Notices by James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)
-
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jun-2026 03:06:33 JST 
James_Dixon
> I will start installing on the sever first thing in the morning. I've been up now past 75 hours I gotta sleep soon
Sleep if far more important. Slackware is getting by fine. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 07-Jun-2026 03:04:21 JST
James_Dixon
> thank you for reminding me,
Speaking of reminders, you asked me to remind you about creating a Slackware mirror and I got tied up yesterday and didn't manage to do so. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jun-2026 09:00:29 JST
James_Dixon
I can't say this matches my experience:
https://www.businessinsider.com/cruise-expectation-vs-...
Yes, the lines boarding the cruise were long. But other than that the two cruises I've been on were nowhere near that crowded (a Royal Caribbean cruise to the Bahamas and a Princess cruise to the eastern Caribbean and Mexico). -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-May-2026 11:18:27 JST
James_Dixon
> All it's worthy of is killing.
At this point it would be a mercy killing. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Saturday, 30-May-2026 10:40:06 JST
James_Dixon
I can't figure out if Torba is really this stupid or if he simply wants to kill Gab.
Or maybe his weekly coke shipment finally arrived? -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 29-May-2026 20:04:09 JST
James_Dixon
> is that Apple has produced a product that's unmatched in the Windows laptop space.
Agreed. I don't think you can buy a Windows 11 machine with comparable quality and performance for anything close to that price.
Now, if you want equivalent performance from a Linux laptop, there are refurbished Dell and Lenovo business class laptops that are relatively of the same quality and can match that performance (possibly HP too, though I haven't kept up with their product line) at even cheaper prices. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 28-May-2026 10:00:12 JST
James_Dixon
> We don't need 3 million "best" people per year,
The odds are that 90%+ of that 3 million are already here. And no one is willing to offer them jobs. And if they find one the salary isn't remotely worth the work required. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 27-May-2026 08:50:21 JST
James_Dixon
> I'm not "sperging out" because you insulted "my tribe," whatever the fuck that means.
You know damn well what it means.
> I've liked being on here for years, but I don't think I'd lose anything at all without fedi at this point.
No one is forcing you to stay here. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 24-May-2026 06:35:02 JST
James_Dixon
> in the "wrong" places
So if you limit your statement to select sections of "the public", it's true. But if you open it up to the entire "public", much less so. Same as it ever was. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 24-May-2026 06:24:52 JST
James_Dixon
> that's not true, the supreme court very much cares what the public thinks.
Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, and Obergefell v. Hodges all argue otherwise. All were extremely unpopular rulings. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 24-May-2026 05:51:50 JST
James_Dixon
> I'm thinking about this from a public look rather than judicial
Unless it's an elected position, no judge cares what the public thinks. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 24-May-2026 05:48:13 JST
James_Dixon
> outbreeding the world isn't the way
Not feeding our enemies would help quite a bit. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 24-May-2026 05:42:44 JST
James_Dixon
> let me prove you are right by punishing you in a way I'd only ever do to a white person
Establishing bias on the part of the judge for any future appeal? -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Sunday, 17-May-2026 06:52:27 JST
James_Dixon
> Dumb bitches complaining about being typecast when pros like Walken revel in being the creepy scary dude who only needs to play himself, no matter the movie
John Wayne and Clint Eastwood made entire careers out of being typecast. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 15-May-2026 15:48:30 JST
James_Dixon
Lack of belief is agnosticism, not atheism. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 15-May-2026 12:07:05 JST
James_Dixon
> I'll not address your initial threat to me
You have a strange view of what constitutes a threat.
> jesus forgave the jews, except obviously judas, who certainly resides in hellfire.
But Judas was no more guilty than the Pharisees who paid him, which is one of two reasons I don't accept that as the case. The other being what Jesus told Pilate in John 19:11.
> your statement that the romans were uniquely ignorant and thus blameless is unrealistic.
My statement is that they had no idea Jesus was the Son of God. They didn't even believe in his Father.
> you know pilate was said in luke to have mixed the blood of murdered jews with their animal sacrifices right? all contemporary sources about him show he was a very evil man.
You are judging evil by modern standards. He was a man of his time and a pagan.
> you are interpreting the romans as upright but thats just not true. they were a powerful empire, they were not likely browbeat into executing anyone.
At the very least Pilate would have been removed from his post if he had allowed an uprising he could have easily prevented. At worst he would have been responsible for the deaths of dozen or hundreds of Roman soldiers and possibly executed. In either case he would have failed in his duty to Caesar. It was an easy decision for him to make.
> the roman guards humiliated and beat jesus,
The were ordered to scourge him. What do you think that involves, exactly?
> the soldiers divided his clothes.
As was their right under Roman law.
> pilate is only made partly sympathetic in the bible to appeal to the new roman converts according to nearly all historians,
The Gospel wasn't written to appeal to new Roman converts. That was Paul's job. And Pilate doesn't come across as sympathetic unless you understand his role as a Roman and what it involved. In which case he is more to be pitied than sympathized with. He was trapped by circumstances far beyond his control. That's why Christ didn't blame him.
> as far as the guilt of the pharisees goes, most jews werent lawmakers and scribes, but were lay-believers.
Most jews accepted Christ after the resurrection. The Pharisees and their ilk didn't. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 15-May-2026 11:03:26 JST
James_Dixon
> just want to say that I appreciate you engaging with me in a serious manner instead of being actively cruel and just calling me a jew
Give me time.
> or saying refugees should be murdered.
You are aware that the only "refugees" we should accept are from Mexico and Canada, are you not? That's the international definition of who should accept refugees. The last I saw neither Mexico nor Canada were overflowing with people who had to flee for their lives.
