"and you believe they were rebelling against god choosing a leader for them
vs rebelling against having a monarch?"
I believe what? I don't recall saying anything like this.
"Ok, so now you're admitting that the law against buying beer on Sunday
probably doesn't have any basis in religion bec
On Feb 13, 2013, at 2:41 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "so your evidence for your argument is that in some places, you cannot buy
> beer on Sundays."
>
> No, it's no my evidence. It's just a fact. One in which you still cannot
> give a reason for.
>
and neither can you. It's an obtuse law.
"so your evidence for your argument is that in some places, you cannot buy
beer on Sundays."
No, it's no my evidence. It's just a fact. One in which you still cannot
give a reason for.
I can't figure out why you are so adamantly trying to defend the argument
that Bible is no longer relevant to
Bigotry is a hard battle and it seems only persistence can correct it.
It doesn't always work but it's always worth the fight
.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Are you sure about that? Have any opinions changed? I could cite a
> number of studies that have looked at t
Are you sure about that? Have any opinions changed? I could cite a
number of studies that have looked at this area, specifically
motivated reasoning (look it up), but it would not change much if
anything.
But in essence you are just affirming your beliefs, not convincing anyone.
On Tue, Feb 12,
l.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 1:25 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer Breakfast Speech
"We were originally talking about how the law system is (or is not) based on
the 10 commandments."
No. We were originally discussing your statement:
ahhh
ok
.it's a long thread and I guess I didn't go back far enough.
so your evidence for your argument is that in some places, you cannot buy beer
on Sundays.
what about recognition of a divorce
.that seems to go against the religion.
what about being allowed to work on Sunday?
what about al
"The West Wing based a show on that joke"
Yeah. I know. Even so, it's still pretty funny.
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.
- Henry Kissinger
Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel,
go out and buy some more tunne
The West Wing based a show on that joke
.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> On the issue of the Bible and laws, I find the following pretty humorous:
>
>
>
> Dear Dr. Laura,
>
> Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
> learned a great de
On the issue of the Bible and laws, I find the following pretty humorous:
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
"We were originally talking about how the law system is (or is not) based
on the 10 commandments."
No. We were originally discussing your statement:
"The bible is not relevant to the workings of today society. "
This led to the ten commandments.
So, if you cannot buy beer on a Sunday befor
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer Breakfast Speech
On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> " I don't remember anything in the bible saying you couldn't buy beer
> on Sunday? "
>
> Sure. But why is Sunday spec
The Domesday Book and the Magna Carta was based on Anglo Saxon common
law...not Christian law...
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 8:41 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer Breakfast Speech
Sunday blue laws, for the most part, derive from the puritan laws based on
their interpretation of the commandment to "remember the Sabbath and keep
it holy".
The first mention of worship on Sunday is a ruling from Emperor Constantine
that the people observe the Sun's Day. This was issued while
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:10 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> >
> > " I don't remember anything in the bible saying you couldn't buy beer on
> > Sunday? "
> >
> > Sure. But why is Sunday special?
>
> Exactly, why is sunday special
.My guess that whom
On Feb 13, 2013, at 10:49 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> " I don't remember anything in the bible saying you couldn't buy beer on
> Sunday? "
>
> Sure. But why is Sunday special?
Exactly, why is sunday special
.My guess that whomever made this law thought it
was special. Why is beer special?
" I don't remember anything in the bible saying you couldn't buy beer on
Sunday? "
Sure. But why is Sunday special?
"Beyond the mention of Sunday, what is the relation?"
You tell me. You seem to be indicating that it has nothing to do with
religion.
"If we really passed laws based on judeo
yeah, but what do you think it was based on? I don't remember anything in the
bible saying you couldn't buy beer on Sunday? Beyond the mention of Sunday,
what is the relation?
People may think they're passing laws based on the 10 commandments and the
bible, but they're only really passing th
That says common laws are based on Christian laws
We went full circle.
.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Rember that the Doom book was based on Germanic customs, as well as
> incorporating the 10 commandments, Mosaic Code and the Christian code
> of ethics.
> http://e
I'm sure you can find real issues because the Sabbath doesn't seem to be one.
The Hebrew Bible doesn't specify whether it's the first or last day
and the new testament says something about it being man's day.
