ" on the road to Damascus, Paul was only interested in the post-resurrection Jesus (the "Christ") and the significance of his death and rising for humanity in God's plan of salvation. All the evangelists, and the early Paul, and Jesus himself appear to have believed that the End-Time was near to hand.

My interest is a work-in-progress. I need to follow up the arguments against the significance or even the existence of a "Q" sayings gospel. I read on it in the 90s, but have forgotten much. My interest has only just been re-piqued. I'll come back with more info, as I think Q, by inference, constitutes a significant challenge to the core beliefs of all the mainstream Christian churches. Marginal communities like the Liberal Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists, both of which have tiniest footprint in Australia, are excepted.

** Paula Fredriksen From Jesus to Christ, 1988

[Rhianne]

This is the only Q I'm remotely interested in...

[epictetus]

Who is he? Should we start a thread on him?

[Pedro]

Is HE/SHE/IT the person on the right or...on the left?
Good idea, Epic!! You start the thread and Pedro will summons the help of Uncle Google to....FILL IT!

[Guido]

Jun 1, 2018 21:22:13 GMT 10 Rhianne said:

This is the only Q I'm remotely interested in...

Inuendo within the graphics as well as the foregoing text.

What then can be deduced.... but yet more inuendo. 

[Guido]

On Q.
The Christ myth theories will always be perpetuated by those who can prophet/profit by them. 'As it was in the beginning, so it will be at the end'

One needs to cut to the chase to make sense of it all...
I am yet to come across a prophet of.. ANY CALLING!... inclusive of those of the agnostic kind....who do not speak their truth. How can this be so?

It is because all is one.... go figure. And if scripture needs to be quoted again and again...and yet again, 'Seek and you shall find'

Especially amongst those dots

[epictetus]

Jun 2, 2018 8:27:33 GMT 10 Guido said:

On Q.
The Christ myth theories will always be perpetuated by those who can prophet/profit by them. 'As it was in the beginning, so it will be at the end'

One needs to cut to the chase to make sense of it all...
I am yet to come across a prophet of.. ANY CALLING!... inclusive of those of the agnostic kind....who do not speak their truth. How can this be so?

It is because all is one.... go figure. And if scripture needs to be quoted again and again...and yet again, 'Seek and you shall find'

Especially amongst those dots

Are you talking about the "Christ" myth or the "Jesus" myth? The one that says Jesus was the Son of God, second person in the Trinity, etc, or the one that says Jesus actually existed as a flesh and blood person?

Discussion of the Q source generally presumes that Jesus lived and was the author of the sayings attributed to him. Mythicists, however, might argue that the sayings collection emerged from a community of radical ascetics in the Cynic tradition and were later ascribed to a mythical prophet named Yeshua (Jesus).

Mythicists would claim that Q as attributed to "Jesus" is only one of a host of false or mistaken claims that a real person corresponding to the literary figure we have called "Jesus" wandered around Galilee and then Jerusalem warning of the impending Apocalypse, castigating the Pharisees, preaching the simple life and claiming to be the Messiah. Apart from Q and the New Testament texts, false or mistaken references to Jesus occur in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonius.

I'm presuming that the Jesus of Q is an historical person, but it wouldn't matter if he wasn't, as the historicity of Jesus is uncertain to the point that he might just as well have been a mere literary construct. The seasoned Jesus scholar, John Dominic Crossan, acknowledges that the Gospels are not historical documents but accepts the historicity of Jesus as a Galilean preacher despite us knowing nothing more that's firm about him. That's not much to go on.

Guido, I don't really understand the rest of your post. I accept that reality is One, not dual, but apart from that I need things spelled out in big letters and monosyllables, preferably in colour.

Cheers
Epic

(Are you still roaming around the country house-sitting or whatever you were doing?)

[cster]

I read some time ago a book by David Desmarquet called the Thiaoouba Prophecy, where in it was suggested that Jesus was infact an ordinary dude who walked into the desert and just kept going to become a resident of another country. However an angel returned in his form and became the Jesus we read about. All done deliberately to quell our cruel and violent ways. An angel by any form was an astral body that could create our bodies form. Apparently able to drop the body when it died.

[Guido]

I was talking about all and sundry Epic… and you are quite right, any theories that eventuate from myths or legends can only be a literary construct. Either that or they are the consequence of a backward crystal ball.


