About these ads

Update: Norwegian Men’s Rights blogger Eivind Berge will be held for four more weeks due to the “risk of recurrence of new criminal offenses.”

Just a quick update on Eivind Berge: According to this news account, the Norwegian Men’s Rights blogger is considered enough of a threat to police officers that his two-week detention has been extended by four more weeks. According to the prosecutor, the “risk of recurrence of new criminal offenses” makes releasing him dangerous.

See my posts here and here for more on his arrest.

About these ads

Posted on July 19, 2012, in antifeminism, MRA, terrorism, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 262 Comments.

  1. I think NWO belongs to the “I believe in Jesus therefore nothing I could ever do could possibly be wrong. (Unless it was gay.)” branch of Christianity.

  2. NWO:

    The SPLC is the most is so far left even for manboobers.

    Oooooooooooh, I dunno. Seems quite a few of us commenting on the SPLC’s report on the msogyny in the MRA (*even though they did not classify them as an official hate group YET*) were supportive.

    Speaking for myself, besides buying kitty litter, and scented candles, I regularly donate to the local charity for women (Women In Need), and to Doctors Without Borders, and to the SPLC.

    The SPLC did stellar work in shutting down shutting down Richard Butler’s Aryan Nations. (Idaho native, so followed that one with a bit more attention).

    Pretty much, you type something, you are wrong.

    Does it ever get boring?

  3. @NWOslave:

    Locking people up for words.

    Asking out of morbid curiosity: so there’s no type of threat in any context which should be illegal?

    Non-morbid curiosity: do you think that defamation laws should be repealed?

  4. @Khymchanur: I’m pretty sure NWO thinks people who say things like “Jesus Tapdancing Christ” and such should be locked up and the key thrown away–for insulting his religion.

    But he of course should be allowed to call all the women anything he wants!

    Otherwise, MISANDRY.

  5. Argenti Aertheri

    I am just drunk enough for his problem with “Jesus tapdancing Christ” to make sense, in theory anyways.

    “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

    Is one of the ten commandments, thus “Jesus tapdancing Christ” is as bad as murder. Except the US doesn’t make its laws based on the ten commandments, and while Christians, in theory, make their personal morals by them, “Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.” is also a commandment, and as Pecunium keeps noting, NWO has trouble with that one. (Also, one could argue that they don’t apply to Christians at all, being part of the Jewish convent that Jesus broke, whereas that “love your neighbor” I pointed out above? That’s from the parts attributed to Jesus, and thus definitely does apply to Christians).

    And in NWO’s case? That whole “flighty Jews” rant is no better than “Jesus tapdancing Christ” — as I said, that’s old testament, meaning Jesus isn’t being discussed (one could argue that since God is omniscient then future things were also being spoken of, but that’s irrelevant to my point here). The point here being that those commandments were given to the Jews, thus making the “your God” part the Jewish God.

    Lol, I haven’t ranted theological while drunk in quite a while, so thank you for that. (Watch NWO’s head explode that my pagan/atheist self knows his religion better than he does…)

  6. Argenti Aertheri

    flighty Jews? Spell check, I hate you! I meant his “filthy Jews” rant.

  7. Argenti: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”

    But even that’s a bit misunderstood. “taking” in that context is better translated as, “invoking”, and it’s why oaths matter.

    As a matter of politesse one ought not use The Name” in vain, but even Orthodox Jews (at least of my acquaintance) are known to use the various euphemisms as a sort of ejaculatory expletive.

    It’s not clear that this one isn’t still covered in the teachings of Jesus. No one can explain what he meant by, “to blaspheme the Holy Spirit”. Given that blasphemy proper is really hard, that’s probably not it, but one could make a (very weak) case for it.

  8. Argenti Aertheri

    Pecunium — yeah outside of oaths I don’t know many people who’d have issue with it (and really, everyone I know who’d have issue with it has issue with everything…so this category probably does include NWO I guess). I’d forgotten the NT bit about blasphemy, so yeah ignore that part of my rant — I really doubt “Jesus tapdancing Christ” would’ve been blasphemy though. And considering idk anyone who can actually explain wtf “the Holy Spirit” means, I’m inclined to doubt that blaspheming Jesus would count (questions I don’t advise asking a fundie — can you explain the Holy Spirit…questions are of the devil apparently).

