Re: A reasonable view.

--- Tom Beck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, that was of course part of his madness, but it > is reasonable to > argue that he was more against the Jews than he was > for the Aryans. > After all, he materially damaged Germany's chances > of winning the war > in the East (or at least of forest

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

William T Goodall wrote: > My little sister (a home delivered breach-birth so she has to be > excused)[1] [2] > [1] My dad was a medical student for while. He got tubercolosis which > scuppered things a bit and eventually scraped together enough credits > to graduate and become a school-teacher

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

On 21 Feb 2004, at 1:10 am, Travis Edmunds wrote: In order to simplify my position, allow me to just say that God (as a concept) is delivered to us as an infinitely loving and powerful being. We are also led to believe that through prayer we can on some level communicate with God. Now shouldn't

Re: A reasonable view.

Since pretty much the entire basis of Hitler's reality was that he had to come to power in order to rid Germany (and the world) of the Jews. I thought it was to fulfill the destiny of greatness for the Ayrian people. The Jews were the main enemy who needed to be eliminated to stop them from int

Re: A reasonable view.

- Original Message - From: "Tom Beck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 8:53 PM Subject: Re: A reasonable view. > Of course, then, they wouldn't be the Nazis, would they? Sure, I was just giving another way to see why Isr

Re: A reasonable view.

Of course, then, they wouldn't be the Nazis, would they? Since pretty much the entire basis of Hitler's reality was that he had to come to power in order to rid Germany (and the world) of the Jews. If the Nazis treated the German Jews the way the government of Israel treats its Arab citizens th

Re: A reasonable view.

- Original Message - From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 8:37 PM Subject: Re: A reasonable view. > > On 21 Feb 2004, at 1:24 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/20/2004 4:39:26 P

Re: Scouted: Nuclear waste court woes

- Original Message - From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Scouted: Nuclear waste court woes > But we don't _live_ there for years. Here is an > abstract which urges caution in in

Re: A reasonable view.

On 21 Feb 2004, at 1:24 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/20/2004 4:39:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Someone can believe, for instance, that Isreal's policies are bad, but they always get classified as anti-semitic for stating as such. Bob Z replies: This

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

Now shouldn't we, if God does indeed answer our prayers, need nothing else other than prayer? Prayer is about more than asking for things. Jewish prayer involves giving praise and thanks, expressing wishes and hopes, confessing sins and pledging to do better, as well as asking for things. And

Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

On 20 Feb 2004, at 6:04 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> It appeals to me no more than turnip does. And I hate, hate, hate turnip!!! Of course I understand that other people like turnip, so dig in. I never met a vegetable I didn't like with the possible exce

Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

- Original Message - From: "Gary Nunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 7:06 PM Subject: RE: High School Beauty Contest Sexist? > > > Our local high school is putting on a beauty constant as a > > fund raiser. The con

Re: A reasonable view.

In a message dated 2/20/2004 4:39:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Someone can believe, for instance, that Isreal's policies are bad, > but they always get classified as anti-semitic for stating as such. Bob Z replies: This is completely untrue. There is much criticsm o

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 23:58:02 + On 20 Feb 2004, at 11:24 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:50 PM 2/20/04

RE: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

> Gary Nunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [Dan wrote] > > Our local high school is putting on a beauty > constant as a > > fund raiser. The contest includes several > sections: beach > > wear, talent, formal wear, and Q&A. My question > for the list > > is do you think this is inherently sexist;

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:24:16 -0600 At 04:50 PM 2/20/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: Fair enough. One always needs t

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few > > months. > > Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women > who were having troubling getting pregnant,

Re: Scouted: Nuclear waste court woes

Top post: merely late reply as opposed to really, really late reply still-to-come... ;) > Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > I've looked up the total risk, and after 200 > years it approaches that of > > > the ore that was origina

RE: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

At 07:06 PM 2/20/04, Gary Nunn wrote: > Our local high school is putting on a beauty constant as a > fund raiser. The contest includes several sections: beach > wear, talent, formal wear, and Q&A. My question for the list > is do you think this is inherently sexist; or could it be OK? > Dan M. Gh