Rightly or wrongly…
The science of quantum physics also concur that ‘The only truth is in the nano- instant’ which encompasses all existence in the here and the now, therefore, all else on either side of the nano-instant, would by sciences own necessity fall into the realm of non existence.
(a bit like Schrödinger’s cat)

Therefore if science is correct; in that nano-instant of time we manage to contrive/formulate or concoct all matter and anti matter. Everything that can be, inclusive of; this universe, all planets, all stars, all knowledge, all past. The whole kit and caboodle according to that quantum theory is in the here and now…Whatever it is you have observed and are observing is complete only in this nano-instant….and like tomorrow, the next nano-instant never comes.

So everything is here and now... which sadly includes for all you wallies that want to spit dummies and profess otherwise.

However there is another outlook well worthy of consideration; that is that this quantum theory is far from the isolated ramblings of a few quantum physicists. There are far more insightful folk been saying so… (from would you believe the beginning of the last nano-instant)
The likes of Krishnamurti, Buddha, Confucius, and yes… Jesus, who even though there always appears to be controversy over what he said or didn’t say he maintained there is nothing but the now. He said ‘Follow me I am the way, the truth and the light’ And if he did not say that, rest assured if Q has anything to do with it, he will do before this nano-instant is over.

Of course along with those former worthy folk there are many other troops of atheists and agnostics maintaining they knew all along there could be nothing but an abstract entity that could devise the nano-second..

So then… hitch up your wagon and attach all you ever knew, or likely to know to the parameters within that nano-instant… then you too can keep up with the force field that keeps your own particular nano-instant flowing. If at any time you wish to remove yourself from the nano-instant equation, then you can join the throng of other non believers… there would be nothing remaining to conclude….

Existence beyond the nano-instant must remain in the mind and the eyes of the beholder.
How do I know this….  Just a matter of connecting the dots

Whether there is a one or a two is really of little consequence Epic, though this two gave up the roving a few nano-instants back

[Pedro]

