On Dec 6, 2004, at 6:37 PM, JDG wrote:
At 11:24 AM 12/6/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:
I like Dan's parsing of JDG's statement, but I see where Nick's coming
from, too. At the risk of drawing unwarranted conclusions about his
motives, JDG may want to have both ways: he posts (I read: "endorses")
an ar
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dave Land wrote:
> Again, thank God for my 7-year-old, who gives me an excuse to enjoy
> badgers, lost frogs, and other such mindless Internet nonsense with
> absolutely no shame.
I have no 7-year-old yet, and I've been enjoying this sort of stuff for
years, without apology
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Erik Reuter wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 06:10:47PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
>
> > I'm just curious, but what exactly is the nature of your benchmark?
>
> The parimutuel "market", of course.
Where do you get the information? 5 years ago, the local paper printed
84 brings back memories of a VAXing youth.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Dec 6, 2004, at 8:09 PM, Andrew Paul wrote:
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that you miss the Christian perspective here: it is impossible
to
game the system, dealing with someone who knows you better than you
do:
God. It has to be more than an admission of sin, it has to b
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 02:09:15PM +1100, Andrew Paul wrote:
> except on certain occasions). And your example was what I was asking,
> if one can just repent, or one can be "pre-saved" what is the point.
Pre-emptive penance?
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > I don't think that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton as an
> > > "evangelical."
> > >
> > He's a Baptist. He fits within a broad category of
At 09:01 AM 12/6/2004 -0800 Nick Arnett wrote:
>I don't even know what you're betting on, Dan. I read an article that
>suggested the Democratic party might never win another election
>("perpetual defeat"). It was posted here by JDG, but JDG says he didn't
>bring up the idea that the Demcratic
At 01:09 PM 12/6/2004 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
>I think (and I believe that JDG thinks) that he was quoting an article that
>was interesting, but too pessimistic for the Democrats. The article also
>give perpetual defeat as only a possible outcome, if the Democrats don't
>rethink their emphasis.
At 11:24 AM 12/6/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:
>I like Dan's parsing of JDG's statement, but I see where Nick's coming
>from, too. At the risk of drawing unwarranted conclusions about his
>motives, JDG may want to have both ways: he posts (I read: "endorses")
>an article that presents evidence that t
On Dec 6, 2004, at 6:30 PM, Dave Land wrote:
In this vein:
http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgers.php
Probably nothing new to many, but a perennial favorite of my own.
Again, thank God for my 7-year-old, who gives me an excuse to enjoy
badgers, lost frogs, and other such mindless Internet nonsen
On Dec 6, 2004, at 5:18 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Dec 6, 2004, at 5:30 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
http://www.lostfrog.org/95.html
In case someone thinks they have to click through the pics.
In this vein:
http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgers.php
Probably nothing new to many, but a perennia
On Dec 6, 2004, at 5:30 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
http://www.lostfrog.org/95.html
In case someone thinks they have to click through the pics.
In this vein:
http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/badgers.php
Probably nothing new to many, but a perennial favorite of my own.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 06:10:47PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote:
> I'm just curious, but what exactly is the nature of your benchmark?
The parimutuel "market", of course.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman
On Dec 6, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Recognition of the present as the only observable reality. I don't
torture nuns because I would not like it if someone were to torture
me.
That's a reflection of "do onto others as you would have them do un
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Somethin' I'm warren about
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 19:34:29 EST
I read in the paper that the cannibals are opening a Buffet.
Whenever the hardwood floor in our family home lacked a certain luste
Julia Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:31 PM
>> Subject: Re: Brin: Re: Misc stuff
>>
>>
>>
>>> I'll lea
Dan Minette wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Brin: Re: Misc stuff
>
>
>
>> I'll leave it at that before I get really worked up about a certai
Julia Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dave Land wrote:
>
>> On Dec 3, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.lostfrog.org/index.html
>>>
>>> I've found it highly amusing. The 62nd one in particular. (I'm
up
>>> to
>>> 74.
>>> Don't know how many there are.)
>>
>> I won't
Erik Reuter wrote:
> Checking in on the results
>
> A correct pick gets +1, an incorrect pick gets -1, and an abstain is
0
> (just like you bet $1 at even odds on each of the picks).
>
>> So, here is the benchmark for this week:
I'm just curious, but what exactly is the nature of your benchmar
- Original Message -
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 5:33 PM
Subject: Re: Br!n: Re: Misc stuff
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Julia
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dan Minette wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Brin: Re: Misc stuff
>
>
>
> > I'll leave it at that before I get
- Original Message -
From: "Julia Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: Brin: Re: Misc stuff
> I'll leave it at that before I get really worked up about a certain
> representative from anothe
- Original Message -
From: "Richard Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
> Rich, who doesn't think most atheists are decent people because of their
> la
Dan Minette wrote:
You are reading it wrong. No Christians think that we earn salvation...
Ah, but I'd hazard that we all act that way sometimes.
Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
>
> Recognition of the present as the only observable reality. I don't
> tortu
Warren said:
> That's the short-form answer to the question of why atheists aren't
> all thieving psychotic murderous drooling perverts.
So it's just me then?
Rich, who doesn't think most atheists are decent people because of their
lack of beliefs about metaphysics any more than he thinks that m
On Dec 6, 2004, at 1:30 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
However, lets assume that the system can be gamed...just for the
purpose
of arguementation. Then, Christians should expect to have the same
results
after they die, whether their actions are all good or all evil. This
is,
essentially, the percepti
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dave Land wrote:
> On Dec 3, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> > http://www.lostfrog.org/index.html
> >
> > I've found it highly amusing. The 62nd one in particular. (I'm up to
> > 74.
> > Don't know how many there are.)
>
> I won't spoil it for anyone, but the
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:39 AM
Subject: RE: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
> From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > I don't think that it is ac
On Dec 3, 2004, at 6:53 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
http://www.lostfrog.org/index.html
I've found it highly amusing. The 62nd one in particular. (I'm up to
74.
Don't know how many there are.)
I won't spoil it for anyone, but there are plenty more after 62 (which
didn't do much for me). My 7-year-
On Dec 6, 2004, at 9:01 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
which adds JDG's comment that this analysis, while quite interesting,
is
too gloomy.
I'll put a beer down on my bet, Nick. :-)
I don't even know what you're betting on, Dan. I read an article that
suggested the Democratic party mig
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
> Dan Minette wrote:
>
> > which adds JDG's comment that this analysis, while qui
On Dec 5, 2004, at 3:12 PM, JDG wrote:
At 09:50 AM 12/3/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote:
What John did was a textbook straw man. Easy to knock down, but
just as easy to recognize for what it is.
Tell me Dave, what precisely was the straw man?The part about "so
it
begins"?Or maybe the "payba
On Dec 5, 2004, at 4:21 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
JDG wrot:
What hath JDG wrot?
The Miami Herald argues this week that the UN is letting another
Srebenica
happen all over again, this time in slow motion
What is "a" Srebenica?
"A" situation where the rest of the world (and its representative
Dan Minette wrote:
which adds JDG's comment that this analysis, while quite interesting, is
too gloomy.
I'll put a beer down on my bet, Nick. :-)
I don't even know what you're betting on, Dan. I read an article that
suggested the Democratic party might never win another election
("perpetual defe
- Original Message -
From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Rating the Presidents Re: The Prospect on the Future of
theDemocrats
> --- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh please.
--- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh please. While historians find Presidential
> documents to be absolutely
> invaluable for a number of purposes, the exercise of
> rating Presidents is
> not one of them.
That might have been true in the 19th century, John,
but it's certainly not true today.
--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, while the numbers aren't as bad as they were for
> the Republicans in the
> '30s, they are definately going in the wrong
> direction for the Democrats.
>
> Dan M.
One more point to add to that list. In the popular
vote, no Democrat has drawn more
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: The Prospect on the Future of the Democrats
> JDG wrote:
>
> >>And thus the Democratic party has no future? Ridiculous.
> >
>
JDG wrote:
And thus the Democratic party has no future? Ridiculous.
So ridiculous, in fact, that I am not aware of anyone on this List who has
said such a thing.
Least of all me.
Not that that apparently would stop you
Do the words "in my opinion all too gloomy for the Democrats...
assessm
Checking in on the results
A correct pick gets +1, an incorrect pick gets -1, and an abstain is 0
(just like you bet $1 at even odds on each of the picks).
> So, here is the benchmark for this week:
>
> FAVORITE:
>-1 Baltimore
>+1 Buffalo
>+1 Detroit
>+1 Indianapolis
>-1 Minnesota
>
42 matches
Mail list logo
