>The DC Metro closes at midnight(ish) during the week and 2:00AM on the
>weekends, most "shuttle services" stop at between 10:00PM and 11:00PM...
>It's gonna severely limit off site activities.
Well, it's not ideal but you could always take a taxi.
Landsdowne definitely is really nice, and it's
> One argument I've gotten in the past at this point is "well, it's just a
> term; why do you care?" And my response is always "Why do *you* care what I
> call it?"
David, ya know I really respect you and think you're great and all...
but here's where I stand on this.
I have NO PROBLEM with you
whAAATTT.. sam you have slipped over the edge. As for
the anti-gay-donation list, all other things being equal I would
prefer to send my money elsewhere, and this is not one of my
dealbreaker issues. I just would prefer not to support such ideas.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:36 AM, Sam
and even more cool toys ..
http://www.hawkingtech.com/homeremote/
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hawking's got some great wireless tech out there
>
> http://www.hawkingtech.com/wirelessn/
>
> For you geeks who may be interested. :)
>
Hawking's got some great wireless tech out there
http://www.hawkingtech.com/wirelessn/
For you geeks who may be interested. :)
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the
Proven?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know ... that's too bad. Of course Reid and Pelosi are failures
> too, but nothing close the size of failures you choose.
>
> Instead you supported Bush, Delay, and others who have proven to be
> the ring leaders
> Sam wrote:
> I never supported Reid or Pelosi.
>
I know ... that's too bad. Of course Reid and Pelosi are failures
too, but nothing close the size of failures you choose.
Instead you supported Bush, Delay, and others who have proven to be
the ring leaders of the worst government in American hi
The DC Metro closes at midnight(ish) during the week and 2:00AM on the
weekends, most "shuttle services" stop at between 10:00PM and 11:00PM...
It's gonna severely limit off site activities.
Scott Stroz wrote:
> One of the amenities of the resort is a shuttle service from resort to
> airport and
One of the amenities of the resort is a shuttle service from resort to
airport and metro.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> http://cfunited.com/go/travel
>
> "The CFUnited Conference will be located this year at the Four-Diamond
> Award-Winning Lansdowne
Sure, as long as we're only talking about state-level benefits. Still no
federal social security benefits or joint tax filing status, to name a few.
Oh, and due to the legal limbo related to "marriage" vs. "domestic
partnership," domestic partnerships/civil unions recognized by other states
are r
And you sound so very bitter lol lol!
Anyway, there is your answer.
Unless you prefer the US Taxpayers to pick up the tab on something
that can be very easily distributed over existing infrastructure.
2008/11/17 Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> He is the messiah!
~
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hey if you'd supported the biggest failure in US leadership history
> for a decade anybody would look like a messiah to you too.
I never supported Reid or Pelosi.
> What Sam needs to understand is that while Obama is clear
Ok, so heres his opinions, quoted from him directly, checked by
factcheck.org
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
Provide some common-sense enforcemen
I read that in California domestic partners have all the same rights
as married couples.
That leaves us only with the use of a term and that sounds like a stalemate.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:05 PM, David Churvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One argument I've gotten in the past at this point i
> Vivec wrote:
> And you sound so very bitter lol lol!
>
Hey if you'd supported the biggest failure in US leadership history
for a decade anybody would look like a messiah to you too.
What Sam needs to understand is that while Obama is clearly very
talented he's not a messiah; it's just that comp
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And you sound so very bitter lol lol!
Not nearly as bitter as you.
> Anyway, there is your answer.
>
> Unless you prefer the US Taxpayers to pick up the tab on something
> that can be very easily distributed over existing infrast
The whole context of my argument excludes anything having to do with the
religious aspect of marriage. I don't care if even the great majority of
churches won't marry my partner and I. So just talking about the civil
aspect of marriage...
Let's say that we define marriage as the current relation
He is the messiah!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM, T Milio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why YouTube? Ubiquitous, Populist, and SCALABLE
>
> "At the end of August, as Hurricane Gustav threatened the coast of Texas, the
> Obama campaign called the Red Cross to say it would be routing donations to
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:11 AM, David Churvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You make an excellent point, and in an ideal world, I actually agree with
> you that marriage should be entirely a religious term defined on a
> church-by-church basis as it sees fit, with a separate system of civil
> unio
Why YouTube? Ubiquitous, Populist, and SCALABLE
"At the end of August, as Hurricane Gustav threatened the coast of Texas, the
Obama campaign called the Red Cross to say it would be routing donations to it
via the Red Cross home page. Get your servers readyâour guys can be pretty
nuts, Team Ob
Huh, that's kind of far out there.