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Perhaps it is harsh. I think wh
Rember that the Doom book was based on Germanic customs, as well as
incorporating the 10 commandments, Mosaic Code and the Christian code
of ethics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_book
So yes the blue laws are based on common law.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
"I dont think the "no refrigerators can be sold on Sunday" law was
based on English
Common Law."
What about no beer sales before 12:00 on Sundays?
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.
- Henry Kissinger
Politicians are people who, when they see light
The _structure_ of law is derived as you said (with some local innovations).
Individual laws are not just derived from there, but from a combination of
many places, usually following societal rules and religious rules that
either the majority held in common, or that a minority could slide through
"Hypocrisy, thy name is The Church. No argument there."
Which is serious problem for Churches. It's hard to convince some to come
to church when hypocrisy is easily found in in churches.
It may be an unfair standard though if you believe the doctrine that all
are sinners. Church goers are sin
Jerry, US law is derived from British Common Law. That comes from
Alfred the Great's 9th century Doom book, which codified the laws of
Kent, Wessex, Mercia with Germanic tribal customs and Jewish and
Christian principles.
So yr both wrong :P
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson
I just meant that "corruption" was a harsh (and seemingly judgmental) word
to describe the shift of the Sabbath from Saturday to Saturday night to
Sunday night over the course of 2000 years.
Hypocrisy, thy name is The Church. No argument there.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:49 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
I don't think corruption is a serious enough word for the crimes of the
catholic church.
On Feb 12, 2013 6:40 PM, "Maureen" wrote:
>
> Perhaps it is harsh. I think what bothers me is their insistence on exact
> observation of certain laws, such as those they claim prohibit
> homosexuality, yet
Perhaps it is harsh. I think what bothers me is their insistence on exact
observation of certain laws, such as those they claim prohibit
homosexuality, yet they can arbitrarily change the observation of the
Sabbath to a different day of the week at their whim, and ignore more of
the other laws co
"Corruption"?
That is a pretty harsh statement.
I guess I will leave this there.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion
Archive:
http://w
No, following their corruption of the Hebrew laws.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> So, following their interpretation of the 10 commandments?
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http:/
So, following their interpretation of the 10 commandments?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> The distortion of the celebration of the Sabbath by Christian churches.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson >wrote:
>
> >
> > Then what are the Connecticut Blue L
The distortion of the celebration of the Sabbath by Christian churches.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> Then what are the Connecticut Blue Laws based on?
>
> (no banking or liquor sales on Sunday)?
>
~~~
Then what are the Connecticut Blue Laws based on?
(no banking or liquor sales on Sunday)?
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> No, I didn't miss the point. If our laws were based on the 10
> commandments, which they aren't, then stores would be closed on Saturday.
>
> On Tue
No, I didn't miss the point. If our laws were based on the 10
commandments, which they aren't, then stores would be closed on Saturday.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> Wow, you really missed that point.
>
> The point was that our laws are based on the 10 commandme
Wow, you really missed that point.
The point was that our laws are based on the 10 commandments.
Not that the 10 commandments are the laws.
My examples covered the first. Yours covered the second.
(nana-nana-na-na)
=)
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Sunday is not the
Sunday is not the Hebrew Sabbath. Almost everyone running for public
office in the last election bore false witness by lying about their
opponents. None are in jail, although perhaps they should be. As long a
website called OMG exists, no one should be punished for taking the Lord's
name in vain
Ever more interesting is that almost all of these derive from The Code of
Hamarabbi, so they aren't even the original source of the laws.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 8:34 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> really? Let's see
>
> 1. You shall have no other gods before me. --- nope, no laws about that
> 2. Thou
" I would be curious as to how many jurors, who would be suspicious of
someone who doesn't swear on the bible, have actually read the bible."
Depends on what part of the country I suspect. In the Bible-belt, the
percentage would be larger than the north or left coast.
J
-
Ninety percent of po
No...people in courts do not...you watch too much TV...
-Original Message-
From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:38 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer Breakfast Speech
"So, out of 10, we've g
But the Deists you refer to believed in Christ, they just didn't like
how big religion presented him.
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Several presidents probably were not christian - I don't think that
> the first Adams was sworn into office with a bible. Jefferson
Our legal system has its roots in the pagan Anglo-Saxon common law...not the
bible.
-Original Message-
From: zaphod [mailto:zaph0d.b33bl3b...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 10:35 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer Breakfast Speech
r
Way to pick fly shit out of pepper...