RE: In defense of Biblical marriage

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:21:44 -0600 At 12:16 PM 2/20/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL P

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:56:16 EST > Fair enough. One always needs to hope from time to time. But hope is > perpetually optimistic. And it's been my experi

RE: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

> Our local high school is putting on a beauty constant as a > fund raiser. The contest includes several sections: beach > wear, talent, formal wear, and Q&A. My question for the list > is do you think this is inherently sexist; or could it be OK? > Dan M. Gheeezzz, all of you that have repl

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

Well sure. And you can make exactly the same objection to ANY reason ANYONE puts forward for doing ANYTHING. The measure of a measure taken is of course not the sincerity of the person taking it, but its effect on others. I'm simply saying that Judaism believes in more than mere faith as a guide

brain damage from low-level EM fields

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040219075606.htm Prolonged exposure to low-level magnetic fields, similar to those emitted by such common household devices as blow dryers, electric blankets and razors, can damage brain cell DNA, according to researchers in the University of Washingto

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

On 20 Feb 2004, at 11:24 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 04:50 PM 2/20/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: Fair enough. One always needs to hope from time to time. But hope is perpetually optimistic. And it's been my experience that optimism is in most cases, a complete disregard for the truth. Isn't i

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: In defense of Biblical marriage >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:53:23 EST >Judaism >teaches us that we are His partners in completing His creation. In Hebrew >it's >called Tikun Olam, "hea

Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:57 PM > > To: Killer Bs Discussion > > Subject: Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions > > Against Polygamy > > >

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

At 04:50 PM 2/20/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: Fair enough. One always needs to hope from time to time. But hope is perpetually optimistic. And it's been my experience that optimism is in most cases, a complete disregard for the truth. Isn't it awfully depressing to live your life always be expec

RE: In defense of Biblical marriage

At 12:16 PM 2/20/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:02:22 -0600 At 08:46 PM 2/19/04, Travis Edmun

RE: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy

> -Original Message- > From: Jan Coffey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:57 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions > Against Polygamy > > > I'm not religious, (not morman) and I know of many triples who li

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

> Fair enough. One always needs to hope from time to time. But hope is > perpetually optimistic. And it's been my experience that optimism is in most > cases, a complete disregard for the truth. > I can't _prove_ faith, and I'm not trying to. I was merely putting forth the position (or, rather,

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:53:23 EST > I don't necessarily think that's true. Especially since prayer is the > action. Besides, if one has to "balance" praye

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment)

John, I assume you've been watching the news about the semicolon that saved San Francisco. It's been nice having something to cheer about while watching the local newscast. :-D I presume by the smiley that you aren't serious. Surely that kind of judicial ruling is not good for a free society.

Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

On 20 Feb 2004, at 2:21 pm, Dan Minette wrote: Actually, it was a slightly trick question. The contest in question was the "Mr. Woodlands" contest. It was so popular, I couldn't get it late to see my son's performance, even though I had a ticket, because the fire marshal insisted that no more

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

At 12:37 PM 2/20/2004, you wrote: On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few > months. Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women who were having troubling getting pregnant, w

Re: Lith ab-Lesh

On Monday 2004-02-16 18:24, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > > What is the proper scientific way to say that an > > >creature looks similar > > > to a Terran animal? Analogous (sp)? > > > > Saem > > Superfluous Analogous Evolutionary Matc

Re: BRin-L - are we average?

> Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > > > My personal experience tells me that 40-60% of > women I have dated were > > > Bi (to varying degrees) and I would suspect the > > > numbers are similar for men. > > >

Re: the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy

I'm not religious, (not morman) and I know of many triples who live very happily. I don't know of many quads who last long, they usualy end up in smaller groups, but 3 does seem to be the magic number for many. I take issue with the assumption that this is always sexist. What about 2 males and

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On 20 Feb 2004, at 3:45 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twi

Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Our local high school is putting on a beauty > constant as a fund raiser. > The contest includes several sections: beach wear, > talent, formal wear, and > Q&A. My question for the list is do you think this > is inherently sexist; or could it be OK? T

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Bryon Daly wrote: > > >From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few > >months. > > Or not! I think breastfeeding can hold off ovulation, but my wife would > always tell her patients not to rely on that and that they needed t

Re: A reasonable view.