> -Original Message-
> From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:30 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: CFUnited2009
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Where is it g
http://cfunited.com/go/travel
"The CFUnited Conference will be located this year at the Four-Diamond
Award-Winning Lansdowne Resort, the capitol region's premier,
full-service resort and executive conference facility in Leesburg
Virginia. Lansdowne Resorts scenic location in Virginia's Wine Co
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is it going to be?
>
> Say Raleigh
>
Raleigh.
But not really. Leesburg, VA
http://cfunited.com/go/travel
--
I have failed as much as I have succeeded. But I love my life. I love my
wife. And I wish you my kind of suc
Where is it going to be?
Say Raleigh
> -Original Message-
> From: Earl, George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 2:25 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: CFUnited2009
>
> Hmmm . . . no comments on the new CFUnited2009 location?
>
> George
>
>
Hmmm . . . no comments on the new CFUnited2009 location?
George
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Free Trial
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f
Archive
1. So what?
2. They still make money.
3. huh? Bush could of released his own OFFICIAL videos on youtube, using
whatever method needed to be used to enforce the "official" source of the
video.
For the record, YouTube is very diligent about taking videos down that
violate their policies.
I'm sure
During the streaming of the video on youtube, there are no commercials. I
can't tell you about any others.
There are ads on the site itself, but not during the video. Not like some of
the news outlets.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They never advertise during
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's the ads that come alongside it that might make money.
What about the tangent clicks you metioned. He's bringing traffic to
there site. It's officially sanctioned by Obama.
> And I'll bet the ads before and after a
Youtube is like Band-aid becoming a word, instead of product. Like
google.
When people think about watching a video of something - they think youtube
first. yes, i'm generalizing. shoot me later.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was asking why it's such a
I was asking why it's such a fantastic idea and I'm starting to see
the beauty of it. Now I'm wondering why he chose only youtube.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey I'm just reading between the lines like everyone else on here :P
>
> I agree the "of
Now you're talking. Agreed.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:43 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's the only thing that worries me toothere's merit in ensuring
> that the ONLY place on the net where you can be guaranteed to see official
> releases from the executive branch of the US
They never advertise during a presidential address. Will youtube do
the same? They're also available to many stations. Will this be
available to all online streamers?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, there is no point here. TV and RADIO both make m
You're an exception :) I know many people that sit for hours glued to
youtube, watching videos. An no Raley, not me :P
People have accounts and comment all day on youtube. Forwarding videos to
friends, etc. It's a community.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm n
You make an excellent point, and in an ideal world, I actually agree with
you that marriage should be entirely a religious term defined on a
church-by-church basis as it sees fit, with a separate system of civil
unions that applies regardless of orientation. However, attempting to
divorce the reli
Are you speaking about Youtube? People surf and look around, or they pay
attention to what gets recommended. User patterns are all over the place.
Not to mention, since youtube allows you to embed their videos on whatever
site you wish to put them on, people on blogs, etc ... might watch a video
t
The use of YouTube as an "official source" is, until they can do
something to guarantee authenticity, if they want to pick it up after
the fact, then it's certainly their prerogative to do so.
It's needs to be distributed from whitehouse.gov, with the understanding
that any other source must pre
I'm not imaging the presidents address being that way but I just watch
what was recommended to me, a few others and I leave. I tried staying
and watching what's popular but became too bored too fast.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, youtube reall
Scott Stewart wrote:
> IMO: if you're against allowing a gay or straight couple to have the
> same rights then it's bigotry..
>
> Sam wrote:
>
>> Basically, marriage is a religious event and if you want to change
>> something, change the name the government uses and leave the term
>> marriage t
Youtube isn't charging Obama a dime to air his weekly "whatever".
It's the ads that come alongside it that might make money.
And I'll bet the ads before and after a government address on TV or Radio
cost more.
And yes, I'd wager Bush would have had a larger audience via youtube.
On Mon, Nov 17,
Do people just sit there and look around or are the popular videos
just recommended more?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Charlie Griefer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm old too... but the numbers don't lie. Which site gets more traffic?