;-)
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Several presidents probably were not christian - I don't think that
> the first Adams was sworn into office with a bible. Jefferson or
> Washington, I forget which, was sworn into office with a
Several presidents probably were not christian - I don't think that
the first Adams was sworn into office with a bible. Jefferson or
Washington, I forget which, was sworn into office with a law book.
Look at how many were Deists or unaffiliated.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM, William Bowen wro
heh
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> I bet you'll get some arguments that only 43 of those have been christian ;)
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:00 PM, William Bowen wrote:
>
>>
>> Jesus, I guess Christianity really is in danger of being expunged from
>> America... I mean only 4
I bet you'll get some arguments that only 43 of those have been christian ;)
On Feb 12, 2013, at 1:00 PM, William Bowen wrote:
>
> Jesus, I guess Christianity really is in danger of being expunged from
> America... I mean only 44 of our last 44 Presidents have been
> Christian...
>
>
>
> O
Jesus, I guess Christianity really is in danger of being expunged from
America... I mean only 44 of our last 44 Presidents have been
Christian...
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> and actually, I was referring to the 3 as relevant, the rest of the commands
> are not relevant
and actually, I was referring to the 3 as relevant, the rest of the commands
are not relevant to our government regardless of whether there is a law
relating to them or not.
On Feb 12, 2013, at 12:44 PM, zaphod wrote:
> Relevant, but still not the basis for our laws. At least not 70% of the
Relevant, but still not the basis for our laws. At least not 70% of the
commands.
As for the issue with the jury, it's all just a game of chess. It's anything
you can do to win your case. You play to whatever jury you get. If that means
you have to swear to a bible because that's what's ex
You used the words accurate and wrong so I figured clarification was needed.
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:37 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Of course they arewhat are you expecting We are all just
> theorists...testing out our theories, working on our knowledge
> base...learning. If it's facts
Of course they arewhat are you expecting We are all just
theorists...testing out our theories, working on our knowledge
base...learning. If it's facts that cannot be disputed that you are looking
for, you won't find it in a scientific or philosophical discussion list
like this one tends to
Exactly. Without citing any research right now, so to avoid a temper
tantrum from select members of the list, there's a relatively new
theory called Motivating Reasoning that may explain that (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning for a starter).
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, G
While I always read for accuracy, opinions are often just theories.
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:26 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
>
> Here's a test: When reading someone's response to you that is in direct
> contradiction of what you have said, are you reading it to see if what he's
> saying might be ac
We're arguing for:
a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose
opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from
one's own; freedom from bigotry.
Nothing more
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Very true. look at these debates. Are
You don't have to believe in the bible to know that it is a huge
influence in our society. The idea of expunging it from our lives is
to rob future generations of history and knowledge that brought us to
where we are. Whether it's true are not doesn't matter in the large
scheme of things, the fac
I think a lot of times this is the case, especially on faceless discussion
forums such as these.
I know i've been guilty of it. You formulate an opinion, and then you work
tirelessly to get it articulate and understood.but if it's confronted,
it can be VERY difficult to stop, listen, and unde
Very true. look at these debates. Are we arguing in the hopes of
converting the other side, or are we arguing simply to affirm our own
beliefs.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> "People do not listen with the intent of understanding. They listen with
> the intent of responding.
many states still have laws against commerce on Sundays, including banking
and liquor sales.
and bearing false witness sounds like perjury to me.
And in Britain, as well as some other European countries, taking the Lords
name in vain IS a crime (as is most disrespect to any religion)
On Tue,
"not irrellevant"
That's all we need.
"Swearing on the bible isn't required. Not all of our President's have
done it. The biggest reason for swearing on it for a jury is to keep of
modicum of trust with the jury."
And I say keeping trust with the jury and the people of the nation is
pretty i
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:37 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "So, out of 10, we've got 2 definitely and 1 possible.
>
> Are those irrelevant?
>
not irrellevant, not original either
more like Golden Rule-ish
>
> "Let's face it, the bible isn't the first place that came up with the idea
> of 'you sho
Really G?
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:25 AM, GMoney wrote:
>
> "People do not listen with the intent of understanding. They listen with
> the intent of responding."
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.am
"So, out of 10, we've got 2 definitely and 1 possible.
Are those irrelevant?
