Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes
actually, i'm guessing, but i thought the reference was to 'homey' the clown from the t.v. series 'in living color' and played by one of the wayan's brothers. to quote homey don't like that! rbury - Original Message - From: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes Todd et. al... Danger, high sacharsim content: And as a noun? homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. According to your usage of the word Homey, and presuming we follow the rules of English grammar, as opposed to the rules of chess or synchronized swiming, the definitions would be as follows: Homey - Proper Noun - 1) Marge Simpson's pet name for Homer Simpson. 2) Any other given name of an individual - pronoun - 3) A synonym for he, she, or it. I think the point is that we are always changing the definitions of words to fit a style (or the lack of it), an agenda, or lyrics to songs writen by Snoop Dog, the esteemed rap artist. However, I would intrepret Homey as you refering to yourself in a jovial manner (ding ding ding... he gets a prize). And while its grammitaclly incorrect perhaps it fits your style. Perhaps Allen was using religion to fit an agenda. Perhaps, That jive turkey de prez is all up in our bidness 'bout his peps 'n dier problem wif de crack rock! Piece out Homey! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes
Todd et. al... Danger, high sacharsim content: And as a noun? homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. According to your usage of the word Homey, and presuming we follow the rules of English grammar, as opposed to the rules of chess or synchronized swiming, the definitions would be as follows: Homey - Proper Noun - 1) Marge Simpson's pet name for Homer Simpson. 2) Any other given name of an individual - pronoun - 3) A synonym for he, she, or it. I think the point is that we are always changing the definitions of words to fit a style (or the lack of it), an agenda, or lyrics to songs writen by Snoop Dog, the esteemed rap artist. However, I would intrepret Homey as you refering to yourself in a jovial manner (ding ding ding... he gets a prize). And while its grammitaclly incorrect perhaps it fits your style. Perhaps Allen was using religion to fit an agenda. Perhaps, That jive turkey de prez is all up in our bidness 'bout his peps 'n dier problem wif de crack rock! Piece out Homey! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes
ties; a friend, bro. See homes. - Original Message - From: B. Nostrand [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 8:24 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes actually, i'm guessing, but i thought the reference was to 'homey' the clown from the t.v. series 'in living color' and played by one of the wayan's brothers. to quote homey don't like that! rbury - Original Message - From: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 5:14 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution - [OT] = very yes Todd et. al... Danger, high sacharsim content: And as a noun? homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. According to your usage of the word Homey, and presuming we follow the rules of English grammar, as opposed to the rules of chess or synchronized swiming, the definitions would be as follows: Homey - Proper Noun - 1) Marge Simpson's pet name for Homer Simpson. 2) Any other given name of an individual - pronoun - 3) A synonym for he, she, or it. I think the point is that we are always changing the definitions of words to fit a style (or the lack of it), an agenda, or lyrics to songs writen by Snoop Dog, the esteemed rap artist. However, I would intrepret Homey as you refering to yourself in a jovial manner (ding ding ding... he gets a prize). And while its grammitaclly incorrect perhaps it fits your style. Perhaps Allen was using religion to fit an agenda. Perhaps, That jive turkey de prez is all up in our bidness 'bout his peps 'n dier problem wif de crack rock! Piece out Homey! ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Better to build bridges than to grind axes. It takes a sharp axe to build a bridge. And better to keep the edge than to let others dull it into disrepair with their abuse. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: DHAJOGLO [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 5:48 PM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Dave, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 17:20:19, you wrote: ...snip... D Gustl, D After re-reading the text I do see that Allen did indeed say they D wern't religious. Though, I take it as a contridiction in her D writing in that she (as we know know) says they are deists. I D missed it, but she makes the claim that if your not christian your D not religious... and I know a few jewish people who are very D religious and definitly not christian. But her point still stands D in that the documents and rhetoric for the founding of my country D is not based on the teachings of jesus christ and the new D testament. And we are all in agreement that Bush himself doesn't D run the country as if its based on christiantiy (espically when you D look at Bush's love of war and the death penalty and Matthew D 5:38-48) D -dave We are not in disagreement here which is why I only pointed out the inaccurate bit and didn't criticize the rest. Her essay didn't need that bit and detracted from it. Better to build bridges than to grind axes. Happy Happy, Gustl -- Je mehr wir haben, desto mehr fordert Gott von uns. Mitglied-Team AMIGA ICQ: 22211253-Gustli The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters Es gibt Wahrheiten, die so sehr auf der Stra§e liegen, da§ sie gerade deshalb von der gewhnlichen Welt nicht gesehen oder wenigstens nicht erkannt werden. Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music. George Carlin The best portion of a good man's life - His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love. William Wordsworth -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/2005 ___ Biofuel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wwia.