David said:
>> Rich, who has, however, argued elsewhere that he thinks that states
>> ought to introduce a kinship registry and cease recognising marriages
>> altogether, leaving them as a private and/or religious matter.
>
> Interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean. (Where's "elsewhere"?)
E
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 09:57:03PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
> In fact, I have had the same BMI at a time when I was woefully out of
> shape as I had a few years later when I'd gotten into the best shape
> of my life, because I'd lost as much fat weight as I had gained muscle
> weight. :)
I th
From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 14:36:47 -0800 (PST)
> What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside f
From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:49:47 +
Travis Edmunds wrote:
>
> I think it's a tad irresponsible, that there isn'
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:04:47 -0600
At 04:01 PM 2/27/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
What e
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:07:10 -0600
At 04:05 PM 2/27/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
Biology taking pre
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:38:32PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
>> You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't
>> be, but I am.
>Funny, the comment didn't even register on me. Most of it is because I
>don't pay a lot of att
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:20:09 -0600
At 12:12 PM 2/27/04, Dave Land wrote:
Travis Edmunds wrote:
But in the gra
At 03:21 PM 2/27/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>>I've explained these things before. I'm not going to do so again, just
>>because _you_ weren't reading.
But honestly, was *anyone* reading?
Or at least reading *and* taking it seriously?
JDG
___
At 02:49 PM 2/27/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Are sterile heterosexual couples denied marriage? What if the couple does
>not want children? IOW, is having children a requirement for marriage?
Of course not. if it were, that would necessitate a post facto way of
invalidating childless ma
At 02:15 PM 2/26/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation
>> > Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the
>> > same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:18:11AM +1100, Andrew Paul wrote:
> Erik, I am a little confused.
I agree.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:26:33 -0600
On the other I find repetitious use of such langu
At 09:35 PM 2/27/2004 + Richard Baker wrote:
>JDG said:
>
>> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there somehow
>> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
>
>If we start from the premise that men and women should have equal
>rights, then it's obvious, is
At 10:19 PM 2/27/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:
>What it says to me is that it is a ban on ALL new marriages both
>heterosexual and homosexual. It will remove all 1049 'marriage' rights
>that now exist for all existing married couples.
Shirley, you can't be serious.
There's the word "require" in t
At 04:47 PM 2/26/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>Actually, speaking purely for myself, I find I'm MUCH more defensive when
>challenged offlist. I _always_ ask why said conversation couldn't take place
>onlist.
I think that you are in the minority in preferring to be criticized in
public, rather
At 05:12 PM 2/26/2004 -0500 Jon Gabriel wrote:
>>A great quote from ABC's The Note blog on the Constitutional
>>Amendment:
>>
>>"Whatever one thinks about the merits of such an amendment, we are
>>amazed (OK: not really) at the degree to which the [mainstream press]
>>casts the President's decision
At 06:05 AM 2/26/2004 -0800 Richard Baker wrote:
>I seriously find it very hard to imagine being freaked out by the idea
>of gay marriage.
I think a lot of people consider marriage to be the fundamental building
block of society.
At this time, this buidling block is, in their minds, being profou
Reviews?
JDG
___
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world,
it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. Bush 1/29/03
__
At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote
>From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>> >To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the
>> >appearance of being a "run with the pack" kind of guy. I don't mean to
Travis Edmunds wrote:
>
> What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being
> labled an obscenity of course.
>
In the recent months, the only time I seriously considered
_censuring_ TV for my kids was when they started asking
questions about astrology, that they got from
Richard Baker wrote:
>
> Even if we disregard polyamorous relationships
> or whatever, surely friendship is one of the bases of civil society -
> so why not formally recognise friendships in law?
>
And what prevents a group of people to create a new firm
whose purpose is just to share their hourse
From: "Robert Seeberger" <[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, 27 Feb 2004 19:14:27 -0600
- Original Message -
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 10:56:24PM +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
> In the recent months, the only time I seriously considered
> _censuring_ TV for my kids was when they started asking questions
> about astrology, that they got from the TV [Nickelodeon].