> This isn't about Obama being "The One" (for me, at lea
Hey I'm just reading between the lines like everyone else on here :P
I agree the "official-ness" of the message must be guaranteed some way ...
but what I was hearing from a few of you is that using youtube is bonkers,
for want of another term.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:52 PM, Scott Stewart <[EM
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:32 AM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't get it. Radio make money because you have to buy a spot on the
> radio to make your broadcast.
> TV makes money every time you buy a spot.
> So a website can't make money? Huh?
Not during a government addr
That's the battle you need to fight first, equality through civil
unions. It'll be much easier to win. Once all or most States have it,
the next battle will be easier. That's my point about not being
anti-gay. I'd say anyone against equality under civil union is
anti-gay, and that'll weed them out
uhmmm
When did I say any of this?
There must be great care taken with the "official message" coming from
the president, because internet security has in no way kept up with
internet technology there would be a tremendous ability to skew that
message by simply tossing it out there on YouTub
Erika L. Walker wrote:
> No, there is no point here. TV and RADIO both make money too.
Do they? For state of the union and weekly 'fireside' chat type stuff?
I would of thought that fell under some type of PSA type deal, but I
certainly have never looked at the details.
This is a perfectly acceptable reasoning and there's no reason they can't do
this :)
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The minute a video goes up on whitehouse.gov, I'd have no problem with
> them
> posting it at YouTube as well, but the "official" site shoul
So you don't want "change" from our government. You want it to stay the
same?
Because, whether you like it or not, times are changing. The way people
network is different today. The way people advertise is different. People's
habits are different. How they find out about things no longer hinges on
and that's my position exactly, the federal or state government has no
business recognizing a religious ceremony. The only thing that the
government should recognize is a written legal cohabitation contract,
that conveys the ability to mingle fiduciary responsibility and allows
for insurance co
That's the only thing that worries me toothere's merit in ensuring
that the ONLY place on the net where you can be guaranteed to see official
releases from the executive branch of the US government, is a site that's
controlled exclusively BY the government.
The minute a video goes up on wh
If whitehouse.gov had truly important information for the 'everyman'
then it would be hit more. This sounds like a job for a good marketing
campaign
(and spamming Sam every time it's updated )
"Whitehouse.gov, your one stop shop for easy access to the corridors of
power.."
Charlie Griefer wro
Wasn't there a thread about this last week?
I got into this last year I think and people here get real nasty about it.
Basically, marriage is a religious event and if you want to change
something, change the name the government uses and leave the term
marriage to the religion. Let everyone have t
Purposefully releasing presidential video to a single source just seems
(IMO) not quite above board.
Secondly there's nothing preventing a creative videographer/hacker from
posting doctored "official releases".
I'd rather see it come from whitehouse.gov, with a disclaimer saying if
you see it a
No, there is no point here. TV and RADIO both make money too.
Or is the internet dirty money?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> > Exactly.
>
> Ok.Point taken. Now explain why you feel this is a bad thing.
>
>
~~~
Yes, youtube really works that way.
Don't you ever visit the site? When you watch a video on a subject, you're
presented with other videos that may or may not be related to the one you
just watched. It's fairly easy to go off into tangents on youtube.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Sam <[EMAIL
I'm old too... but the numbers don't lie. Which site gets more traffic?
This isn't about Obama being "The One" (for me, at least). If it were
McCain as the winner doing the same thing, I'd think it was a good idea. A
way to reach the masses and get the message out.
I'm not making commentary on
In answer to your first question, the only criteria for inclusion on the
list is having donated $1,000 or more to the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. I'm
sure someone wouldn't look at an entry for a secretary for Hewlett Packard
and boycott the company based on that, but I'm certainly never using any of
t
I still don't get it. Radio make money because you have to buy a spot on the
radio to make your broadcast.
TV makes money every time you buy a spot.
So a website can't make money? Huh?
You still make no sense. YouTube is going to have a much bigger audience
than the white house website, doesn't ma
Sam wrote:
> Exactly.
Ok.Point taken. Now explain why you feel this is a bad thing.
Just to point out a potential gotcha to just using whitehouse.gov,
infrastructure and hardware. I think I'm comfortable with Google making
a few bucks with the counterpoint that they are also paying for all th
I disagree.
It's all speculation, sure, but from where I'm sitting, the people I know
who are against gay marriage hold their position for two reasons:
1) Religious
2) The "ick" factor
They may dress up their bias as some sort of "protect marriage"
mantrabut that is so easily knocked down it
I'm old. Does youtube really work that way? People hang out waiting
and watching whatever's posted?