  9. taking Jesus name doesn’t count at all; Jesus isn’t the aspect of deity one is using when one says, “God”; but the Trinity is a really odd (and fundamentally Pythagorean/Platonic Greek in origin). But Jesus wasn’t a Trinitarian, and so that means when he said “God” he meant God, not, “Jesus”.

    And taking a name in vain isn’t blasphemy, so that’s not an issue either.

  10. Argenti Aertheri

    Depending what strain of fundie NWO is, Jesus might be taught at as part of the trinity (wtf is the third aspect if not “the son”? I’ve always heard it as “the father, the son, and the Holy Spirit”)

    In any case, NWO is definitely fractally wrong, again. Because yeah whether Jesus is now considered part of the trinity is moot as to whether he considered himself when discussing blasphemy.

  11. Jesus is part of the trinity; the incarnation, but he; as a man, wasn’t speaking of Himself, because he was unaware of his Divine Aspect, ergo when he speaks of “God” Jesus. the man, isn’t incorporated in the idea.

  12. Argenti Aertheri

    Ah ok, I get what you meant now.

  13. ShadetheDruid

    I knew as soon as clinic bombings came up that Owly was gonna go all “waaa killing the innocent babies! you’re evil!” on us.

    Not sure why I feel need to do this, because he’s not going to listen, but:

    1. A tiny lump of cells is not a baby.
    2. An actual, living person with an actual life and actual people who love and care for them > potential of a fetus.
    3. Abortions are only a tiny percentage of the work those clinics do.

  14. And NWO completely ignores the issue of terrorism. He said “mass murderer” to avoid having to deal with the clinic bombers (which are only one manifestation of the problem I was talking about).

    But the clinic bombers, they are killing people. NWO doesn’t have a problem with that. So the issue isn’t that he’s against killing, it’s that he cares who gets killed. Women, pro-choice people, not such a big deal. Proto-people, big-deal.

    What’s the difference? None, actually; because he’s all about controlling women. It’s why he favors rape, and tries to say what they wear, and how they act are what cause rape, etc.. It’s why he’s got his twisted notion of, ‘escalation’ and it’s why he’s all for beating any woman who so much as lifts a finger against any man…. even if it kills her.

    And this is his idea of being a moral person.

  15. I, too, and awaiting nwo’s reponse to Nobinayamu’s

    What Christian values do you believe in/practice, NWO? I mean, you’re always frothing at the mouth about the misrepresentation and denigration of Christian values but coming from you it all seems like so much sound and fury. Mostly fury.

    Jesus said to the Pharisees in his time, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'”

    You believe that God is omnipotent, and yet impotent to see what is in your heart when you not only wear your heart on your sleeve but allow it to gush all over your responses here and everywhere else that you comment, so convinced are you of your own self-righteousness.

    You are decidedly anti-abortion whilst also being anti-“Big Daddy Gov’t” lending support for the mother and child because you believe that bearing that child and quite possibly living in abject poverty with that child is apt punishment for the woman who dares commit the grievous sin of having sexual relations while female. And for those who are transgendered female, well, we can’t have THAT because she may not suffer those same consequences.

    My guess is he came from a single mother home, which is decidedly anti-christian at the very core.

    And who the hell are YOU to pronounce what is and is not Christian? What, did the Word of God originate from YOU??

    every form of debauchery is promoted and Christians are hated for daring to raise a voice against the mighty tolerance.

    No, Christians are hated because of self-proclaimed Christians like you; those who want to declare the USA a Christian Nation, so the politics of exploitation, marginalization, oppression, etc., of those not like you, in the name of “taking your country back for God”, is conflated with whole of Christianity.

  16. @pecunium
    “Jesus is part of the trinity; the incarnation, but he; as a man, wasn’t speaking of Himself, because he was unaware of his Divine Aspect, ergo when he speaks of “God” Jesus. the man, isn’t incorporated in the idea.”

    So sayeth a feminist prophet.
    ———-
    @Ithiliana
    “Seems quite a few of us commenting on the SPLC’s report on the msogyny in the MRA”

    Of that I have no doubt. Communism and feminism are one in the same.

    “I’m pretty sure NWO thinks people who say things like “Jesus Tapdancing Christ” and such should be locked up and the key thrown away–for insulting his religion.”