>
> I find that much more obscene than nak
Andrew said:
> You are calling Jan "Jane", like its> somehow sub-optimal to be a
> women.
Actually, he isn't. He's calling Jan "Jane" because Jan keeps calling
Erik by variants of his name with additional or alternative letters.
Rich
___
http://www.mc
Bob Z wrote:
>
> the current trend seems to be to view the hominids of the last millenia as
> seperate species. the dna evidence suggests that neanderthal was a seperate
> species and erectus was pretty different from sapien.
>
Yes, but there are traces of Neaderthal and "Sinanthropus" erectus th
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
> Speaking of strange and probably unintended consequences of changing the
> subject line . . .
>
Unintended? No, it was intended :-P
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Fool wrote:
>
> Use a password protected screensaver.
>
I gave it up when my kids learned that a simple reset would
remove the screensaver :-)
Alberto Monteiro
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: Matthew and Julie Bos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 01:16:59 -0500
On 2/27/04 1:04 PM, "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yo
Travis said:
> Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night on TNG.
> If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar with what you
> speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my tongue.
He doesn't mean a physical singularity like the thing in the middle of
black holes:
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote
> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
> >> >To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the
> >> >appearance of
From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 12:18:11AM +1100, Andrew Paul wrote:
>> Erik, I am a little confused.
>I agree.
Well, thats what happens when people don't explain themselves properly.
It was a fairly simple question.
Andrew
_
Travis Edmunds wrote:
> Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night
> on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar
> with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my
> tongue.
The Singularity Robert's talking about is metaphorically like a
black hole
At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the
>Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state
>constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said
>leave it to the
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> And of course, an infertile heterosexual couple can adopt a child while
> meeting that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father.
A
> homosexual couple, by definition, cannot.
>
"that child's reasonable expectations for a mother an
From: Richard Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Andrew said:
>> You are calling Jan "Jane", like its> somehow sub-optimal to be a
>> women.
>Actually, he isn't. He's calling Jan "Jane" because Jan keeps calling
>Erik by variants of his name with additional or alternative letters.
Yes, quite pos
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
> >Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally,
the
> >Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their
state
> >constitution that can counter the court
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:41:40AM +1100, Andrew Paul wrote:
> Anyway, no matter, they do go on like a pair of old women don't they !
You do go on like a doofus, don't you?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mail
> From: Alberto Monteiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The Fool wrote:
> >
> > Use a password protected screensaver.
> >
> I gave it up when my kids learned that a simple reset would
> remove the screensaver :-)
Login. in NT / 2000 / XP / 2003 the login password is the same as the
screensaver password
At 08:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>"that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father"
>
>How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how many
>orphans or other children put up for adoption or are in foster care? I
>think it's far more important
At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after
>it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate.
>
>Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national
>level: 7 years. Methinks you have your
At 12:58 PM 2/25/2004 -0600 Horn, John wrote:
>> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there
>somehow
>> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
>
>Has it been established that there is a universal "right
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
> >"that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father"
> >
> >How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how
many
> >orphans or other children put up for adoption
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 10:49:18AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
> Given that every child is produced by a mother and a father...
Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then
you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples
anymore, JDG, huh?
--
Erik
Erik said:
> You do go on like a doofus, don't you?
I don't know if Andrew does, but I know I do!
Rich
GCU Single Line Reply
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
> >Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after
> >it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate.
> >
> >Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Reviews?
What kind of sadomasochist would be willing to go see a film that has 45
minutes of nothing but the most viscious bloody torture, almost
pornographic in it's gore?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/ma
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:39:22PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
> Erik said:
>
> > You do go on like a doofus, don't you?
>
> I don't know if Andrew does, but I know I do!
Occasionally, everyone does I think. But your S/N is quite high. So far
as I have seen, his is very low.
--
Erik Reuter
At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>> A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly
>> than that.
>
>Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years.
Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That
proces
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone See "The Passion" Yet?
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 10:46:58 -0600
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Reviews?
What kind of sadomasochis
From: Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:51:02 -0500
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:39:22PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
> Er
> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Reviews?