I thought most hits came from recommendations and since most people
think Obama is the One they'd gather the family around whitehouse.gov
Saturday morning and watch anyway. Maybe he'll switch it to
I guess one concern I would have about YouTube, is that ANYBODY can post to
it. I mean, what's to keep a tech-savy person from splicing or dubbing an
actual Obama speech to make him appear to say something that he never
actually said? The average YouTube user is probably too stupid to catch a
well-
"I don't consider someone against same sex marriage as anti-gay. I'm
sure some are, but I believe most aren't."
'splain?
If the government would take it's proper stance on the marriage
ceremony, then this would be a non-issue, how is this anything other
than simple bigotry?
Sam wrote:
> How lo
But that's like saying "if people wanted to vote, they'd vote" ... which is
true of course, but what are the statistics on how many eligible Americans
actually vote? Of those people, how many actually take the time to go out
and thoroughly research the candidates? As much as I hate to make a
swee
How low level of a job does the employee have to have to not make it
to the list?
I don't consider someone against same sex marriage as anti-gay. I'm
sure some are, but I believe most aren't.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:06 AM, David Churvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see where your problem lie
As best as I can figure, the Yes on 8 people quite brilliantly reframed the
debate, introducing the lies that:
1) children would be forced to learn about gay marriage starting in
kindergarten, and
2) churches would lose their tax-exempt status if they refused to perform
marriages for same-sex coup
If people wanted to hear him they would. If they thought what he said
was important they'd link to it, and email it.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Charlie Griefer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, no doubt.
> But if his goal is to reach the biggest audience, youtube has a bigger
> audience t
Exactly.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd think that Google, owning YouTube, would stand to make a fortune off
> of the advertising. (IMO) The president(elect) would be better served, by
> posting streaming video to the White House.gov site.
>
> Erik
I see where your problem lies; let me perhaps shed some light on the thought
process. The artistic director of a musical theatre company donated money
to Proposition 8. In any theatre company, Artistic Director is one of the
two highest positions within the organization, and is always ultimately
True, no doubt.
But if his goal is to reach the biggest audience, youtube has a bigger
audience than whitehouse.gov does. I think it's a pretty cool idea, if only
to show that he's willing to use the "right tool" for the job (again,
assuming the goal of the 'job' is to reach the biggest # of peopl
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:57 AM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It already exists:
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/radio/
>
> And Obama will most likely use the radio as well, but as he keeps
> pointing out he's not President yet. As a matter of fact there was an
> Obama radio addres
It already exists:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/radio/
The only difference is now it's commercialized. But we're not making
the money, Google is.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:27 AM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why is seeing him so important?
>
> It's not so much the "seeing him" th
I'd think that Google, owning YouTube, would stand to make a fortune off
of the advertising. (IMO) The president(elect) would be better served, by
posting streaming video to the White House.gov site.
Erika L. Walker wrote:
> It's got nothing to do with Google. What does Google have to do with Oba
It's got nothing to do with Google. What does Google have to do with Obama
using Social Networking to his advantage?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't work for Google.
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Sa
> It already exists:
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/radio/
And Obama will most likely use the radio as well, but as he keeps
pointing out he's not President yet. As a matter of fact there was an
Obama radio address on Friday as well.
> The only difference is now it's commercialized. But we're n
I still don't understand, but that's OK...there's a lot of things I don't
understand. I still think it's the "ick" factor as much as anything.they
think them's people are "icky", so they want to punish them.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Billy Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Such people o
deanna, this worked...
thanks much
sas
Deanna Schneider wrote:
> In pseudo code.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> error!
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hey all..
>>
>> I've got a logic head scratcher here...
>>
>> I have a form with se
I don't work for Google.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Erika L. Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam sam sam ... don't you work in the internet sector?
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramati
Such people operate with a worldview that is zero-sum. If [insert
undesirable group here] gets more rights, I will have fewer rights. If a
middle class emerges in China, the middle class in the USA will recede.
Etc. etc. etc.
People do weird things when they're afraid of losing something of value
That's a different thread, or are you saying they deserve it?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:16 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would someone give away their hard earned money to try and deny simply
> rights to people who's actions in no way infringe on their own lives?