    No, but men show common curtesy. Women, as can clearly be seen by in even mainstream media lack basic curtesies. Women not being accountable for their actions in the west seem to revel in tormenting others. Since women spend a lifetime tormenting men sexually for their biological and emotional need, ridiculing a mans faith must pale in comparison. It’s progressive after all.
    ———-
    @Pam
    “You are decidedly anti-abortion whilst also being anti-”Big Daddy Gov’t” lending support for the mother and child because you believe that bearing that child and quite possibly living in abject poverty with that child is apt punishment for the woman who dares commit the grievous sin of having sexual relations while female.”

    Abortion/Big Daddy/Woman in poverty. All intrinsically linked? Such a poor tactic to justify premeditated murder.

    “And for those who are transgendered female, well, we can’t have THAT because she may not suffer those same consequences.”

    There’s no such thing as transpeople. I’ve heard that seahorses sometimes change sexes when there’s a shortage of females. I’ve yet to see it in humans. When that starts to happen, then there’ll be transpeople.
    ———-
    @ShadetheDruid
    “A tiny lump of cells is not a baby.”

    A tiny lump of cells is just as alive as a bigger lump of cells. The bigger lump of cells you are that’s alive today, is alive because the tiny lump of cells you were as a fetus wasn’t murdered. That’s a fact.
    ———–
    @Argenti Aertheri
    “Depending what strain of fundie NWO is”

    I’m not a fundie of any particular strain. Hmmmm. Fundie implies a negative connotation. Rates right up there with racial and ethnic slurs. Of course you’ve been taught it’s OK to ridicule Christianity, it’s progressive to do so. And you are a feminist, find me a feminist site that doesn’t ridicule Christianity exclusively.

    Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. What have you uncissed into?

  17. Argenti Aertheri

    NWO — again, you think too highly of yourself if you think my hatred of fundies has anything to do with you. This is just damned hilarious — “Of course you’ve been taught it’s OK to ridicule Christianity” — do you think all that discussion about Christianity came from knowledge that just like, sprang forth fully formed from foam or something? I was raised a damned fundie, and yes, I have issues with them, ones that are why I’m more or less an atheist these days and have nothing to do with you.

    “Oh yeah, I forgot to ask. What have you uncissed into?”

    You already “asked” (more like insulted) once, and I already said this once today, but fuck it — I’m an androgynous ninja, see my avatar there? (This statement, it is half true)

    “And you are a feminist, find me a feminist site that doesn’t ridicule Christianity exclusively.”

    You want me to do your homework while you’re insulting me? I’ll pass.

  18. owly,
    When you’ve finished foaming at the mouth and sneering at people who don’t conform to your standards, would or could you answer Nobinayamu’s question.

  19. Nwoslave, are you aware that people who have abortions can then go on later to have babies on their own terms, with better financial means, lesser health risks, better preparation, etc.
    That means that several people alive today wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for abortion.

  20. And women who already have children and don’t feel like they can support another have abortions. It’s almost like they do it for their own reasons, not Mr. Slave’s oh-so-precious completely-new and never-been-addressed argument that somehow a ball of cells trumps an adult woman’s bodily integrity. Been donating lots of organs lately Slavey?

    Pecunium was addressing one of your idiot god-bot arguments, but it somehow doesn’t count because he’s a feminist? That’s pretty much what I learned in church also (that Jesus is part of the holy trinity, but when he was a man was simply addressing God the Father,) though, raised Catholic over here, so it was always the Holy Ghost, which just lends itself to a high level of hilarity.

  21. @Argenti Aertheri
    “I’m an androgynous ninja”

    Androgyny is an impossibility for a human. Although hermaphrodites are born with both sets of reproductive organs, one or both are inactive, they can’t self replicate. An example of a biological androgynous creature would be a snail. Since you’re not a snail, you must be a ninja.
    ————
    @Myoo
    “Nwoslave, are you aware that people who have abortions can then go on later to have babies on their own terms, with better financial means, lesser health risks, better preparation, etc.
    That means that several people alive today wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for abortion.”

    This ststement makes no sense. If a woman get’s pregnant twice and aborts one, how can an extra person be alive today that wouldn’t have been alive. One is dead one is alive.
    ———-
    @amandajane5
    “And women who already have children and don’t feel like they can support another have abortions. It’s almost like they do it for their own reasons, not Mr. Slave’s oh-so-precious completely-new and never-been-addressed argument that somehow a ball of cells trumps an adult woman’s bodily integrity. Been donating lots of organs lately Slavey?”