There is NO doubts (in Pedro mind!!) of the high and irrefutable Spiritual Knowledge of the Partecipants to THIS Spiritual Thread. The following document was provided by one of the Members of the Seniors Brigade of the Rundiat Valley ( 6 km. north-west of Kiama)
++++++++
1. Jesus the Pagan Myth
Though this theory has very little support among scholars today, it’s still quite popular on atheist websites (a student is therefore more likely to hear it from a classmate than a professor). The theory claims Jesus never existed as a historical figure. Rather, the stories of his birth, life, death, and resurrection were all myths the early Christians borrowed from pagan mystery religions—such as the cults of Dionysus and Mithras—which allegedly predated Christianity by centuries.
The roots of the Christ-myth theory go back to 19th-century German scholars like David Strauss (1808–1874), who argued the New Testament (NT) is simply a collection of mythical retellings of Jesus’s life, and Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), who made the more radical claim Jesus never existed. The theory gained prominence for a time in the “History of Religions School” at the University of Göttingen, but began to decline during the 20th century as scholars examined the evidence more closely. (Richard Carrier and Robert Price still make this claim today, but even non-Christian scholars like Bart Erhman refute it.)
The general consensus today is that most of the alleged parallels between Christianity and the mystery religions are either non-existent (sometimes pure fabrications), coincidental, or anachronistic. In fact, there is no evidence pagan mystery religions existed in first-century Israel, and much of our evidence for them elsewhere dates to after the rise of Christianity. So if any borrowing did happen, it was probably the other way around.
2. Jesus the Failed Prophet
This theory, more popular among critical scholars, is based on a certain reading of some of Jesus’s apocalyptic prophecies (e.g., Matt. 16:28; 24:34) in which Jesus predicts God’s kingdom will arrive, accompanied by cataclysmic celestial signs, within the lifetime of his disciples. They argue that since the world did not end within the lifetime of his disciples, he must’ve been deluded and the whole Christian religion based on a mistake. Further, many who hold this view deny Jesus ever claimed to be divine. He may have seen himself as a prophet or perhaps even a king, but certainly not the preexistent Son of God. This means we can trust very little of what the NT tells us about Jesus—unless it seems to make him look bad. (This is known as the “criterion of embarrassment.” See Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity for its strengths and weaknesses.)
The “failed prophet” theory is generally traced to the German scholar Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965). Though Schweitzer was right to draw attention to the eschatological (end-time) character of Jesus’s message, he tended to cherry-pick the evidence, highlighting some prophetic statements while ignoring others—such as Jesus’s claims that God’s kingdom was a present reality (Luke 11:20; 17:20–21) or his own confession of ignorance regarding the timing of his return (Matt. 24:36). Critics following Schweitzer also mistakenly suppose that first-century Jewish apocalyptic language (e.g., the sun being darkened, stars falling from heaven, etc.) must have been intended literally. A comparison with Peter’s sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:17–21), however, shows this isn’t always the case. Jesus was certainly expecting something climactic to happen within his disciples’ lifetime, but it wasn’t necessarily the end of the physical universe. God’s kingdom, as Jesus saw it, defied expectations.
3. Jesus the Moral Philosopher
If the “failed prophet” theory tends to exaggerate Jesus’s apocalyptic expectations, the “moral philosopher” theory tends to ignore them altogether. This portrayal of Jesus as a wisdom teacher promoting timeless moral truths is fairly common among non-Christian laypeople, but among scholars it has often taken the more specific shape of Jesus as “Cynic philosopher.” The term “cynic” in the Greco-Roman world didn’t refer to a generally pessimistic or distrusting person (as we ordinarily use it today), but rather one who renounced worldly goods and social conventions. Critical of the materialism and hypocrisy they saw around them, Cynics would often refuse to groom or bathe, even performing bodily functions in public and earning the nickname “dogmen” (the meaning of cynic in Greek).
The Cynic Jesus theory is usually associated with members of the Jesus Seminar, which reached its heyday in the 1980s and 1990s. Some of these scholars, such as Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan, helpfully pointed out a number of similarities between Jesus and Cynic philosophy. However, there are at least two fatal flaws to the portrayal of Jesus as a Cynic himself. First, we have no historical evidence of the presence of Cynic philosophy in Galilee at the time of Jesus (in fact, the evidence we do possess reveals strong Jewish resistance to pagan influence in Galilee). Second, the differences between Jesus and Cynic philosophy far outweigh the similarities. Today, very few in the scholarly world continue to promote this theory.
4. Jesus the Violent Revolutionary
This is an old theory about Jesus that pops up every now and again, but it’s never gained much traction. Its roots go back to the man credited with launching the first modern “quest” for the historical Jesus, German deist Hermann Reimarus (1694–1768). Reimarus argued Jesus never intended to found a new religion or die for the sins of humanity; rather, his message was a call to national liberation from Roman oppression, which ended in failure and crucifixion. This theory was later revived in the 20th century by S. G. F. Brandon (1907–1971), who claimed Jesus was influenced by the first-century Zealot movement. And it’s once again made headlines with Reza Aslan’s 2013 bestseller Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth (Random House) [review].
As with other alternative portraits of Jesus, this one relies upon a cherry-picking approach to the evidence. It highlights the socio-political aspects of Jesus’s kingdom proclamation while disregarding the spiritual aspects. As NT scholar Darrell Bock points out, Jesus declares the arrival of the kingdom not through amassing an army, but through casting out demons and healing the sick (Luke 11:20). The enemies Jesus targets aren’t the Romans but the spiritual forces that hold the world in captivity to sin. In fact, Jesus’s strongest criticisms in the Gospels are directed not at the Romans but at his Jewish compatriots who expected God to vindicate them based on their nationalistic zeal and rigorous adherence to the Law (Matt. 23:1–36). It’s also worth remembering that one of Jesus’s own disciples was a tax collector—hardly what you’d expect from an anti-Roman revolutionary movement.
5. Jesus the Ahistorical Existentialist
Lastly, a few scholars have given up altogether on the quest for the historical Jesus. For them, determining what Jesus actually said and did isn’t only near impossible, but also beside the point. The purpose of the NT, they say, is to bring us into a one-on-one personal encounter with God, not to communicate certain alleged facts about the past—facts that probably aren’t all that factual to begin with.
This theory goes back to German scholar Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), who promoted a “demythologizing” approach to Scripture. This involved getting past all the imaginative and irrelevant details of the Gospel stories about Jesus and reaching what Bultmann saw as the central truth of Christianity—the kerygma (Greek for “proclamation”) of the gospel. This kerygma was defined in existentialist terms, stressing an individual’s experience of God and a personal call to decision. Like other critical scholars before him, then, Bultmann accepted the wall of separation between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. But whereas other scholars tried to use history to undermine faith, Bultmann tried to insulate faith from history. One could say he treated the NT almost like an ear of corn: history was the husk, kerygma the kernel.
The problem with this approach, of course, is that it’s entirely subjective. If we can’t trust what the NT tells us Jesus said and did, then we’re free to define him however we wish. Who decides what the essence of the gospel is, if not Jesus himself?
Comprehensible, Crucifiable, and Consequential Jesus
Christian scholars have developed several credible ways of responding to these counterfeit portraits of Christ. (See, for example, How God Became Jesus [review] and The Challenge of Jesus). If we study Jesus within his historical context and in light of the facts even non-Christian scholars generally accept to be true, we can arrive at certain conclusions about what he must have been like. Here are three tests any portrait of Jesus must pass to be considered historically plausible (adapted from N. T. Wright’s Jesus and the Victory of God, 131–133). The real Jesus must have been:
• Comprehensible. Jesus was a first-century Jew from Galilee, and so we should expect his words and deeds to fit within this historical and geographical context. His message must have been understandable and on some level plausible to first-century Jews in order to have gained a hearing among them. This is why it’s so hard to see Jesus as a pagan myth or a Cynic philosopher; these portraits simply don’t make sense in Jesus’s Jewish context.
• Crucifiable. Jesus must have also said and done things offensive enough to make the Jewish authorities want to kill him. If he only claimed to be a moral teacher, or if he only spoke out against Roman oppression, then it’s hard to see why Jews who shared those same aims and values would want him crucified. There must’ve been something apparently blasphemous about his words and deeds.
• Consequential. Jesus left such an impact on the early Christians that they were willing to suffer and die for their testimony that he’d risen from the dead. A failed prophet or revolutionary might have attracted lasting admiration at best, but what could’ve happened to make devout monotheistic Jews worship this man after his death?
Though there is no shortage of rival theories about Jesus, Christians need not feel threatened by them. With adequate preparation, engaging with the critics can actually deepen our faith and strengthen our relationship with the Lord who truly walked among us.
CREDITS to: Kyle Dillon is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America. He graduated with a master of divinity from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri, and he teaches theology and Latin at Westminster Academy in Memphis, Tennessee..
++++++
Pedro hopes that this Copy-Pasted-Post will help to maintain the interest in THIS interesting Thread!

