Folks,
George "I don't need a permission slip" Bush evidently needs one from
Condi to go potty:
http://tinyurl.com/df5gl
Dave
PS: I understand what it is to be in a position of responsibility in
a meeting where every minute counts...
___
http:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru
What about Thanksgiving '75?
A
On Thu, 12 May 2005 21:06:39 -0500, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru
What about Thanksgiving '75?
--
Doug
hmmm, where w
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpy back camels and some chimpanzees
Julia
Ask Me About Thanksgiving '75 Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ronn! wrote:
I wrote:
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are
not_!!!
--
Doug
So there maru
Can't argue with logic like that . . .
What's logic got to do with it? 8^)
You'll See Green Alligators And Long-Necked Geese Maru
Humpty back camels and a brace o' fleas?
--
D
At 05:55 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Debbi wrote:
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And what sort of a teal, anyway?
Oh...oh, *dearie* me.
Debbi
Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:}
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are not_!!!
--
Doug
So t
Debbi wrote:
Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And what sort of a teal, anyway?
Oh...oh, *dearie* me.
Debbi
Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:}
Well, anyway, mine are _pink_ when they are visible, which they _are
not_!!!
--
Doug
So there maru
__
At 03:18 PM Thursday 5/12/2005, Deborah Harrell wrote:
> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've told you before: they're not pink, they're
> sort of a teal. And you
> can see them just fine if you put a narrow-pass
> Lyman-alpha filter in front of your detector.
Ohdear. This is
- Original Message -
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical
QuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
> On May 12, 2005, at 2:09 PM
On May 12, 2005, at 2:09 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
It was the one written collectively at a retirement village filled
with
Catholic one legged seamen.
There are hints and suggestions of lewd jokes right under the surface
of that statement, but I can't quite seem to get hold of one.
Perhaps it'll c
- Original Message -
From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions
RE:RemovingDictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
> > Dan Minette <[
> Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Ohdear. This is what happens when you send
> > before reading all posts in the relevant thread...
> >
> > Debbi
> > who is nevertheless _mostly_ certain that she was
> > the first to point out Their T
- Original Message -
From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing
DictatorsRe:Peaceful changeL3
> Ohdear. This is what
> Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And what sort of a teal, anyway?
Oh...oh, *dearie* me.
Debbi
Cinnamon Teal Flight Path Maru`:}
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
_
> Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've told you before: they're not pink, they're
> sort of a teal. And you
> can see them just fine if you put a narrow-pass
> Lyman-alpha filter in front of your detector.
Ohdear. This is what happens when you send before
reading all posts
> Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The invisible pink unicorns told me to
> help out here. God, I hate them!
_How_ many times must I say it?!! They're
teal-pointed* -- not pink, fuschia or rose-colored.
*-pointed refers to the coloring of the lower legs,
head or ears, and mane/tail
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
> As far as I can see, in periods during which nothing much changed
> during a generation, many could survive by accepting what they were
> told.
On 6 May 2005, Julia Thompson asked
How often did things change significantly over the course of a
gener
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: blah, blah, blah . . . Date: Thu, 5 May
2005 14:01:00 -0700
As I see it the problem is not religion; it's undisciplined, irrational
thought -- and
Erik Reuter wrote:
> * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that
>> you
>> frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks.
>
> Awww, poor Dave. Can't think. Likes to whine. Aw.
Eating more bran might help with that attitude, dude!
On Fri, 6 May 2005 00:01:30 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> As to fear being present with anger in all cases ... that's a very
> interesting idea, and my inclination is to agree with your
> assessment. If anger is (in essence) a response to perceived threat -
> - any perceived threat -- it could
Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Dave Land is surely correct when he says that
I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored ...
After all, the children who didn't, died.
But I am not so sure that
... listening *critically* to authorities even more so.
As far as I can see, in p
On 5 May 2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days
about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us
simply accept them without question.
Yes. There is no way to avoid having to accept most things. People
lack the time a
On May 6, 2005, at 6:23 AM, Keith Henson wrote:
At 01:28 AM 06/05/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
snip
For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm
currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay,
straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more.