    A woman donates no organ. If someone commits suicide they’ve killed their own body. When someone commits abortion they’ve killed another body. An excuse to kill is just that, an excuse. Dead is always dead. You be dead if you were successfully aborted. That’s a fact.

  22. NWO: I have a question for you…

    Who are you (or anyone) to tell a woman and a doctor they can’t do something? Seriously. You think it’s immoral for the state to say you need a license to drive on the roads the state makes.

    You rant about “Big Daddy”. Ok, what’s the justification for banning abortion?

    Be careful in your answer, because it is almost certain to have larger implications.

  23. Amanadajane: Argenti and I got onto a tangent about the nature of the godhead, I wasn’t talking to NWO.

    It confuses him to much to actually think about the scriptures in toto. He has his pet verses, and the rest is gibberish. Me, I’ve studied it, a lot. I’ve studied some other religions too (most esp. judaism, because of the intimate relationship it has to Christianity, esp. Roman Catholcism). I, for a short period; in my middle teens, contemplated taking orders, but the Church and I have a major philosophical difference on a matter of doctrine which made it impossible for me to take the required vows, and I didn’t.

    Had I taken vows I don’t know that I would still be a priest (even as a Jesuit) because of other stances the church hasn’t modified, and which I can’t reconcile myself too. It’s not enough to make me renounce the Church entire, but those issues are enough to cause me to think I’d not have been able to remain in the functional arm of the Curia; the recent attempt to muzzle the Religious Orders of women would probably have been the last straw, had I not left yet.

    But that’s a huge digression.

  24. Argenti Aertheri

    “Androgyny is an impossibility for a human. Although hermaphrodites are born with both sets of reproductive organs, one or both are inactive, they can’t self replicate. An example of a biological androgynous creature would be a snail. Since you’re not a snail, you must be a ninja.”

    Ok, I’m a ninja…is insulting ninjas a good idea? (You think I don’t exist, I get it, really, I do, call me a ninja if you want, it’s the least offensive thing you’ve said today)

  25. Argenti Aertheri

    @Myoo
    “Nwoslave, are you aware that people who have abortions can then go on later to have babies on their own terms, with better financial means, lesser health risks, better preparation, etc.
    That means that several people alive today wouldn’t be alive if it wasn’t for abortion.”

    This ststement makes no sense. If a woman get’s pregnant twice and aborts one, how can an extra person be alive today that wouldn’t have been alive. One is dead one is alive.

    Myoo’s point was, I think, that if someone gets pregnant when young, or poor, having a child then will make them less able to have children in the future, because they’ll stay poor. Whereas not having children until one can afford it makes one able to have more children.

  26. I would not be alive today if my grandmother had not had an abortion. It goes like this:

    It was during the Depression. My grandfather was studying to be a dentist. My grandmother was working to support them while he was in school. She got pregnant. Two major problems with that – they couldn’t afford to support a child, and she could not afford to lose her job (which I’m sure would have happened if she’d continued the pregnancy). So she chose to abort. It was illegal, and unsafe, and it did not go well, and for a while they were afraid she wouldn’t be able to have children ever, but eventually she did. They had three – my two uncles and my mother (all born in the 40s, when my grandparents were financially secure).

    Because my grandparents chose that abortion, they were able to provide safe housing, good nutrition, and a stable home environment for three children, and send them all to college, all of which in turn allowed them to go on to have good careers and families of their own.

    I don’t know what would have happened if my grandmother had continued that pregnancy. If Grandpa had dropped out of school, would he have been able to get a job? Would they have been able to pay for food and a place to live? Would the baby have been born healthy, and if so, would it have had enough to eat growing up? What kind of life would they have had? I doubt that it would have been as good a life as what actually happened. And I doubt they would have gone on to have two more kids.

    My grandmother was always very vocally pro-choice because of this, by the way.

  27. I also wouldn’t be alive today if my parent’s first baby hadn’t died (because all my mother’s pregnancies were planned, and if David had lived it would have changed the timing of any subsequent birth(s)). He lived for only three days. I can’t even imagine what that was like for my parents.

    So, apparently God disapproves of people having abortions in order to protect the well-being of their families, but is perfectly ok killing newborns.