>
> I simply cannot
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:08 AM, David Churvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You and I disagree on whether the epithets at the Palin rally were real, but
> that's immaterial to this. I've already said that anyone who uses racial
> epithets is wrong, and I do care about this issue. I can't fault yo
Sam sam sam ... don't you work in the internet sector?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is seeing him so important? Why not TV if it matters so much?
>
>
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software
> Why is seeing him so important?
It's not so much the "seeing him" that's important. It's the
realization that communications are changing. If radio was as
ubiquitous as it was in the 30s & 40s, he'd be all over that. YouTube
today is a viable form of communication. Additionally with YouTube,
you
Why would someone give away their hard earned money to try and deny simply
rights to people who's actions in no way infringe on their own lives?
I simply cannot wrap my head around such a stupid idea..
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:08 AM, David Churvis <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You and I di
You and I disagree on whether the epithets at the Palin rally were real, but
that's immaterial to this. I've already said that anyone who uses racial
epithets is wrong, and I do care about this issue. I can't fault you for
thinking that "nobody seems to care", but let me assure you that there has
Why is seeing him so important? Why not TV if it matters so much?
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:37 AM, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8f9Zqap6U
>
> Wow.
>
> He has promised to give weekly addresses via youtube.
>
>
~
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 6:35 AM, David Churvis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone who uses racial epithets in any context is misguided, and should not
> be assumed to speak for the gay community, just like right-wing
> fundamentalists who use racial epithets should not be assumed to speak for
> th
Please check all fields
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hey all..
>
> I've got a logic head scratcher here...
>
> I have a form with several sections in it..
> In the last section of the first page of the form, there are five radio
> buttons, each but
In pseudo code.
error!
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all..
>
> I've got a logic head scratcher here...
>
> I have a form with several sections in it..
> In the last section of the first page of the form, there are five radio
> butto
Hey all..
I've got a logic head scratcher here...
I have a form with several sections in it..
In the last section of the first page of the form, there are five radio
buttons, each button has a possible "yes", "no" or "I don't know" answer.
On the form action page I need to do the following:
Anyone who uses racial epithets in any context is misguided, and should not
be assumed to speak for the gay community, just like right-wing
fundamentalists who use racial epithets should not be assumed to speak for
the Christian community. I will say that at the rally I attended on
Saturday, I hea
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not like there is some vetting process on Sundays :)
That's what I've been trying to say! Thanks Loathe.
Brain's not in gear yet.
--
Divine creation hears me
And it squashes me with fear
~~
I've only seen that with people that are taking an active role in the church
and going to paper work role with first communion, confirmation, marriage in
the church and so forth.
It's not like there is some vetting process on Sundays :)
> -Original Message-
> From: C. Hatton Humphrey [ma
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 7:32 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> If he's like most Catholic priests, this isn't 100% accurate.
> Catholics traditionally do not have an "open table" as most protestant
> churches do. Normally someone who is new in a catholic church has to
> meet with
> In fact, you could walk into their service on sunday and get communion.
> Anyone could. They rely on the faithful to determine for themselves if they
> should receive what is, to Catholics, a holy sacrament.
If he's like most Catholic priests, this isn't 100% accurate.
Catholics traditionally do
There's just something funny about a guy who can't get the thing on his
screen to print..so he's going to copy it.
Oh, and any clip where a person talking obnoxiously on a phone gets
smackedis comedic gold.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 7:25 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> >
My Chiefs would be more competitive if they played in the Big Ten.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> would be more competitive if they played in the NFC East.
>
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 soft
Well, for the record, he isn't withholding anything from anyone. He's not
polling people as they come up the communion line to see whom they voted
for. Anyone who voted for Obama can get communion.
In fact, you could walk into their service on sunday and get communion.
Anyone could. They rely on t
> My favorite is the guy who sets his monitor down on the copying
> machineclassic.
I dunno, I think the guy who gets sprayed with the fire extinguisher
in the bathroom was pretty good too!
Though the guy falling through the copier glass was pretty funny too!
My favorite is the guy who sets his monitor down on the copying
machineclassic.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM, Vivec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.metacafe.com/fplayer/1411300/stress_at_work_office_stress_compilation.swf
>
> This is some amusing stuff, I would say it is SFW :-)
=]
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - "Paul Ihrig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ok..for some reason i thought you had found a coupon for cina bun...
> > and i could get a FREE hot warm and sugary bun...
> >
> >
> > but now i am disappointed.
> > and am
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