At 01:28 AM 06/05/05 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
snip
For years I have struggled with the idea of sexual orientation. I'm
currently of the inclination that it doesn't exist objectively. Gay,
straight or in-between are, to me, ideas, nothing more.
Given the scientific evidence piled up in the la
At 12:29 AM Friday 5/6/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so
that
^ s
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Thanks for reminding me: the other pathetic logical fallacy that you
> frequently engage in is ad hominem attacks.
Awww, poor Dave. Can't think. Likes to whine. Aw.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
__
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
One more time: it is foolish religious people that are the concern, not
the existence or non-existence of some god. Do you accuse psychiatrists
who want their patients to stop talking to invisible pink unicorns of
being worried about the existence of s
On May 5, 2005, at 3:28 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear.
Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie
behind
anger, I tend to think that fear is always there.
>From William T Goodall
>
> On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote:
>
> >> WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational
> >> claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith
> >> made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
> >>
> >
> > Do y
On May 5, 2005, at 7:23 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Also, it apparently matters to you that there is no God, or you
wouldn't
continue spamming the list with your refutations.
You know, atheists getting pissed off about others' faith seems
classically sysiphian. There are about 220 million of us opposed
On May 5, 2005, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Lack of evidence for something is evidence against it. Overwhelming
lack of evidence for something is overwhelming evidence against it.
That's a fair premise, I think.
The claim is that there is a god, omniscient, omnipotent, created the
unive
On May 5, 2005, at 6:38 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote:
I bet that listening to authorities is evolutionarily favored, and
listening *critically* to authorities even more so. Categorically
disregarding authority is no better than categorically following
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
and (in my estimation) it is profoundly intellectually arrogant -- as
well as probably disprovable -- to suggest that atheism is an
insulation against nonsense.
I don't think atheism is insulation against nonsense. I think atheism
is an indica
On May 5, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so
that
^ some ^ foolish
Another argument from conclusion
* Ronn!Blankenship ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Repetition does not establish veracity.
You have repeatedly established what your thoughts are worth, Ronn.
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 09:44 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >>The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so
> >>that
> >
> >^ some ^ foolish
>
> Anoth
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> >>The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so
> >>that
> >
> >^ some ^ foolish
>
> Another argument from conclusion.
>
> Also, it apparen
On 6 May 2005, at 3:19 am, Dave Land wrote:
WTG: No, they aren't actually. "There is no God" is a rational
claim based on evidence. "There is a God" is a statement of faith
made in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Do you have evidence of the non-existence of God, or do you me
On May 5, 2005, at 6:44 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that
^ some
^ foolish
Another argument from conclusion.
Also, it apparently matters
William,
WTG: The idea that I might accept something just because somebody
said so is hilarious!
DML: Categorically disregarding authority is no better than
categorically following them: it is equally foolish.
WTG: I think you missed the 'just' in 'just because' in the last
sentence you quoted.
At 08:38 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote:
It's a good thing that nobody in a position of authority ever told
you that if you put a loaded gun into your mouth and pull the
trigger, you might injure yourself, and you felt the need to prove
th
At 07:05 PM Thursday 5/5/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
> faith.
And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
"there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> The statements "There is [a/no] God" matter to people so much so that
^
some
^
At 04:58 PM 05/05/05 -0700, Dave wrote:
snip
And, naturally, anti-religious belief. "There is a God" and "there is no
God" are equally statements of faith.
Of course, "There is no God but we regret this fact and are working to
correct it." is the project statement for the friendly AI project.
Ke
On 6 May 2005, at 12:58 am, Dave Land wrote:
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned
that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about
two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and
On May 5, 2005, at 5:05 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
"There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
faith.
And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
"there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are
equall
On 5/5/05, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
> > faith.
>
> And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
> "there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pi
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> "There is a God" and "there is no God" are equally statements of
> faith.
And "there are fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" and
"there are no fearsome, invisible, undetectable pink unicorns" are
equally statements of faith.