  28. CassandraSays

    Insulting ninjas? That’s not a good idea…

    (skip forwards to 40 seconds in)

    Slavey’s constant repetition of the same old shit is getting boring, so I’m now responding to him in the laziest way possible.

  29. This ststement makes no sense. If a woman get’s pregnant twice and aborts one, how can an extra person be alive today that wouldn’t have been alive. One is dead one is alive.

    NWO, you blithering idiot, it’s dumb enough that you’re somehow unaware that people cannot actually afford to feed and care for infinite children. It’s dumb enough that you’re somehow unaware that the vast, vast, vast majority of people engage in some form of family planning, and that people who plan on having, say, three children, will generally stop trying to have children after they’ve had those three children. It’s dumb enough that you’re somehow unaware that teensy weensy things like having a freaking child quite frequently affect the course of one’s life from that point onward. But given what you said here, it appears you are even unaware that people cannot get pregnant while already pregnant, and that’s a level of dumb that makes my brain hurt just thinking about it.

    It is literally, unambiguously physically impossible that my friend’s very cute baby son would exist if she had not had an abortion a few months prior to getting pregnant with him. It’s also very likely that she wouldn’t exist, seeing as the reason she aborted was because of a medical situation that made pregnancy extremely dangerous. I get that you wish she were dead, seeing as she commits the horrific crime of existing while female on a daily basis – and IIRC, you were telling us just the other day how you celebrate the murder of a doctor who saved the lives of women just like her (because you’re a good Christian like that, natch) – but maybe you should learn at least the kindergarten-level version of how babies are made before you start ranting next time.

  30. Argenti Aertheri

    “nd IIRC, you were telling us just the other day how you celebrate the murder of a doctor who saved the lives of women just like her (because you’re a good Christian like that, natch)”

    That was yesterday, on this thread.

    Cassandra — I was thinking about just replying with how yep, I’m a ninja, and may already be under his bed, but this is NWO, he’ll take that as a threat even worded this way (NWO, I am not under your bed, and really, I don’t want to be anywhere near your bed; to everyone else, I am sorry I just made you think about NWO’s bed)

  31. I was born in 1955. My mother who was the sole wage earner at the time (she dropped out of college and went to work fulltime to support my father’s PHD since his family cut him off when they got married) got pregnant. Early 1950s: the hormonal birth control was horrible, and Dear ol Dad refused to wear a condom. She had an illegal abortion.

    Six or seven years later, when she’d just about decided to leave the narcissistic asshat, she found out she was pregnant (me), and decided to try one last time to make it work. Went sort of OK till he ran off with a graduate student when I was 18.

  32. Erps, sorry: she had gotten pregnant earlier in their marriage!

  33. NWO: Abortioneers murder 1.5 million people a year, about 60 million since R-v-W. Let me know when 60 million abortionists are murdered. Too funny. The terrorist’s calling some trying to stop the terror a terrorist. Is Tiller the killer dead? Just as dead as all those unborn children he slaughtered.

    Do you really want to go there? Because if “saving lives” are the criteria, I can think of lots of causes that would justify killing more than abortion does, based on actual threats to humanity.

    Why do I qualify it? Because you can’t justify it based on the idea that killing, qua killing, is wrong, since you are willing to murder in defense of your principle.

    So the question is one of scope. Abortion isn’t a threat to the human race, it’s not even a threat to the population of the US. It’s not a problem; other than your pretense that it’s a moral problem†

    But the world population isn’t in decline; and you’ve admitted that killing isn’t an absolute moral ill, if it’s being done to save lives. The question is scale. At what level does murder become a defensible proposition.‡

    So things which threaten all of humanity seem to be a justifiable situation. That could include a lot of things you don’t mind. Cattle and dairy farming for instance (Methane is a much more effecting greenhouse gas, and those two industries produce a lot of it. Luckily it lasts a lot shorter time in the atmosphere, so reducing those industries would have a large benefit).

    One could limit the human death by attacking the cattle. People, of course, would defend them. Those people could, under the NWO Doctrine (that it’s ok to kill people if you think it might save a life in the future;¤ be killed. One could even do it proactively.

    That’s what you allow, with your asinine defense of terrorism against those who aren’t opposed to abortion.