> >
> >What kind of sadomasochist would be willing to go see a film that has
45
> >minutes of nothing but the most viscious bloody torture,
I think the Fool (again) doesn't understand the movie,
so the only reaction he can have is a knee-jerk one.
Damon.
=
Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum."
http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
> >> A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly
> >> than that.
> >
> >Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2
years.
>
> Kevin Tarr posted t
> From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 09:35 PM 2/27/2004 + Richard Baker wrote:
> >JDG said:
> >
> >> At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there
somehow
> >> exists a universal "right" to marry a person of the same sex.
> >
> >If we start from the premise that m
> From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think the Fool (again) doesn't understand the movie,
> so the only reaction he can have is a knee-jerk one.
Who says I don't understand. I just don't help spread Vile memes which I
happen to disagree with.
_
In a message dated 2/28/2004 9:45:40 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Yes, but there are traces of Neaderthal and "Sinanthropus" erectus that
> are similiar to the sapiens populations that came to the region that they
> lived, suggesting that they _might_ have traded genes.
>
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone See "The Passion" Yet?
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:29:35 -0600
> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone See "The Passion" Yet?
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:11:58 -0600
> From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think the Fool (again) doesn't und
From: Steve Sloan II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:22:33 -0600
Travis Edmunds wrote:
> Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the
> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > > From: John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviews?
> > > >
> > > >What kin
From: Kevin Tarr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: another riddle?
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 17:43:13 -0500
Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on
your left side there is an abyss. On your right s
> From: Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > From: Damon Agretto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > I think the Fool (again) doesn't understand the movie,
> > > so the only reaction he can have is a knee-jerk one.
> >
> >Who says I don't understand.
From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone See "The Passion" Yet?
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 12:35:55 -0600
You are implying that I am somehow against violence. Nothing could be
further fro
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and now New Paltz
Huh?
- jmh
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Travis Edmunds wrote:
> Ah, but if you have ever seen how flies cluster about the brimming milk
> pails on a dairy farm in early summer...
All the dairy farms I've hung out on were using milking machines, no
pails, no access to vast quantities of milk for the flies
Julia
and there w
In a message dated 2/28/2004 7:27:56 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Reviews?
>
> JDG
>
>
Saw the 10:50PM showing as previously stated.
It is a movie.
The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits
actually started, with the credit fo
Jon Gabriel wrote:
>
> >From: "Bryon Daly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
> >Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:39:54 -0500
> >
> >>From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>
> >>
"Ronn!Blankenship" wrote:
>
> At 07:33 PM 2/27/04, The Fool wrote:
>
> >Use a password protected screensaver.
>
> On your TV?
No, use one of these:
http://www.onestepahead.com/jump.jsp?itemID=115&itemType=PRODUCT&lGen=detail&iMainCat=117&iSubCat=27181&iProductID=115&change=117
or
http://tinyur
At 09:42 PM 2/27/04, Doug Pensinger wrote:
What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect
of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred
upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby
second class citizens. IMO it is
At 09:22 AM 2/28/04, Steve Sloan II wrote:
Travis Edmunds wrote:
> Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night
> on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar
> with what you speak of, but it's not exactly rolling of my
> tongue.
The Singularity Robert's talkin
At 09:49 AM 2/28/04, Michael Harney wrote:
From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
> >Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally,
the
> >Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their
state
At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> and now New Paltz
Huh?
That made two of us . . .
-- Ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 04:15 PM 2/28/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits
actually started, with the credit for muppet-controller..
Proof positive that both reviewers ans viewers basically see only what they
want to see.
Sorry. "Huh?", again.
--
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
> >> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> and now New Paltz
> >
> >Huh?
>
> That made two of us . . .
It is a city in New York that has been in the news. The mayor has
re
> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 09:22 AM 2/28/04, Steve Sloan II wrote:
> >Travis Edmunds wrote:
> >
> > > Do you mean (A) singualarity? If so, I saw one the other night
> > > on TNG. If not...then could you explain? I probably am familiar
> > > with what you speak of, but it's
The Fool said:
> The difference is that computer processor speed / # of transistors,
> RAM Size and Hard-Disk storage have all _continued_ doubling every 18
> or so months, and will continue to do so. It's actually slightly
> faster than that (there are two exponents, the rate of doubling is
> als
In a message dated 2/28/2004 3:57:26 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits
> >actually started, with the credit for muppet-controller..