"Let's face it, the bible isn't the first place that came up with the idea
of 'you shouldn't kill' and 'you shouldn't steal'"
Are the documents that also had these hanging in court rooms across the
country? Did the P
bwahahai'd never seen it broke down like this.the 10
commandments actually kinda suck.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:34 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> really? Let's see
>
> 1. You shall have no other gods before me. --- nope, no laws about that
> 2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven imag
really? Let's see
1. You shall have no other gods before me. --- nope, no laws about that
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image --- wow, hope there's not any
laws against that
.Catholics would all be in prison
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy god in vain --- goddamn r
"actually, I didn't watch/listen to the speech for that very reason. "
Good for you. Trying to be consistent anyway. Of course, President Obama
uses scriptures in a lot of his speeches, so at some time or another, you
have probably witnessed this.
"I didn't figure it would be anything more th
"People do not listen with the intent of understanding. They listen with
the intent of responding."
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:16 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> Sam, your debating skills are impeccable. Did you learn to constantly
> cast insults at your opponent in high school debate team or is that
> s
And you are just awesome. A legend in your own mind.
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> Sam, your debating skills are impeccable. Did you learn to constantly cast
> insults at your opponent in high school debate team or is that something self
> taught?
>
~
actually, I didn't watch/listen to the speech for that very reason. I didn't
figure it would be anything more than a bunch of religious references.
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:03 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
> This was the National Prayer Breakfast so religious overtones should be
> expected. At the
"The bible is not relevant to the workings of today society. Trying to
apply lessons from it is usually fruitless, on top of the notion that you
can find support for any position you want to defend in the bible."
Everyone whose paying attention knows this can't be true.
The Ten Commandments are
Sam, your debating skills are impeccable. Did you learn to constantly cast
insults at your opponent in high school debate team or is that something self
taught?
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:11 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> You said:
> "The bible is not relevant to the workings of today society. Trying
> t
You said:
"The bible is not relevant to the workings of today society. Trying
to apply lessons from it is usually fruitless, on top of the notion
that you can find support for any position you want to defend in the
bible."
"As for Chinese proverbs
probably not since there's not really a
religion
Yes, I think I'll need to start signing my emails with:
Zaphod the Intolerant -- As dubbed by Sam
On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:59 AM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
>
> tolerant: kowtow to his pronouncements.
>
> intolerant: question him.
>
> Its an easy formula.
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM,
"No, I don't have an issue with a political candidate who's religious.
It's just when they start framing their public policy in regards to their
religion that's when I tune them out. "
So, you tuned Dr. Carson out, who is not a politician, out when he mention
proverbs though. Two of the prover
tolerant: kowtow to his pronouncements.
intolerant: question him.
Its an easy formula.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> If you're referring to when you said "Generalites, like say someone
> mentioning the bible
", then no, I don't consider that an answer to my
> question.
I guess we're not done. I'll go down to your level.
I said "You shouldn't tolerate everything, that would be too conflicting."
That covers it.
Now that I'm in the swamp, if the title was about Scientology and the
speech started with Thetans I would not read it. I also would not make
a post stati
No, I don't have an issue with a political candidate who's religious. It's
just when they start framing their public policy in regards to their religion
that's when I tune them out. The bible is not relevant to the workings of
today society. Trying to apply lessons from it is usually fruitle
If you're referring to when you said "Generalites, like say someone mentioning
the bible
", then no, I don't consider that an answer to my question. What I'm
trying to discern from you is where the tipping point is between being tolerant
and intolerant since you've accused me of it.
See, I'v
Remember the part where I said it was already answered?
.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Zaphod wrote:
>
> I'll just take that "We're done" as a "nope, I can't answer that truthfully
> because it would invalidate my own statement"
>
> Take care!
>
~~
" It's just that as soon as you start referencing religion, I'm mostly
going to tune you out as it's just as irrelevant to me as someone talking
about the kind of horse feed their magical unicorn in their backyard eats."
So, does this mean you could not support a political candidate who is
relig
wrote:
>>
>> Answer the question Sam.
>>
>>
>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Sam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You started reading a thread called: "Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer
>>> Breakfast Speech" and then cried because he
9:57 AM, zaphod wrote:
>
> Answer the question Sam.
>
>
> On Feb 12, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Sam wrote:
>
>>
>> You started reading a thread called: "Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer
>> Breakfast Speech" and then cried because he men
Answer the question Sam.
On Feb 12, 2013, at 8:40 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> You started reading a thread called: "Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer
> Breakfast Speech" and then cried because he mentioned religion.