    † if you try to argue that it’s a moral problem the question is actually one of who gets to make the moral decision. The pregnant person and the doctor have decided what they think is moral, and you are asserting a right to interfere with their actions. As thinking person that’s inane… As a libertarian it’s indefensible. You claim to be the latter.

    ‡Which is ignoring that abortion isn’t murder. It’s not even killing. The fetus isn’t alive. It’s can’t support itself. If you took it out, very carefully, doing it no damage, it would stop growing.

    So denying abortion is forcing the woman to keep the fetus alive. It’s a slippery slope. Where does the right of the State to compell stop. The same principle, that the potential of life in a fetus justifies State intervention to sustain it would also apply to thing like kidneys (you don’t need both of yours, and I know people who have died because they couldn’t get one), or maybe even a lung. It would certainly apply to blood (of which there is never enough in supply).

    That’s your idea of a reasonable power to give the state, you who rant at the horror of The STATE insisting on certifying your understanding the rules of the road to drive, are choking on a gnat, relative to the actual things you would allow, based on the power you insist the state should have.

    But I digress

    ¤ Not to be confused with the NWO Doctrine of Escalation, where any conflict with a woman must lead to her losing. If she is besting you verbally, slap her. If she defends herself, use a knife. If she has a knife (or can defeat one), pull a gun. If that doesn’t work get pals, or lie in ambush.

    This ties into the NWO School of Self Defense, which says that once a woman has attacked you, in any way, in a public place; where one’s masculinity has therefore been insulted, one is allowed to leave, and come back with a weapon so that one can put her in her place.

  34. Argenti Aertheri

    Re: the NWO Doctrine of Escalation — he does get that women can own guns too, right? I mean, the whole thing is BS, but “if she insults you, get a bigger weapon” is kind of pointless if she’s got a gun. (No NWO, this is not a threat, it’s me being confused at the point of getting a bigger weapon, if you can leave to get a weapon, why not just leave?)

    @Not NWO, no that is not a serious question, I get that the answer is “because my pride has been insulted WAAHHH”

  35. Argenti Aertheri

    Actual question for NWO — thoughts on the death penalty, as administered by the gov’n?

    And since it is my favorite of questions, do also answer why you feel that way.

    Thank you for amusing my randomness (assuming you actually answer the question that is).

  36. Argenti: He does get that. His ideal is women living in slavery. Too cowed to assert their rights as people.

  37. So, I gather NWO would call for the death penalty for ALL doctors and medical care personnel who provide abortions, and no doubt for the WOMEN who have abortions, right?

    Right?

    I really loathe people who call themselves pro life when it comes to fetal tissue but are pro-death-penalty.

  38. Ithiliana: Me too. Then again, this is NWO we are talking about, there is only one consistent trait to his philosophy: “I want it to be that way.”

  39. Argenti Aertheri

    “I really loathe people who call themselves pro life when it comes to fetal tissue but are pro-death-penalty.”

    I guess it’s “me three” at this point, but yeah, that was my point there.

    “He does get that. His ideal is women living in slavery. Too cowed to assert their rights as people.”

    …um, nothing left to lose doesn’t really bode well for absolute control. I realize the Owlyverse isn’t big on logic, but that’s quite the principle there, the actual implications don’t really seem to line up with wtf he wants.

  40. And… NWO, just because I remember what started this little farrago of your newest misdirections.

    some more fundamentalist terrorists

    And some information about, lone wolves, and how the right/religious terrorists use them

  41. Getting back on topic for a moment, according to a now-deleted but Google-cached blog post made by Berge’s girlfriend a few days ago, the four week extension to Berge’s time in detention is to allow time for psychiatric evaluation.

    Given that Berge is on the record as hating psychiatrists almost as much as he does cops and feminists, you can probably guess how well that’s gone down. But it will be interesting to see the outcome.

  42. I’ve been lurking a while, and though it probably isn’t proper etiquette, I’m using my first post to tell NWO that he is full of shit. NWO, you stated that a small ball of cells is as alive as a larger one et cetera, ergo abortion is murder. This is crap, what’s more, you know it’s crap. If you were in a burning building, and you had a choice of grabbing one small child, or one of 50 fertilized eggs ready for implantation, which would you grab? Would it even be a question? You know damn well you would get the child, because the child is sentient and capable of suffering. The in vitro embryos are no more capable of suffering than an unfertilised egg. Now, I am aware, that as the embryo develops, it becomes more of a gray area. Guess what? Women, even feminists are aware of this as well. This is why the vast majority of elective abortions occur in the first trimester. Also, take note that Protestants and Catholics are more likely to seek abortion than secular women. Look up the stats dude.