But "there are ba
On May 5, 2005, at 4:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
I've been disregarding authority figures my entire life. I learned
that 'hot' really was bad by sticking my hand in a fire when about
two. I've argued with teachers all the way through school and
university, and been flung out of a few classes
On 5 May 2005, at 10:01 pm, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On another list there's been a discussion in the last few days
about the findings of science, and particularly how many of us
simply accept them without question.
For example many adults know that our solar system is heliocentric
and Earth i
On Thu, 5 May 2005 14:01:00 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> Sometimes, it seems to me, anger is really a masking emotion for fear.
Only sometimes? How about always? Although other things may lie behind
anger, I tend to think that fear is always there.
Nick
__
On May 5, 2005, at 11:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
The reverse is true of course -- if a believer becomes enraged at the
suggestion a god doesn't exist, the question "why" is very pertinent.
I've never been religious. I get annoyed about people
On 1 May 2005, at 8:31 am, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two
broad categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they
don't believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just
can't believe. It seems to me that the angrier
Look, this flame bait is really kind of over the top now, isn't it?
Obviously there's a history here, but frankly what that history is
applies only because those involved are choosing to make it do so.
I don't think goading or coy allusions to prior misdeeds by
(apparently) now-banned posters i
On 5/4/05, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
> > At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
> >> On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> >>
> >>> At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
> On May 3, 2005, at 10
On May 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and
At 09:25 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would
force them to serious
On May 3, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that
would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold
At 03:30 PM Tuesday 5/3/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On May 3, 2005, at 10:45 AM, Horn, John wrote:
Behalf Of God
Try this: ask people like Nick, Erik and JDG some questions that would
force them to seriously rethink their attitudes and opinions; hold them
accountable for what they say and do on this lis
- Original Message -
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips
> At 11:45 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
> >> O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote:
> >
At 09:24 PM Monday 5/2/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:32 AM Monday 5/2/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
The invisible pink unicorns told me to help out here. God, I
hate them!
I've told you before: they're not pink, they're sort of a teal. And you
can see them just fine if y
On May 2, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:32 AM Monday 5/2/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
The invisible pink unicorns told me to help out here. God, I
hate them!
I've told you before: they're not pink, they're sort of a teal. And
you can see them just fine if you
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:32 AM Monday 5/2/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
The invisible pink unicorns told me to help out here. God, I
hate them!
I've told you before: they're not pink, they're sort of a teal. And
you can see them just fine if you put a narrow-pass Lyman-alpha filter
in front
At 06:32 AM Monday 5/2/2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Unfortunately, this list has had extensive experience testing this.
> I tend to ignore nasty one liners unless I can just turn thembut
> tend to counter arguments which actually have a point. FWIW, my
>
At 10:43 AM Monday 5/2/2005, God wrote:
God -- wondering if this (and My previous message today) will ever make it
to the list.
They did . . . but I guess that those list members who don't believe the
sender exists will never read them . . .
:P
-- Ronn! :)
"People who want to share their religi
> Behalf Of JDG
>
> Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed
that
> justification for Gulf War II required the US getting an explicit
> reauthorization of the use of force from the UNSC?
Do you disagree that there were/are many conservatives who believed
that the justificati
At 10:21 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
>>> It eventually becomes "common
>>> knowledge" that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask
>>> other
>>> nations to be allowed to take action.
>>
>> Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that
>> justification for Gu
At 11:45 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>> O.k., here is the famous Kerry quote:
>>
>> "No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor
>> would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United
>> States of America.
>> But if and when you do it, Jim, you ha
Maru Dubshinki wrote:
> On 5/1/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
>>
>>> Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to
>>> get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior?
>>
>> Free speech.
>>
>> M
> Behalf Of Dan Minette
>
> Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be
suppressed
> anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets
> angry at the
> suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues
> with respect to
> God has real validity. People who are ve
On May 2, 2005, at 4:32 AM, JDG wrote:
At 10:59 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
It eventually becomes "common
knowledge" that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask
other
nations to be allowed to take action.
Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that
justif
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 5:43 AM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
>
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -070
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 5:32 PM
> To: Killer Bs Discussion
> Subject: Re: Permission Slips
> Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Permission Slips
Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: List manager ethos (was Re: Permission Slips)
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 20:42:42 -0700
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> Out of curiosity, why is it
At 10:59 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> It eventually becomes "common
>knowledge" that those damn liberals are demanding that the US ask other
>nations to be allowed to take action.