>
> Really? You want to try and defend yourself?
>
You started reading a thread called: "Dr. Ben Carson's National Prayer
Breakfast Speech" and then cried because he mentioned religion.
Really? You want to try and defend yourself?
.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Zaphod wrote:
>
> So if this speech would have
So if this speech would have started out with some references to the formation
of the body thetans, you would have continued on reading because it would
contain some interesting thoughts on policy in regards to body thetans?
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> No
Nope, I didn't ask you to read the bible. You boasted that you shut
down the article once religion was mentioned. I assumed you had a
point to make about being intolerant so I bit.
.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Zaphod wrote:
>
> What your argument boils down to is if there's enough people
What your argument boils down to is if there's enough people that believe in it
I should go ahead and give the ideas respect.
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:42 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> You shouldn't tolerate everything, that would be too conflicting.
>
> Generalities, like say someone
If you're sitting at the State of the Union and Obama mentions woman's
Basketball and you get up and leave, you aren't tolerating it. Point
is, if you're interested in reading an article but stop at the first
reference to religion that's intolerance unworthy of bragging about.
If he want's to flau
It would seem to me that tolerating things that are of no interest to you,
would necessitate you ignoring them, or taking little part in them.
I have no interest in women's basketball, but I tolerate it just fine.
Now...if you forced me to watch 8 straight hours of women's basketball, i'd
probabl
You shouldn't tolerate everything, that would be too conflicting.
Generalities, like say someone mentioning the bible, you should learn
to tolerate,. If he was trying to convert you than no.
.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Zaphod wrote:
>
> so tell me Sam, if I want to be tolerant in your
I guess I also need to start inviting the 7th Day Adventists into my house
instead of politely refusing them at the door.
On Feb 11, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Zaphod wrote:
> so tell me Sam, if I want to be tolerant in your eyes, do I need to show a
> vested interest in what David Koresh's followe
so tell me Sam, if I want to be tolerant in your eyes, do I need to show a
vested interest in what David Koresh's followers believe, or how about the
Heaven's gate people. I should recognize the validity of their beliefs because
I would be intolerant otherwise? What about Raelists, Scientology
Maybe you need to look up the word tolerance, turning your back and
pretending they don't exist is not part of the definition.
.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, zaphod wrote:
>
> wow! so just because I don't give any credibility to somebody's imaginary
> friend, I'm intolerant? You must be
Its not worth replying to that troll. (I know like a fool I keep doing so).
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, zaphod wrote:
>
> wow! so just because I don't give any credibility to somebody's imaginary
> friend, I'm intolerant? You must be the king of intolerance Sam.
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2013, at
wow! so just because I don't give any credibility to somebody's imaginary
friend, I'm intolerant? You must be the king of intolerance Sam.
On Feb 11, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Did you just +1000 for intolerance?
>
> .
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>>
Did you just +1000 for intolerance?
.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> +1000
>
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Zaphod wrote:
>
>>
>> sure, I've got tolerance for religion. It's just that as soon as you
>> start referencing religion, I'm mostly going to tune you ou
+1000
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Zaphod wrote:
>
> sure, I've got tolerance for religion. It's just that as soon as you
> start referencing religion, I'm mostly going to tune you out as it's just
> as irrelevant to me as someone talking about the kind of horse feed their
> magical unicor
sure, I've got tolerance for religion. It's just that as soon as you start
referencing religion, I'm mostly going to tune you out as it's just as
irrelevant to me as someone talking about the kind of horse feed their magical
unicorn in their backyard eats.
but I've got nothing against anyone
No tolerance for religion?
.
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "He lost me at 'Proverbs'"
>
> Why?
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272
"He lost me at 'Proverbs'"
Why?
J
-
Some of my best memories are sitting on my dads lap, cheering on Olga and
Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection. -
Michelle Obama about the 1984 Olympics when she was 20 years old.
~~
He lost me at "Proverbs"
On Feb 9, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Vivec wrote:
>
> AIIEE!!!
>
> WALL OF TEX!!!
>
> Run!!! Run for ye lives!!
>
> *flees*
>
>
>
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazo
"AIIEE!!! WALL OF TEX!!!"
Yeah. It's a lot and it's not for everyone.
If you pay attention to politics though, you will hear about this speech
for a while. This will be especially true if Dr. Carson does decide to
move towards politics (I suspect he won't-he seems to be too down to e
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