You are correct in the abstract, but perhaps less so in the concrete. So many critics of Israel actually ARE motivated by anti-semitism that it is only prudent to wonder at first. So many proponents of so-called "states' rights" really ARE and WERE motivated by racism that again, one's first tho

Re: A reasonable view.

I disagree. That automatic questioning, that first assumption is akin to intolerance. Many things are not as you say necessarily correct. Reverse implications and knee-jerk emotions are places where differences become intolerance and even hate. Someone can believe, for instance, that Isreal's

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Julia Thompson wrote: > > The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of > the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his > mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the > batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the dad is an obst

Re: the Strategic Blunder that is the Iraq War

--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: < 008900464819>> > > First, Confessore quotes James Webb, secretary of the Navy during the > Reagan administration, writing in USA Today: > > "Bush arguably has committed the great

Re: In defense of Biblical marriage

> I don't necessarily think that's true. Especially since prayer is the > action. Besides, if one has to "balance" prayer with something, anything, > then it kind of defeats the purpose in the first place doesn't it? > Not in Judaism. At least not in Conservative Judaism. There's something Napo

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

At 10:59 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Spacing births every 2.5 years might be best for both mother and all children after the first. Spacing the children 2.5 miles apart after they are born is also better for both mother and children . . . -- Ronn! :) ___

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (wasRE: Hate_Amendment)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 06:44:56PM -, iaamoac wrote: > Actually, it was irrelevant Erik. Hardly. It is a similar problem, but you treat it doesn't seem to offend you, since it doesn't hamper your efforts to coerce others to follow your whims. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (wasRE: Hate_Amendment)

--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This > was a relevant counter-example Actually, it was irrelevant Erik. I asked whether a particular judicial ruling is good for a free society, and he brought up a judicial ruling that is over a decade old, without ever respo

Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:21:29 -0600 - Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:

RE: In defense of Biblical marriage

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:02:22 -0600 At 08:46 PM 2/19/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

- Original Message - From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:15 AM Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica > > I think what made Nirvana so "great" can be summed up in one word - > INNOVATIVE. Cobain could do a lot wi

RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 13:19:13 -0500 (EST) Travis Edmunds wrote: >What was Maiden like? Great. The only thing that I didn't like was the

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Erik Reuter wrote: > Or they could go continuously but 180 degrees (4.5 months) out of > phase... You need at *least* 3 months to recuperate. A year is a lot better. Well, it's probably more "really want" 3 months to recuperate, than "need". My wife is ju

Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:21:34 + On 18 Feb 2004, at 5:24 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: William T Gooda

RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

From: "Chad Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:12:43 -0800 you would love The Great Kat http://www.greatkat.com/ , who has created

RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica

From: "Chad Cooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Killer Bs Discussion'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 10:52:50 -0800 In regards to Metallica... They really suck. They used to be the best at w

RE: love/hate

From: Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: love/hate Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 21:39:48 -0500 Crom! I go looking for a song and wind up on this site: http://www.lovehate.com/music.htm (Third album, Spinning Wheel). That'

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average?(wasRE: Hate_Amendment)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 12:25:52PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: > Surely it's not entirely relevant since there's an agenda behind it. > Of course, with kneem, there's _always_ an agenda. (He must sleep with > Jim Marrs books under his pillow.) > > As for my not posting, to heck with that. :-D How d

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 08:34:29AM -0800, Chad Cooper wrote: > Does anyone find this ironic that the Missionary position AKA Front > Penetration, was thus named so from Catholic Missionaries who found > the rear-entry position used by savages to be unnatural. Which irony was what got me thinking