Do you disagree that there were/are many liberals who believed that
justification for Gulf War II required th
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Unfortunately, this list has had extensive experience testing this.
> I tend to ignore nasty one liners unless I can just turn thembut
> tend to counter arguments which actually have a point. FWIW, my
> friendly local therapist is of the opinion that
On 5/1/05, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
>
> > Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to
> > get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior?
>
> Free speech.
>
> More seriously... our list m
On May 1, 2005, at 7:49 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Anger can be a reaction to fear...just as depression can be suppressed
anger. I think your suggestion that any atheist that gets angry at the
suggestion that God exists has unresolved personal issues with respect
to
God has real validity.
It makes se
On Sun, 1 May 2005 22:16:13 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > O.k. Dan, call me crazy, but doesn't the word "approve" imply, well,
> > "approval?" And isn't that far more akin to "getting permission" than
> to "serious consideration"?
>
> But, he was referring to Kerry
- Original Message -
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 11:16 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips
> At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
> >Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with
>
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:26:05 -0400, JDG wrote
> At 10:07 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
> >> But Dave, finish connecting the dots! ...
> >
> >
> >
> >I didn't come up with the "permission slip" metaphor, but hear this:
> >
> >I. Understand. The. Difference.
>
> Great!Perhaps you could he
On Sun, 01 May 2005 23:42:56 -0400, JDG wrote
> John Kerry, however, much like Nick and Dave have done on this list,
> however, very often made statements that conflated "serious consideration"
> with "approval."
You are imagining that, but by no means is it worth arguing about.
Let me ask ins
At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>Kerry explictly stated that he did not agree with
You got cut off here.
>How about this; show me a quote that from Kerry stating that UN approval is
>required for US military action, and I'll concede the point. I'll
>seriously consider any that indicate
At 10:58 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan M. wrote:
>Iraq is a unique situation because it is a war of choice against a country
>that posed no direct threat to the US.
You are pretty amazing Dan.
"I've had one position, one consistent position, that Saddam Hussein was a
threat. There was a right way to d
- Original Message -
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips
> At 10:16 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> >> At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
At 10:16 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>> At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>> >
>> >Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't
>approve
>> >as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few
>> >persistent critics. In fact, in the global
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to
> get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior?
Free speech.
More seriously... our list managers (Julia, myself and Dave Land as backup)
have a very stron
- Original Message -
From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips
> At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >Senator Kerry denounces American action wh
At 09:14 PM 5/1/2005 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
>
>Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve
>as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few
>persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan
>and Iraq, President Bush has
- Original Message -
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE:Removing
Dictators Re:Peaceful changeL3
> It depends on whether
> I commented before that I think atheists can be divided into two broad
> categories: Those who are angry at their god and so say they don't
> believe as an act of defiance; and those who really just can't believe.
> It seems to me that the angrier an atheist gets at the suggestion there
> might
At 08:36 PM Sunday 5/1/2005, Dave Land wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >> True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that
> >> context, since it w
- Original Message -
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion"
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: Permission Slips
Re:RhetoricalQuestionsRE:RemovingDictatorsRe:PeacefulchangeL3
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, War
Dave Land wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
>> On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>>
>>> * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>>>
True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that
context, since it was about an issue that ca
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:31:38 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> > * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >> True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that
> >> context, since it was about an issue that called for serious
> >
On May 1, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 02:31 AM Sunday 5/1/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to
get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior?
"Cuz others f
At 02:31 AM Sunday 5/1/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to get
away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior?
"Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D
Could
On Apr 30, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Out of curiosity, why is it that Erik and a few others are able to
get away with incessant windbaggery and insulting behavior?
"Cuz others find _that_ as funny as the Three Stooges? :D
Could be, could be ... the thought occurs, though, that co
At 10:31 AM Friday 4/29/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:07 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
True, indeed. It *was* nonsensical to use that metaphor in that
context, since it was about an issue that called for serious
consideration. I don't know wn
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