[Pedro]

Epic, when you got some time free from your very busy teaching schedules, could YOU tell US something Kyle Dillon?
Thanks Epic!

[Rhianne]

Jun 2, 2018 6:37:36 GMT 10 Guido said:

Jun 1, 2018 21:22:13 GMT 10 Rhianne said:

This is the only Q I'm remotely interested in...

Inuendo within the graphics as well as the foregoing text.

What then can be deduced.... but yet more inuendo. 

Stupid cunt. Typical transphobe reaction - it must always be about sex, isnt it?

Go find your grave and fall into it already.

[Rhianne]

Jun 1, 2018 21:26:06 GMT 10 epictetus said:

Who is he? Should we start a thread on him?

It's a god-like(ish) character from Star Trek.

[epictetus]

Jun 4, 2018 6:10:36 GMT 10 Pedro said:

Epic, when you got some time free from your very busy teaching schedules, could YOU tell US something Kyle Dillon?
Thanks Epic!

Good to know his folks from Broadbottom were in the court to support him.

"Mum Janet and stepdad John, of Home Farm Avenue, Broadbottom along with girlfriend Stacey Swann were in Rome to watch proceedings unfold."
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/roma-red-is-released-952477

[pedro]

Jun 1, 2018 21:26:06 GMT 10 epictetus said:

Who is he? Should we start a thread on him?


Personally, and I am unanimous with MYSELF, I believe that it is NOT that serious to start to tread on Him/Her/It! Pedro would settle for "Post on Him/Her/It" !

[Pedro]

++Who is he? Should we start a thread on him?++


Personally, and I am unanimous with MYSELF, I believe that it is NOT that serious to start to tread on Him/Her/It! Pedro would settle for "Post on Him/Her/It" !