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 10:59:52AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > And you don't ovulate the day after you give birth -- it can be a few > months. Do you know if it can be speeded up by the drugs they use on some women who were having troubling getting pregnant, who then seem prone to have quintup

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average?(wasRE: Hate_Amendment)

From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average?(wasRE: Hate_Amendment) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:24:23 -0500 On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 11:17:

Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

At 06:56 PM 2/19/04, Dan Minette wrote: >Our local high school is putting on a beauty constant as a fund raiser. >The contest includes several sections: beach wear, talent, formal wear, and >Q&A. My question for the list is do you think this is inherently sexist; >or could it be OK? I don't thi

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > > > Personally, I think that if a lesbian couple were trying to maximize > > the procreation, a good schedule would be one has a baby, the other > > has a baby a year later, the first has her second a year af

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:21:17AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > > > > > You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is > > > > the benefit of pro

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: > > >The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of > >the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his > >mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the >

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (wasRE: Hate_Amendment)

> Surely such baiting and trolling attacks would be > better launched in > private. Not for him, since he has an agenda and will use as many opportunities as he can to push it forward, no matter the relevance. Damon. = Damon Agre

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

> Which is why I support the National Doggie-Style Amendment. > As anyone who has been to the zoo knows, front penetration is > unnatural. We should not provide government incentives to, > for example, Catholics who engage in the unnatural act of > front penetration. Any savages who copulate on

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (wasRE: Hate_Amendment)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 11:17:57AM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: > >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Surely the kind of judicial ruling that let Treasonous Iran-Contra > >Conspirator Poindexter go free is not good for a free society. > > Surely such baiting and trolling attacks would be better

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 07:21:53AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > Which is why birth rates are measured per woman, not per couple. Which is both irrelevant and, being an absolute statement requiring only one exception, not true. But such nonsense to avoid the issue is not unexpected, JDG. -- E

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (wasRE: Hate_Amendment)

From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (wasRE: Hate_Amendment) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:00:52 -0600 > From: John D. Giorgis <[EM

RE: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment)

From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 07:29:04 -0500 At 01:57 PM

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:26:55AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > Personally, I think that if a lesbian couple were trying to maximize > the procreation, a good schedule would be one has a baby, the other > has a baby a year later, the first has her second a year after that, > etc. But that's not

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On Fri, Feb 20, 2004 at 09:21:17AM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > > > You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is > > > the benefit of producing children at twice the rate?

the Hate Amendment compared to Gov't actions Against Polygamy

<> ... The Historical Assault on Mormons: But the attacks on polygamy should evoke a more historical American shudder that should make conservatives think twice before equating their intolerance of gay marriage with intolerance for poly

SCOUTED [Goatpost]: Political bull . . .

<> ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

the Strategic Blunder that is the Iraq War

<> The Greatest Strategic Blunder In Modern Memory I get the impression from casual conversation and reading the papers that a lot of Americans understand that Junior lied to get us into Iraq, but they don't th

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

At 09:26 AM 2/20/04, Julia Thompson wrote: The biggest family I know of personally (as in, having met members of the family and talked to them in person) has the oldest child in his mid-to-late 20s and the 12th one is on the way. One set of twins in the batch, the rest singletons. Oh, and the da

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:09:18PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: > > > From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > > > You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by > > > > artificial insemination. They could produce children

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Julia said: > > World domination. > > By whom, exactly? A race of atomic superwomen? Rich, who was somewhat surprised to learn that an Italian town is going to start paying EUR10,000 for each baby born there: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3252794.stm __

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote: > > At 01:09 PM 2/19/04, Jon Gabriel wrote: > >>From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Subject: Re: Federal Marriage Amendment > >>Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:53:41

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

Erik Reuter wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > > > You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is > > the benefit of producing children at twice the rate? > > World domination. By whom, exactly? Julia just curious... _

RE: In defense of Biblical marriage

At 08:46 PM 2/19/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "xBrin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: In defense of Biblical marriage Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 02:51:14 -0600 Any good religious person believes prayer should be ba

Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

At 06:56 PM 2/19/04, Dan Minette wrote: Our local high school is putting on a beauty constant as a fund raiser. The contest includes several sections: beach wear, talent, formal wear, and Q&A. My question for the list is do you think this is inherently sexist; or could it be OK? No. If you chan

Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Hate_Amendment)

> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 01:57 PM 2/18/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: > >I assume you've been watching the news about the semicolon that saved San > >Francisco. It's been nice having something to cheer about while watching > >the local newscast. :-D > > I presume by th

RE: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

From: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Our local high school is putting on a beauty constant as a fund >raiser. >> The contest includes several sections: beach wear, talent, formal >wear, and >> Q&A. My question for the list is do you think this is inherently >sexist; >> or could it

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

From: Alberto Monteiro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Alternatively, a lesbian couple could pair with a compatible gay male >> couple, and sperm from both men could be inserted inside both women. >> One child could live with the men and one with the women (assuming they >> don't all want to live tog

RE: Communitcation tactics(was Thoughts on gay marriage?)

> Julia, everything I know about persuasion as a science > confirms that you are correct. Non-confrontational > persuasion works best. Outright attacks hardly work at all. I think that's so true, in private communication. But what about when there's an audience? What if your point is not to pe

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

Andrew P said: > LOL, yes thats almost perfect. > You just forgot to mention the Torquemada girdle. And... the powered armour? Rich, who thinks the twins should start a revolution on the Moon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Federal Marriage Amendment

From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>>Erik Reuter wrote: >>> > >>> > JDG wrote: >>> > >>> > > "I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have >>> > > children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of >>> > > adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions

Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

- Original Message - From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:09 AM Subject: Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist? > > - Original Message - > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Kil

Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment)

At 01:57 PM 2/18/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote: >I assume you've been watching the news about the semicolon that saved San >Francisco. It's been nice having something to cheer about while watching >the local newscast. :-D I presume by the smiley that you aren't serious. Surely that kind of jud

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

>>Erik Reuter wrote: >> > You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by >> > artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE RATE >> > of a heterosexual couple. Which is why birth rates are measured per woman, not per couple. JDG - Nothing like the real thing

Re: High School Beauty Contest Sexist?

- Original Message - From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:56 PM Subject: High School Beauty Contest Sexist? > Our local high school is putting on a beauty constant as a fund raiser. > The contest inclu

Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

Kevin Tarr wrote: You are still sending it 8bit transfer-encoded and getting the list attatchment. Not a big deal though. At least the mystery of the phantom attatchments is solved. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I did everything I could to turn that off. There is an encoding choice

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 02:09:18PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: > From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Erik Reuter wrote: > > > You know, a lesbian couple could have BOTH members impregnated by > > > artificial insemination. They could produce children at TWICE THE > > > RATE of a heterosex

Re: Federal Marriage Amendment

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:41:14PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote: > You are completely wrong in your arguments. This is nonsense. What is > the benefit of producing children at twice the rate? World domination. > I think all heterosexual woman should be sterilized and only lesbians > should be a

Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?

You are still sending it 8bit transfer-encoded and getting the list attatchment. Not a big deal though. At least the mystery of the phantom attatchments is solved. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] I did everything I could to turn that off. There is an encoding choice but it's for attachment

Re: Polygonorrhea

Steve Sloan wrote: > >> No more! I found the magic word that I had to utter! >> >> The spell is >> >> glEnable(GL_DEPTH_TEST); > > Whoops! I never even thought of that! > I _said_ I was a newbie! :-) The problem is that the tutorial explains how to draw a (rotated, isolated) face, and then when

Re: BRin-L - are we average?

Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> As Dan touched upon in an earlier post, "intimacy" >> seems often to be confused with "sexuality," which >> seems to be one of the memes that we as a society >> inherited from the Puritan world-view. > > Only in America > FWIW, also in Brazil. Intimacy among women is s

  1   2   >