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/biofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel archives at Infoarchive.net (searchable): http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Holy cow! ...going into sensory overload here! There is a lot to soak in. But, If I could add my two cents, I think that the spirit of what you both are saying is in the right place (IMHO). ** strictly my opinion ** I think that I'm cut from a similar cloth to Gusl and would like to comment on certain words like ground rules and the interpretation of facts. As far as I'm concerned, if it occurs outside the scope of the physical sciences, fact is a relative term (I'm intentionally leaving out the metaphysical arguments involving fact and reality). Politics, religion, language, and music are examples of what the human mind can synthesis within its own domain and is (or should be) constantly challenged and changed -- even if at first, it leads us in a direction that offers nothing helpful. If we are talking about the consistency and apparent meaning of words in the dictionary, there is no doubt that it is always changing and that the very best proof of an argument in these subjects is consensus. ...not especially reassuring for someone looking for ground rules. Mike Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any religious authority to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge. I will certainly not allow Webster's to do so nor will I allow another to control the definitions. To control the definitions is to control the argument which is why, in debate, definitions are first agreed upon. I believe the founding fathers viewed religion much the same as I view religion and that is strictly personal and subjective and not imposed by some outside authority. Ones religion defines for that person ones relation to the cosmos. It is just a person and their relationship to the other. It begins before we are able to understand and once we have that ability we realize how much we will never be able to understand. Perhaps that is where the organized church started...taking this bit and that bit and claiming this is all there is and they know because they have religious authority. Who knows? But I haven't bought that lie and I won't bend over and allow any authority to stick definitions which control my thoughts and world up where the sun doesn't shine. I also will not reject everything any religion says out of hand just because I have found some or even most of their teachings to be false. The baby doesn't go out with the bathwater. I have learned to be selective and to keep the flowers growing in the manure and let the manure lay. We have been on this list for a while and I believe you are aware of how I define religion and that I make a distinction between religion and organized religion. I also believe that you know that Allen was not making that distinction and that the founding fathers do fall into the category of religious men under the terms of my definition and at least for the 13 Freemasons under their terms. So Todd, with whom are you arguing? It appears to me that you are arguing with your own religious background. I have defined my terms from day one here and those men fit my definition which is broad but specific. It allows for anyone regardless of affiliation or lack thereof. It gives one breathing space and allows for differences of not only opinion but also in understanding, discernment, apprehension and definition. Allen would have everyone painted with
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
Homey doesn't buy this either. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Conveniently? Sure, definitions may occassionally need to be modified with time to reflect changes in contemporary usage. But conveniently changed? That implies something akin to overnight change rather than a progressive change. True accademecians loathe outside manipulation. Perhaps you can point to a for instance? Brooke Allen used contemporary definition, in a contemporary writ. Are you proposing that she should have dusted off an aged dictionary of two and one-quarter centuies and use that meaning, when all of the contemporary world is using a different reference book? Perhaps she should have written the article in the King's English as well? Doubtful that such a measure would somehow convey the message more clearly, much less more accurately. Do we even have at hand's length an exact reproduction of the century old definition of religious? If so, or even if not, my bet is that it's not that much different than what exists today. And substituting personal interpretation of a word with the standardized contemporary interpretation isn't exactly a fair exchange. Doing so would force everyone to adopt hundreds of different definitions for the same thing. 1) The generally accepted definition in the public space, and 2) the personal interpretation of any and all, slightly nuanced and tweaked to suit the purpose of each. If you don't much care for double standards, why would you advocate double meanings when none are necessary? Besides this, you know that I makeacleardistinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious Okay. So pray tell, exactly which religions aren't organized? I can't think of one, certainly none within the mainstream of the past four centuries. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. You declared Brooke Allen's statement to be patently or absolutely false. That point is what I took contention with and still do.She lent far more substance to her arguement than others have to the contrary. Beyond that, I don't see anyplace in my response where I interjected any comment as to your personal beliefs or what you personally advocate. The matter of religious relative to the founding fathers was left to reside strictly within their practical exhibition and the definition of the word. If somehow you interpret that as a matter of me directing my remarks against you personally or your personal beliefs, I'll leave that up to you. It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I makeacleardistinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any religious authority to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental urge. I will certainly not allow Webster's to do so nor will I allow