[Pedro]

++Stupid cunt. Typical transphobe reaction - it must always be about sex, isnt it? Go find your grave and fall into it already. ++

Contessa Rianna, Pedro is Sorry (very much!) for NOT understanding your message/post.
It seems that, to the "cunt" , there is frequently attached a derogatory adjective. WHY?
Pedro, automatically, does NOT feel animosity for/against the nouns that start with the suffix TRANS. Why should Pedro call :TRANSsport, Transaction, TRANSgassian, TRANSpant, TRANSdress, TRANSgeneral,TRANSlubricants...ALL STUPID counts,countess,cunts,dukes? WHY?
Oh dear, deary ME!! I got IT wrong...AGAIN!! Blast, all those vaqueros of the Argentinian Pampas, ALL Stupid Counts!

[pedro]

++Stupid cunt. Typical transphobe reaction - it must always be about sex, isnt it? Go find your grave and fall into it already. ++

Contessa Rianna, Pedro is Sorry (very much!) for NOT understanding your message/post.
It seems that, to the "cunt" , there is frequently attached a derogatory adjective. WHY?
Pedro, automatically, does NOT feel animosity for/against the nouns that start with the prefix TRANS. Why should Pedro call :TRANSsport, Transaction, TRANSgassian, TRANSpant, TRANSdress, TRANSgeneral,TRANSlubricants...ALL STUPID counts,countess,cunts,dukes? WHY?
Oh dear, deary ME!! I got IT wrong...AGAIN!! Blast, all those vaqueros of the Argentinian Pampas, ALL Stupid Counts!

[Guido]

Jun 4, 2018 18:49:51 GMT 10 Rhianne said:

Jun 2, 2018 6:37:36 GMT 10 Guido said:

..................................................................................................................................

Strewth.... as much integrity in the vocabulary as there was within in the picture. There is definitely a problem in joining those dots

[Rhianne]

Jun 5, 2018 6:47:01 GMT 10 Guido said:

Jun 4, 2018 18:49:51 GMT 10 Rhianne said:

..................................................................................................................................

Strewth.... as much integrity in the vocabulary as there was within in the picture. There is definitely a problem in joining those dots

Is it now?

Isn't it funny how we all like to play fast and loose with stereotypes? We like to think that older people are wiser and gentler, having managed to rid themselves of their black and white thinking. Alas, you've never managed to transcend your puberty. You might think that your jokes are funny, that you get a sympathetic ear from your 'peers' here.

Here's a newsflash for you, gramps. The other men here are nothing like you. For starters, they're men. They don't delight in cruelty because they have an audience in anonymity.

I'm not quite sure what your problem is. Are you feeling hard done by because your little tree house is being violated? Poor diddums, haven't you learned to share yet?

When Greg invited me here, he reckoned it would be a haven for me. Well, he's right, if the other men here are an indication - and I won't allow a tired worm like yourself to turn him into a liar.

So here's the thing. You badly underestimate both my intelligence, AND my vocabulary. I will make it my fucking mission in life to rub your nose in your own shit; at least then your presence here will finally have some entertainment value.

Hugs and kisses,
Val.

[Pedro]

Puerca las vacas mora!! (Vaqueros TYPICAL sign of SURPRISE.) I have noticed, well before I was ONE of THEM, how important it is for Seniors to feel important...you know...full of...useful knowledge. Sometimes Pedro may forgets that it is always MANDATORY to CLEARLY states/writes how important OUR interlocutors are. ++Contessa Rianna (AKA Rhianne) your posts are always interesting and, frequently, intellectually challenging. I did like the post with the persons engaged in a deep meaningful conversation. I do like the person on the left, engaged in blowing something/words into the ear of the senior person on the right. Both of them do not appear to be extremely happy.++ Did I get everything WRONG....again!?!?!?

Pedro

PS. Guido, if you wish, you can Copy & Paste the section of MY post contained within the ++ signs.

[Pedro]

Epic, the ++ www.manchestereveningwingnews.co.uk/news/local-news/coma-red-is-released-952477 ++ it is NOT available to un-registred NetRoamers!!!
Thanks for your kind patience!!

Pedro

[Guido]

Thanx Pedro.... but pursuing such a meaningful conversation would be counter productive.
I must say though that the IED (intermittent explosive disorder) along with the proportion of introduced intelligence now appearing among recent postings can only be termed ....exhilarating.

[cster]

I wonder what I can say that's off topic? So much has already been said, but what can I add?

[Guido]

Cster.... topical topics went out the door with The Shed on Line, thematic policemen and wishful thinking. Today it's think of a post apply a heading and plonk it where you will. Works well