> >
> >Proof positive that both reviewers ans viewers basically se
At 07:13 AM 2/28/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:07:10 -0600
At 04:05 PM 2/27/04
At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
> >> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >> and now New Paltz
> >
> >Huh?
>
> That made two of us . . .
It is a city in New York that
At 05:18 PM 2/28/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/28/2004 3:57:26 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >The spiritually hyper people all left the theater before the end credits
> >actually started, with the credit for muppet-controller..
> >
> >Proof positive
> From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> At 04:59 PM 2/28/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > > At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
> > > >> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >> and now New Paltz
> >
In a message dated 2/28/2004 4:34:06 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> As someone who generally stays until the end of the credits, however, my
> observation is that *most* people do not stay through the credits of *any*
> movie, so I was wondering if your point was ther
Ronn! wrote:
So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide
on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the
above-cited second amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and b
who knows where else in the two years or so
at
> *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment.
>
> Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many
days
> now that this "semicolon" delay has lasted, and San Francisco is
*still*
> handing o
[This goes against conventional wisdom on the Orion's Arm world building list.
Why?]
Once upon a time there was a place called Origin, a ship called Relative, and
a cute little wormhole with two terminii called Wormy. One day Origin on a
whim asked Relative to take one terminus of Wormy on a
Doug Pensinger wrote:
>
> Ronn! wrote:
>
> > So many possible smart-aleck responses come to mind that I cannot decide
> > on the one I like best, so I will respond by simply quoting the
> > above-cited second amendment:
> >
> > "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
I realise that you have to be pretty gutsy to be a conservative on
Brin-L and I hope everyone here appreciates that fact.
We should be thankful that *our* conservatives do not fit any of the
stereotypes of the kind that are common to ...Say USENET.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It doesn't
The Fool wrote:
>
>> I gave it up when my kids learned that a simple reset would
>> remove the screensaver :-)
>
> Login. in NT / 2000 / XP / 2003 the login password is the same as the
> screensaver password (the screensaver 'locks' the computer and you have
> RE-login to get back in).
>
(1) my k
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then
> you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples
> anymore, JDG, huh?
>
But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like,
for example, clones or twins] don't have a sou
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
>
> Erik Reuter wrote:
> >
> > Within a few decades, this will almost certainly be proved false. Then
> > you would have no reason for restricting the rights of gay couples
> > anymore, JDG, huh?
> >
> But children that are not produced by a mother and a father [like,
> for
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 04:52:06PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > At 04:12 PM 2/28/04, Horn, John wrote:
> > >> From: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >> and now New Paltz
> > >
> > >Huh?
> >
> > That made two of us . . .
>
> It is a city in New York
At 09:34 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>Children don't know where children come from until they are told, therefore,
>it is not the child's expectation, but yours.
Nevertheless, we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational
thought would reasonably expect. After all, every
At 04:50 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>> If other
>>states are affraid of "judicial activism", they can amend their own
>>constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution.
>
>I think the argument is that without a national amendment in place, any
>State law or amend
At 12:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0500 Bryon Daly wrote:
>- The political differences between Catholic Church leadership and most
>Protestant leadership these days are rather small, leaving them mostly
>on the same side of the political aisle.
Well, the leadership of the Catholic Church leans very strongly t
At 11:13 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote:
>> You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs.
>> Pennsylvania?
>
>No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey
>v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on
>
At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote:>
>One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is
>the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected.
I can just imagine the outrage if I ever said that "one of the most
irrational of all the conventions of modern s
At 08:11 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
>> >From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their
>lack of
>> repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my
>arguments and
>> opinions are not credible.
>>
>> On the
> > > >- Original Message -
> > > >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:36 AM
> > > >Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECT
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
> Andrew said:
>
> > You are calling Jan "Jane", like its> somehow sub-optim
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo