William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1179714,00.html?=rss
The first laws giving gay people the right to
'marry' are to be
unveiled this week in one of the most significant
changes to Britain's
social make-up since the passing of
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,12592,1179714,00.html?=rss
The first laws giving gay people the right to 'marry' are to be
unveiled this week in one of the most significant changes to Britain's
social make-up since the passing of equal opportunities legislation in
the 1960s.
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:24 AM 3/26/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
This reminds me of a wonderful task set for teachers here recently. The top
8% of students in a subject are given a score of 40+. The required outcome
set for teachers was to increase the proportion of students who achieve this
At 05:53 AM 3/27/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:24 AM 3/26/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
This reminds me of a wonderful task set for teachers here recently.
The top
8% of students in a subject are given a score of 40+. The required outcome
set for teachers was to increase the
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Of the 'believers' on this List, I suspect all have an
above-average IQ (of course, I think _everyone_ here
is above average in the brain category -- else they'd
not be brinellers in the first place).
This reminds me of a wonderful task set for teachers here recently.
At 06:08 PM 3/25/04, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
snipped background info on IQ tests
Much more interesting and useful information (much of it in graphic and
tabular form, so it can't be reproduced here) can be found at
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/index.html
At 06:24 AM 3/26/04, Ray Ludenia wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
Of the 'believers' on this List, I suspect all have an
above-average IQ (of course, I think _everyone_ here
is above average in the brain category -- else they'd
not be brinellers in the first place).
This reminds me of a
Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Debbi said:
[somebody asked]
But what if I don't believe in God?
[I think Kneem responded]
That means you are above average in intelligence
and education.
My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
significant closed head injury)
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
snipped background info on IQ tests
Much more interesting and useful information (much of it in graphic
and tabular form, so it can't be reproduced here) can be found at
http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/index.html and its subpages.
That was actually rather interesting.
On 24 Mar 2004, at 6:33 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I suppose the IQtest.com might be roughly equivalent to the Cattell
test (have the same SD in other words) (Every IQ test has a mean of
100).
Assuming you know how many ounces in a pound (aren't there different
ounces and pounds for
Yowza - I got 160.
Anyone else been tested at multiple points in their past? If
so, have you maintained your score?
Yes.. Nothing personal but this test of way off of other tests I have seen
in the past. It is inflated about 15-25 points in my estimation. Since it
uses speed of thought as
At 12:33 AM 3/24/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So I suppose the IQtest.com might be roughly equivalent to the Cattell
test (have the same SD in other words) (Every IQ test has a mean of
100).
Assuming you know how many ounces in a pound (aren't there different
ounces and pounds for different
At 08:19 PM 3/22/04, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:05:29PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
But as I said, I don't think this calculation answers the question at
all,
By totally missing the point, you have perhaps provided a useful data
point...
That at least one believer is
At 12:41 AM 3/23/04, Richard Baker wrote:
Ronn! said:
This calculation seems to include some unstated assumptions about the
distribution of intelligence in believers . . .
Does it? I said very clearly let's assume...
Do we really need to remind everyone of what happens when you ass-u-me? ;-)
Ronn said:
In this particular case, while I find no fundamental fault with the
mathematical reasoning used, istm that said reasoning and the
calculations which follow are essentially meaningless in determining
the solution to the question being posed, because the assumption made
at the
At 03:40 AM 3/23/04, Richard Baker wrote:
Ronn said:
In this particular case, while I find no fundamental fault with the
mathematical reasoning used, istm that said reasoning and the
calculations which follow are essentially meaningless in determining
the solution to the question being posed,
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:04:03 -0600
At 01:11 PM 3/19/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
And the truth is, nobody really
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 12:55:09 -0600
Travis Edmunds wrote:
-Travis still lazy Edmunds
And I figure you're
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:46:43 -0500 (EST)
Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games, My brain is
bigger than yours
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:19:54 -0600
If it had a maximum score, it wasn't the standard IQ test, and so
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:35:11 -0800
You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15
At 08:25 AM 3/23/04, John Doe wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:19:54 -0600
If it had a maximum score, it wasn't
John Doe wrote:
...
You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15
minutes.
Just as a test, I did it in ONE minute but marking random
responses. The results are below:
Subject:
[SPAM] Your IQ Test Results
...
Thank you for taking the IQ Test at
Travis Edmunds wrote:
Jim Sharkey
Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games, My
brain is bigger than yours. :)
I love that game! Who wants to play?
*Measures head* Well, unless my skull's even thicker than I thought,
looks like I've got a pretty good head start. :) *Ducks
Julia Thompson wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry. Sounds like you're ready for
that favorite of Brin-L games, My brain is bigger than yours. :)
Is that the one where someone mentions SAT scores as well, and
then someone else says the numbers don't really matter?
On 23 Mar 2004, at 2:23 pm, John Doe wrote:
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:35:11 -0800
You can do
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 10:55:04 -0500 (EST)
Travis Edmunds wrote:
Jim Sharkey
Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games
So I suppose the IQtest.com might be roughly equivalent to the Cattell
test (have the same SD in other words) (Every IQ test has a mean of
100).
Assuming you know how many ounces in a pound (aren't there different ounces and pounds
for different things?) and how much a nickel and a dime is.
William T Goodall wrote:
You can do a free IQ test at www.iqtest.com in under 15 minutes. Which
I just did. I'm not sure how accurate it is. I got an IQ of 154 which
is 'genius' level according to them. That probably makes me an
underachiever :)
Just did. 156 out of 200. According to them
Jim Sharkey wrote:
John Doe wrote:
The test I took had a maximum score of 150, which gives me a score
of 137/150 * 100% = 91.3%.
Not that I'm bragging or anything. :-)
Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry. Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of Brin-L games, My brain is bigger than
Erik said:
Yes, I think atheists are less than 10% in America (much less, I
think).
Let's suppose that they make up 10% of the population. Furthermore,
let's assume that 90% of the atheists are smart and 10% stupid. Then if
we pick a hundred representative people, we can expect one stupid
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 09:17:10PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
Let's suppose that they make up 10% of the population. Furthermore,
let's assume that 90% of the atheists are smart and 10% stupid. Then if
we pick a hundred representative people, we can expect one stupid
atheist, nine smart
Erik said:
18%
Yes, you're right. I stupidly calculated 9/41...
Rich, who is his own counterexample!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sonja van
Baardwijk-Holten
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 02:44 AM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: IQtest.com, was Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
William T Goodall wrote:
You
At 03:17 PM 3/22/04, Richard Baker wrote:
Erik said:
Yes, I think atheists are less than 10% in America (much less, I
think).
Let's suppose that they make up 10% of the population. Furthermore,
let's assume that 90% of the atheists are smart and 10% stupid. Then if
we pick a hundred
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 06:05:29PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
But as I said, I don't think this calculation answers the question at
all,
By totally missing the point, you have perhaps provided a useful data
point...
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
Ronn! said:
This calculation seems to include some unstated assumptions about the
distribution of intelligence in believers . . .
Does it? I said very clearly let's assume...
Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:23:32 -0600
If we were to turn the word well as in well above average into a
percentage
John Doe wrote:
The test I took had a maximum score of 150, which gives me a score
of 137/150 * 100% = 91.3%.
Not that I'm bragging or anything. :-)
Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry. Sounds like you're ready for that favorite of
Brin-L games, My brain is bigger than yours. :)
Jim
At 07:03 AM 3/21/04, John Doe wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:23:32 -0600
If we were to turn the word well
If it had a maximum score, it wasn't the standard IQ test, and so the
number you are quoting is not an IQ as it is normally understood. Quite a
few people have IQs over 150. A very few have IQs over 200. Where did
you take this test that claimed to be an IQ test with a maximum score of 150?
On 21 Mar 2004, at 4:19 pm, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 07:03 AM 3/21/04, John Doe wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004
Jim Sharkey wrote:
John Doe wrote:
The test I took had a maximum score of 150, which gives me a score
of 137/150 * 100% = 91.3%.
Not that I'm bragging or anything. :-)
Sounds like bragging to me, Jerry. Sounds like you're ready for that
favorite of Brin-L games, My brain is bigger than
Debbi said:
But what if I don't believe in God?
That means you are above average in intelligence and
education.
My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
significant closed head injury) disagree with your
supposition.
Of course, if A implies B that doesn't necessarily mean
Rob said:
JD, with an IQ of 137
Mine is 158.
105, last time I took a test.
Rich, who doesn't think they measure anything interesting anyway.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:58:38PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
Debbi said:
But what if I don't believe in God?
That means you are above average in intelligence and
education.
My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
significant closed head injury) disagree with your
Erik said:
But in this case, doesn't it? If his assertion, that not believing in
god puts you above average, then the group believing in god must be
below average (or else the undecided group is large and well below
average thus allowing the other two groups to be above average).
The Fool
Richard Baker wrote:
Erik said:
Or are you playing at something Garrison Keillor'ish?
I've never even heard of Garrison Keillor. Should I have?
Well, if you were in the US and prone to listen to public radio (at
least prone to it at a certain time), then you should have.
I'm guessing
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:25:25PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
The Fool asserted that if you don't believe in God then you are
automatically above average. To disprove this, you'd have to find an
atheist who was below average in intelligence and education.
That would be one way, but Why would
Erik said:
That would be one way, but Why would you have to do it that way? Why
can't it be disproved by showing that the group that believes in god
is NOT below average?
Okay, so I should have said that the only way to disprove the Fool's
position based on the characteristics of one person
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:50:38PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
I don't know about that. Even so, I still don't think that would
disprove the Fool's assertion. In this case, There could be very
many smart people like Debbi indeed and still the atheists could in
principle all be all smarter
At 05:59 PM 3/21/2004, you wrote:
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:50:38PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
I don't know about that. Even so, I still don't think that would
disprove the Fool's assertion. In this case, There could be very
many smart people like Debbi indeed and still the atheists could
Richard Baker wrote:
Rob said:
JD, with an IQ of 137
Mine is 158.
105, last time I took a test.
Rich, who doesn't think they measure anything interesting anyway.
Yeah, right... : ) You probably transposed a couple digits.
I never took an IQ test, but did take the SATs (750,
David Hobby wrote:
I never took an IQ test, but did take the SATs (750, 800). Mensa
is prepared to consider scores on a bunch of tests, which could
give one rough equivalences if they cared. (That was as of a
couple of years ago. I just looked, and they seem to be more
cagey about what
Julia Thompson wrote:
David Hobby wrote:
I never took an IQ test, but did take the SATs (750, 800). Mensa
is prepared to consider scores on a bunch of tests, which could
give one rough equivalences if they cared. (That was as of a
couple of years ago. I just looked, and they seem
- Original Message -
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Rob said:
JD, with an IQ of 137
Mine is 158.
105, last time I took a test.
Rich
In my case, I think that learning being so easy for me, made me lazy.
Not having to work very hard to learn encouraged a lot of bad habits.
Any advantage I might have ever had I pissed away.
And I'm still lazy.
rob
This matches what I could have written about myself. Though there were
other
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:45:56 -0600
Travis Edmunds wrote:
The prating FOOL shall fall
Not sure where
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:47:02 -0600
JD, with an IQ of 137
Mine is 158.
Mine is 89. Is that high?
Wanna
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 01:13:08 +
JD, with an IQ of 137
Isn't that close to being retarded?
No, anything
- Original Message -
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 4:04 AM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:45:56 -0600
Travis Edmunds wrote:
The prating FOOL
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:21:12 +0100
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs
Travis wrote:
Don't feel bad. Just believe it's big, and then it's not a lie.
THEN...when you tell everyone how big it is, it's true. Does that make
any sense?
As long as you don't set off the metal detectors...
--
Doug
___
At 01:19 PM 3/20/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 14:21:12 +0100
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs
In a message dated 3/20/2004 6:24:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
again by the definition of IQ scores 0 are impossible.
-- Ronn! :)
Has anyone ever given a ghost an IQ test in a seance?
Totally bored minds want to know.
Vilyehm Teighlore
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: 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
But what if I don't believe in God?
That means you are above average
At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote:
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: 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
But what if I don't believe in God?
John Doe wrote:
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
But what if I don't believe in God?
I don't think that makes a difference as long as She believes in you. ;)
Ritu
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote:
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the
world,
it is God's gift to humanity. -
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 11:52:39 -0600
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Doe wrote:
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
But what if I don't believe in God?
I don't think that
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: The Fool
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 08:17 AM 3/19/04, The Fool wrote:
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
But what if I don't believe in God?
That means you are above average in intelligence and
education.
My M.D. and my well-above-average IQ (even after a
significant closed head injury) disagree with your
supposition.
At 01:11 PM 3/19/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
And the truth is, nobody really knows. Unless of course you're privy to
some information that the rest of us mere mortals are not.
Oh, I am. But I don't think the rest of you mortals want to know what came
to pass in the privy . . .
-- Ronn! :)
At 06:03 PM 3/19/04, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
- Original Message -
From: John Doe [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
- Original Message -
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
But what if I don't believe in God?
That means you are above average
Travis Edmunds wrote:
The prating FOOL shall fall
Not sure where that is exactly, but it's in the bible.
Proverbs 10:8
The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool shall
fall.
Proverbs 10:10
He that winketh with the eye causeth sorrow: but a prating fool shall
fall.
http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnists/michaeljohnmccrae/
article103.html
Gays are nothing more than misguided unbelievers that need direction
and instruction in the ways of righteousness. If they come to know the
True and Living God of Heaven (not some form of made up god) then
- Original Message -
From: John Doe [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL
On 19 Mar 2004, at 9:02 pm, John Doe wrote:
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 08:17:40 -0600
But what if I don't believe in God
Julia Thompson wrote:
http://www.steakandbjday.com/
Basically just declares the day and explains why.
This is the best holiday ever. EVER. :)
Jim
Marking this one on his calendar Maru
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized
--- Tom Beck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just like defenders of Bush try to point out that
Clinton was also a
draft-dodger. Perhaps, but Clinton didn't go around
posing like a macho
idiot or lie to the American people in order to
launch an aggressive
war of conquest.
In fact, I believe
- Original Message -
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!
Gee Ronn, I didn't know you cared!
G
xponent
If You Love
From: Gautam Mukunda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In fact, I believe that Baghdad will be renamed George
Bush City next week, if my secret memo from the Vast
Right-Wing Conspiracy is correct.
I believe that my personal profit-sharing as a junior
member of the VRWC from the oil revenues
Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 10:53 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
A big giant
At 11:34 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Mmmpfh, mmpfh, MFFPH!
Gee Ronn, I didn't
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 11:34 PM 3/15/04, Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
to
Brin-L.
1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly.
Maybe he was hungry and hallucinating what he wanted to eat . . .
And remember, no one sucks you into anything
, 2004 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
A big giant THANK YOU to Robert Seeburger for posting the flame-bait
to
Brin-L.
1 If you're going to bitch, at least spell my name correctly.
Maybe he was hungry and hallucinating what he wanted
DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry
Nancy
Reagan who bore him a daughter 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him
through the
long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt
The bottom line - Don't let gays destroy marriage - that's
the job of the Republicans!
Looking deeper, this is nothing more that Serial Polygamy. The only
difference is the time line it occurs. There are laws against parallel
polygamy, but not serial polygamy.
You are right... Its
On 15 Mar 2004, at 11:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bottom line - Don't let gays destroy marriage - that's
the job of the Republicans!
Looking deeper, this is nothing more that Serial Polygamy. The only
difference is the time line it occurs. There are laws against parallel
polygamy, but not
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 7:23 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
On 15 Mar 2004, at 11:16 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The bottom line - Don't let gays
That would be the Catholic interpretation of
Christianity. Didn't the
schisms start with Henry VIII's desire to get
divorced several times?
That or execute those pesky exes :)
Nope. It started some 500 years earlier over disputes
over papal supremacy...
Damon, why does the Eastern
At 05:47 PM 3/15/2004, you wrote:
DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
snip
The bottom line - Don't let gays destroy marriage - that's the job of
the
Republicans!
rob
I know how this game is played! If I wasn't in the military, I can't have
an opinion about it. If I was in the military
- Original Message -
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
At 05:47 PM 3/15/2004, you wrote:
DEFENDERS OF THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE
snip
The bottom
1 - 100 of 109 matches
Mail list logo