All others have the option of leaving peaceably or, yes, they can be shot.
> I dont believe this interpretation though, that the jews (besides Judas and others who knew jesus personally) all knew exactly what they were doing and that jesus only referred to the romans.
I don't care what you believe. You've already demonstrated your interpretation of Scripture is not to be trusted.
> they didnt believe that jesus was God,
They had no excuse for not believing, especially after he himself told them he was (before Abraham was, I am). They knew exactly what he meant.
> if they knew He was God they likely wouldnt have been involved in his death.
And if they knew but refused to believe they would have done exactly what they did.
> many of the romans were doing what they thought was right
The Roman soldiers were following lawful orders. Pilate was doing what he thought was right and avoiding a revolt that would have killed hundreds or thousands of jews and possibly dozens of Roman soldiers.
Which is why Christ forgave them.
> and snuffing out the movement of a man who many thought was a dissident king,
Pilate knew better. But he didn't want a revolt on his hands, see above.
> This is f and many of the jews were doing what they thought was right and snuffing out what they thought was a man who committing a grave sin by claiming to be I AM, God.
In spite of his meeting every single one of the biblical requirements for meeting that claim. Requirements they knew and knew he had met. They knew. They refused to believe anyway.
> in the bible unintentional sins are treated much more leniently than intentional sins, and jesus saying "forgive them father" is an extension of that. of course, for judas,
His crucifixion was not "unintentional". They carefully planned it out and had the Romans do it because the feared the populace if they killed him themselves.
> he was not only betraying a friend, but committing to death the man who he knew to be God himself, holy and perfectly sinless.
The same arguments you make for the Pharisees could also apply to him. They knew as much as he did. Yet he was not forgiven.
Whether he would have been if he had repented and asked is another matter. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 15-May-2026 10:29:03 JST
James_Dixon
> Jehovah wasnt how the name is pronounced though. YHVH is a direct latinization of the ineffable name. we dont know the vowels.
Exactly, we have no idea how it was pronounced. And as I said, I don't speak Hebrew. The English word is Jehovah.
> when you say of all his moral precepts "he knew we couldnt follow his words" you are saying his teachings were meant for an audience of no one.
If you're going to lie about what I'm saying this is going to be short conversation.
> first off, these are the words of paul, not jesus
2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
> paul is just saying you are first responsible for your own, which was historically interpreted not in the manner of a nuclear family home, but to mean your distant relations and friends as well, provided they were believers.
Which is exactly what I said.
> its your interpretation of it which abrogates christ which is objectionable:
Again with the christ. My interpretation of it is correct.
> you are interpreting your entire country as the same as your own household, which is an error.
You just said the verse didn't refer to only my own household but to my extended kin. Thus, not in error.
> I would read the entire commentary on this verse if I were you.
Yes, you would.
> jesus's words were similarly clear: take in the stranger. that means into your own home if necessary, and when I have my own home I will take in strangers if I have the room. I promise you this.
Except he never says that.
> immigrants aren't invaders,
Yes, they are. This has been undeniably demonstrated over the past 60 years.
> this is dehumanizing language.
Too fucking bad.
> do you give charity to the needy in other countries? I have.
I've never had enough for more than my own kin.
> this is a sophistic imitation of reductio ad absurdum.
Which is perfectly appropriate because your usage of the incomplete verse is absurd.
> paul meant that jewish and greek believers were equal, equal in Gods promise and equal in the church,
Which is not what you're saying as you proceed to demonstrate.
> and likewise you yourself should not have preferences for Jew or Greek, for Israelite and stranger, for authorized and unauthorized immigrant, provided the person has shown you no unfriendliness.
See what I mean.
> giving in excess is good, not taking refugees into your "homeland" is ?unbiblical.
And again you lie.
> its Gods opinion that the needy ought to be provided for when they entreat you.
The needy you're talking about are lying thieves. God opines accordingly. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 15-May-2026 10:22:36 JST
James_Dixon
> he didnt just forgive the romans lol. he said "them", meaning the whole multitude.
No. He was explicit. "...for they know not what they do." The Pharisees knew exactly what they were doing. Saying otherwise is a lie. -
Embed this notice
James_Dixon (james_dixon@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 15-May-2026 10:03:33 JST
James_Dixon
> Jesus isnt just the same as YHVH, YHVH is Jesus.
I'm an American, I don't speak Hebrew. The English word is Jehovah.
> God said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
He said that was what the law required of us. He knew we couldn't do it.
> yet you hate your enemies.
On those rare occasion where I do it's a sin which can be forgiven.
> All of you are saying "I will not take the stranger in".
I will give the stranger of my excess in the manner I judge best when my own are taken care of, as 1 Timothy 5:8 says I should:
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
My home and land are not excess.
> you condemn the Jews for what they did to Christ their brother but when you do not help the least among you, you do the same to Jesus.
I'm perfectly willing to provide charity to the "least among us". But foreign invaders are not "among us". And they can receive my charity in the own lands.
> you know what Jesus said? He said your neighbor, who you should love as yourself, is more a samaritan (who had enmity with the jews) than a jewish priest as long as he shows you compassion.
And you deliberately misconstrue the clear meaning of the text.
> and paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus.
He also said there is neither male nor female in Christ, so I guess all the Christians died out in the first century, huh? Again, you misstate the clear meaning of the text.
> he loved the stranger. do you?
I'm willing to give of my excess to the stranger, just as the good Samaritan did. I'm not willing to take him into my home or homeland. That doesn't give him what's best for him.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the