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; the homely everyday atmosphere; a homey little inn Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sorry Gustl, Homey doesn't buy this either. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Conveniently? Sure, definitions may occassionally need to be modified with time to reflect changes in contemporary usage. But conveniently changed? That implies something akin to overnight change rather than a progressive change. True accademecians loathe outside manipulation. Perhaps you can point to a for instance? Brooke Allen used contemporary definition, in a contemporary writ. Are you proposing that she should have dusted off an aged dictionary of two and one-quarter centuies and use that meaning, when all of the contemporary world is using a different reference book? Perhaps she should have written the article in the King's English as well? Doubtful that such a measure would somehow convey the message more clearly, much less more accurately. Do we even have at hand's length an exact reproduction of the century old definition of religious? If so, or even if not, my bet is that it's not that much different than what exists today. And substituting personal interpretation of a word with the standardized contemporary interpretation isn't exactly a fair exchange. Doing so would force everyone to adopt hundreds of different definitions for the same thing. 1) The generally accepted definition in the public space, and 2) the personal interpretation of any and all, slightly nuanced and tweaked to suit the purpose of each. If you don't much care for double standards, why would you advocate double meanings when none are necessary? Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious Okay. So pray tell, exactly which religions aren't organized? I can't think of one, certainly none within the mainstream of the past four centuries. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. You declared Brooke Allen's statement to be patently or absolutely false. That point is what I took contention with and still do.She lent far more substance to her arguement than others have to the contrary. Beyond that, I don't see anyplace in my response where I interjected any comment as to your personal beliefs or what you personally advocate. The matter of religious relative to the founding fathers was left to reside strictly within their practical exhibition and the definition of the word. If somehow you interpret that as a matter of me directing my remarks against you personally or your personal beliefs, I'll leave that up to you. It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender To: Appal Energy Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion. The drive towards religious thought may be as innate as the drive towards personal survival. Religion comes from the inward out and has been with us since before words. I will not allow the Holy Roman church or the Baptist church or any religious authority to define for me what is possibly my most fundamental
Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution
homey - noun - 1) _; 2); 3 Apples to apples please. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Michael Redler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution homey [h#601;#650;mi:]Aadjective1 homelike, homely, homey, homy having a feeling of home; cozy and comfortable; the homely everyday atmosphere; a homey little inn Appal Energy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Sorry Gustl, Homey doesn't buy this either. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Conveniently? Sure, definitions may occassionally need to be modified with time to reflect changes in contemporary usage. But conveniently changed? That implies something akin to overnight change rather than a progressive change. True accademecians loathe outside manipulation. Perhaps you can point to a for instance? Brooke Allen used contemporary definition, in a contemporary writ. Are you proposing that she should have dusted off an aged dictionary of two and one-quarter centuies and use that meaning, when all of the contemporary world is using a different reference book? Perhaps she should have written the article in the King's English as well? Doubtful that such a measure would somehow convey the message more clearly, much less more accurately. Do we even have at hand's length an exact reproduction of the century old definition of religious? If so, or even if not, my bet is that it's not that much different than what exists today. And substituting personal interpretation of a word with the standardized contemporary interpretation isn't exactly a fair exchange. Doing so would force everyone to adopt hundreds of different definitions for the same thing. 1) The generally accepted definition in the public space, and 2) the personal interpretation of any and all, slightly nuanced and tweaked to suit the purpose of each. If you don't much care for double standards, why would you advocate double meanings when none are necessary? Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious Okay. So pray tell, exactly which religions aren't organized? I can't think of one, certainly none within the mainstream of the past four centuries. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. You declared Brooke Allen's statement to be patently or absolutely false. That point is what I took contention with and still do.She lent far more substance to her arguement than others have to the contrary. Beyond that, I don't see anyplace in my response where I interjected any comment as to your personal beliefs or what you personally advocate. The matter of religious relative to the founding fathers was left to reside strictly within their practical exhibition and the definition of the word. If somehow you interpret that as a matter of me directing my remarks against you personally or your personal beliefs, I'll leave that up to you. It's not what was written and the exception which you have taken and/or your apparent umbrage is certainly not warranted. Todd Swearingen - Original Message - From: Gustl Steiner-Zehender To: Appal Energy Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re[4]: [Biofuel] Our Godless Constitution Hallo Todd, Thursday, 17 February, 2005, 20:02:00, you wrote: AE Gustl, AE If you'll notice, the exception that I took was to the absolutism AE that you expressed. The Founding Fathers were not religious men, This bit is absolutely false. Yes, responding in kind to her absolutist remark. Perhaps if not probably not a wise choice, but I did limit it to ONLY that remark and hers is a false premise. The problem I have with your reply is not with you, but with letting others, whether those others be contemporary society or Webster's dictionary for that matter, control my world and conception of reality by controlling the language. Webster's reflects current usage and it seems to me it does conveniently alter meanings with time. Besides this, you know that I make a clear distinction between religion-religious and organized-religion-religious and you also know that I believe in individual liberty and a reasonable separation of church and state. Yet you end this up by apparently arguing against something I didn't say. Nowhere have I ever advocated any specific religion. You are arguing against things in your own head brother, not mine. It is not a far reach to declare that at least 13 of them were religious, and that makes the they portion of Allen's proposition false. It would be a far and impossible reach however to declare that the advocated any specific religion