  43. Please excuse my lack of formatting and my typos. I am posting from a cell phone which makes editing extremely difficult (there also seems to be no way to create paragraphs) :-/ I’ll use a computer next time.

  44. Now he is released, though. Court of appeals (Gulating Lagmannsrett) overturned the city court’s approval six days ago of the district attorney’s request to hold him in custody for four more weeks. DAs did not like this, and asked that he be held in custody until the Supreme Court of Norway could weigh in on the issue. Berge’s lawyer asked that he be released immediately. Gulating reviewed the appeals from both sides, found that Berge has not broken the law at all, and that the city court made a mistake in judgement when granting the police’s requests. Gulating was so clear on this, that they refused to hear the police’s (DA’s) request for continued incarceration, and ordered that he be set free – and so he was. Norway’s TV2 was there at the prison to record it, and it was shown in the main news report this evening in Norway (Thursday July 26, 2012). The Supreme Court will still review the pleas from both sides, but in the meantime, and until such a review has been performed, Eivind Berge is once again a free man. He’ll have troubles accessing his blog, though, and twitter and FB-accounts, as police still has all his computer equipment in their care. Eivind will now fight to get those back, plus for getting compensation for unlawful incarceration.

    Seeing that from today’s comments to the media, police/DAs are no less gung-ho to bring Eivind to trial, and taking into consideration that media commentators and law scholars are slowly coming back from their summer holidays, these legal questions are now likely to spark quite a lot of debate in Norway. It’s already begun, to some extent.

  45. Eivind will now fight to get those back, plus for getting compensation for unlawful incarceration.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh lord.

  46. Further update: Eivind has been released. He claims the books on explosives were given to him by the army when he was conscripted. Also, the police stole his cactuses.

  47. Wrong url, here it is .

  48. ShadetheDruid

    Also, the police stole his cactuses.

    The police stole his phallic plants? Truly this must be an example of state misandry! :P

    (Though not all cacti are phallic obviously, they are quite varied and awesome).

  49. Those poor plants. I fear they won’t be cared for well. :<

  50. You can do a lot of damage to a policeman with a well-aimed cactus. They were right to be careful.

  51. I doubt he has any jumpping cholla, or the other, large, members of the family.

    I miss cactus.

  52. A few corrections of mistakes I read on the first page of this long commentary thread:

    Eivind had four bullets lying around in his childhood room. He found them laying around somewhere when he was a kid, i.e. probably 20 years ago or more, and brought them back to his childhood (parents’) home. He had forgotten all about them. Less than one year ago, Eivind was forced to move home to his family, as blogging caused him to lose his job. The reason the police found these old things in his “home”, is because he was back in his boy’s room. Anyone here who has one still, in the home of their parents, will probably understand that there may be a lot of stuff there that you don’t care about, but haven’t gotten around to throwing in the garbage or selling off. Eivind worked with detonations in the military during his conscription service, and says the books, also found in his boy’s room, were from that period, 13-14 years ago. Clearly the police are taking no chances, here – some might want to call them somewhat paranoid. (See Eivind’s new, fresh blog post about the Harlem incident.)

    Anders Behring Breivik never, ever wrote about killing people online. He made hundreds or thousands of comments on various sites, but never let it slip that he was planning anything big, and always kept within what was safe to say. So, the person who wrote early up above in this thread that ABB wrote online messages about killing people, is also mistaken.

    Furthermore, Eivind never gave a time and date for when he was going to kill a police officer. That is also a mistaken interpretation of news articles relating to Eivind’s arrest. What he wrote was that in the past, he had been so filled with anger, and so committed to his cause, that he came very close to taking action on a Saturday night, on the town square, trying to stab a police officer in the throat as said officer was dealing with drunk Norwegians in a crowd out in the open. He then went on to state that that was all in the past, and that he had no intentions of anything like that anymore, and that he did not want to say goodbye to his friends. Three days later police came to apprehend him while he was jogging, based on those very statements.

    Judge for yourselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,033 other followers

%d bloggers like this: