oh duh. Must brush up on my Dilbert ;P
On 8/15/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ?
> >
> > I'd suggest we start a different thread if you want to discuss this
> > though. This thread should die. Hypothesis 0 -- you mean PhD's?
> >
> > D
>
>
> pointy haired bosses I can handle PhD's th
> ?
>
> I'd suggest we start a different thread if you want to discuss this
> though. This thread should die. Hypothesis 0 -- you mean PhD's?
>
> D
pointy haired bosses I can handle PhD's they are mostly reasonable, if you have
the data and results to back up what you're saying. No amount of e
?
I'd suggest we start a different thread if you want to discuss this
though. This thread should die. Hypothesis 0 -- you mean PhD's?
D
On 8/15/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Larry, I don't really want to revisit this, but your own link said otherwise.
> >
> >Dana
> >
>
> I know.
>Larry, I don't really want to revisit this, but your own link said otherwise.
>
>Dana
>
I know. It was one of those days where you want to tear the head off the world
and spit in the hole. There are days when phb's can be blindly astonishing in
their pointy haired bossness.
~~
Will you jsut STFU and let this thread die you idiot?
On 8/15/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> see that's the problem with setting filters -- you wind up seeing the
> stuff anyway. Ok, apparently I have used the word once in my life. I
> had forgotten this discussion, mercifully.
>
> Howevr,
see that's the problem with setting filters -- you wind up seeing the
stuff anyway. Ok, apparently I have used the word once in my life. I
had forgotten this discussion, mercifully.
Howevr, it isn't used as an epithet. It's in the same context as every
time I have used the word "nigger"... as an
even then it was "retarded" wasn't it? I do think "moron" has an
actual definition relating it to a specific IQ range, but that's an
aside. I'm sure Larry has looked at the DSM more recently that I have
though.
On 8/15/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Actually it is a real word used t
>Actually it is a real word used to describe a specific IQ range isn't it?
>
>Sam.
>
Nope. It has not been used professionally since the 1970's. Even then it was
frowned up on. Downs Syndrome is OK, Mentally Handicapped is OK,
Developmentally Delayed is OK. All of these phrase describe particula
That's pretty lame. You had to go back to 2005 where it was used
completely out of context to what you were referring to?
Sometimes people get carried away on mailing lists and at those times,
especially when it's pointed out I find an 'oops!, sowwies' and a
muffin usually works.
On 8/14/07, Sam
Sorry, here:
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:18538#172789
On 8/14/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:18538
>
> On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam
> >
> > How fucking dare yo
Dayum, D used the F-Bomb
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 9:38 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here Comes The History
Sam
How fucking dare you. I guess there's no doubt now whether you're a
man or a troll.
For the rec
http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/thread.cfm/threadid:18538
On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam
>
> How fucking dare you. I guess there's no doubt now whether you're a
> man or a troll.
> For the record I have never used the word in my life, let alone here.
>
> Setting
Actually it is a real word used to describe a specific IQ range isn't it?
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 2:41 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here Comes The History
Sam.
There is no legitimate use for the word retard.
I am
Sam
How fucking dare you. I guess there's no doubt now whether you're a
man or a troll.
For the record I have never used the word in my life, let alone here.
Setting a rule now. Sam --> trash.
Bye.
On 8/14/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You're right and I apologize.
> It was Dana.
>
>
> O
You're right and I apologize.
It was Dana.
On 8/14/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Really? lets see, aside from this discussion how often have I used that word?
> Lets count, ;you have the cf community search just above this discussion. Do
> a search , how often did I say that word
>Not at all.
>Those words were never acceptable, however, I did notice you throw out
>the k*ke word every chance you get.
Really? lets see, aside from this discussion how often have I used that word?
Lets count, ;you have the cf community search just above this discussion. Do a
search , how ofte
You two should hang out together. I'm done here too.
On 8/14/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is no legitimate use for the notion of "acting like a black person"
>
> none.
>
> On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam.
> >
> > There is no legitimate use for the word retard.
>
WTF do you call this?
"well gosh Dana, *all* media is lib'ral isn't it? Except of course for EIB!
see, you're showing your lib'ral bias!
Ev'ry good American knows that EIB is!
That Fox be to the left of EIB shows that Fox, too, is a bastion of
lib'ral ee-vil!!"
He was mocking people that l
I agree. That is why I took issue with the sentence, Tony.
Dana
On 8/14/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is no legitimate use for the notion of "acting like a black person"
>
> none.
>
> On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam.
> >
> > There is no legitimate use for the wor
>Not at all.
>Those words were never acceptable, however, I did notice you throw out
>the k*ke word every chance you get.
Just as much as the word retard was thrown out. My use of those edited words
was as a comparison. I was saying it was as bad calling someone a retard as to
use other words.
there is no legitimate use for the notion of "acting like a black person"
none.
On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam.
>
> There is no legitimate use for the word retard.
>
> I am done here.
>
> Dana
>
> On 8/14/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you playing with me or do you
Sam.
There is no legitimate use for the word retard.
I am done here.
Dana
On 8/14/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you playing with me or do you really not get it?
>
> The word retard was used so often in a derogatory way that it became
> offensive even when used legitimately.
>
> I'm n
Are you playing with me or do you really not get it?
The word retard was used so often in a derogatory way that it became
offensive even when used legitimately.
I'm not saying black man is a derogatory term, but if you use it in
that context often enough it will be viewed as such.
Try this, if y
when you say "acting like" sure. Then you have the implication that
black men act in some specific way and also there is something wrong
with that. But "nigger" does not have the same meaning as "black man,"
sorry. It's the implication that it does that is racist.
And Sam, if the shoe fits
Da
say either to me, in front of a group of black people
and i guarantee you the same result.
On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> um, no it doesn't have the same meaning at all. It's the conflating of
> the two terms that is racist, in fact.
>
> ::sigh:: why do i bother.
>
> On 8/14/07, Sam
You're welcome to remain lost and confused but don't call me racist.
On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> um, no it doesn't have the same meaning at all. It's the conflating of
> the two terms that is racist, in fact.
>
> ::sigh:: why do i bother.
>
~~
um, no it doesn't have the same meaning at all. It's the conflating of
the two terms that is racist, in fact.
::sigh:: why do i bother.
On 8/14/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought GG explained it well.
> I'll try again. By saying you're acting like a black man, a white man
> or even Je
I thought GG explained it well.
I'll try again. By saying you're acting like a black man, a white man
or even Jew is intended as an insult. I've heard Jew used as
derogatory word many times but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.
Years ago if you called a mentally challenged person a retard it
age-
> From: Tony [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:48 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Here Comes The History
>
> personally, i think its FUCKED UP to coin anything
> about "ACTING LIKE A BLACK MAN"
>
> how exactly does a BLACK MAN
this would be my point
On 8/14/07, Tony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> personally, i think its FUCKED UP to coin anything
> about "ACTING LIKE A BLACK MAN"
>
> how exactly does a BLACK MAN act?
>
> just wondering.
>
> guess, im going to go to lunch and act like white man?
>
> tw
>
> On 8/14/07,
> For clarity I meant to type I did NOT say he was a retard, but he was
> implying I was.
That's an excellent clarification, but nowhere did i imply anything of
the sort, and I defy you to point out how you draw the inference.
> Now that that's out of the way, are you one of those
> PC morons? Wo
Thank you.
On 8/14/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dana wrote:
> > you're just flowing with insults aren't you. But you still have not
> > said what you think is wrong with acting like a black man.
> >
>
> It's stereotypical and possible racist. Why? Because "black man"
> refers t
, 2007 11:48 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here Comes The History
personally, i think its FUCKED UP to coin anything
about "ACTING LIKE A BLACK MAN"
how exactly does a BLACK MAN act?
just wondering.
guess, im going to go to lunch and act like white man?
tw
On 8/14/07, Dana <[EM
> Tony wrote:
> how exactly does a BLACK MAN act?
>
Hey Weegs? Stop acting like a woman.
~|
Check out the new features and enhancements in the
latest product release - download the "What's New PDF" now
http://download.macromedia
> Dana wrote:
> you're just flowing with insults aren't you. But you still have not
> said what you think is wrong with acting like a black man.
>
It's stereotypical and possible racist. Why? Because "black man"
refers to huge group of people, probably about 6% of our population.
To say that som
personally, i think its FUCKED UP to coin anything
about "ACTING LIKE A BLACK MAN"
how exactly does a BLACK MAN act?
just wondering.
guess, im going to go to lunch and act like white man?
tw
On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you're just flowing with insults aren't you. But you stil
you're just flowing with insults aren't you. But you still have not
said what you think is wrong with acting like a black man.
On 8/14/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's like if I said he was being a Dana, eventually the term Dana
> would be an insult.
>
> Die thread, die!
>
> On 8/14/07, D
It's like if I said he was being a Dana, eventually the term Dana
would be an insult.
Die thread, die!
On 8/14/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why is it an insult to say someone is acting like a black man?
>
> > If I said he was acting like a black man then that would be an insult.
>
> Dana
God you're such a rule nazi.
-Original Message-
From: Charlie Griefer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:45 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here Comes The History
On 8/14/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tBone wrote:
> >
why is it an insult to say someone is acting like a black man?
> If I said he was acting like a black man then that would be an insult.
Dana
--
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free
our minds
- Bob Marley
~
On 8/14/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tBone wrote:
> > This thread should die.
> >
>
> It's as if Nazis that worship Hitler have invaded the thread. Oops!
> Did I say Hitler? There I go again. I keep saying Hitler ... DOH!
Godwin's law specifically states that you can't intentio
> tBone wrote:
> This thread should die.
>
It's as if Nazis that worship Hitler have invaded the thread. Oops!
Did I say Hitler? There I go again. I keep saying Hitler ... DOH!
~|
Enterprise web applications, build robust, sec
three days ago...
On 8/14/07, Loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This thread should die.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:15 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Here Comes The History
>
&g
This thread should die.
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 10:15 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Here Comes The History
Not at all.
Those words were never acceptable, however, I did notice you throw out
the k*ke word every chance you
Not at all.
Those words were never acceptable, however, I did notice you throw out
the k*ke word every chance you get.
See retard has been an acceptable shortening for mental retardation
until the last 10 or so years. The reason it's not acceptable anymore
because people call other people retards
>For clarity I meant to type I did NOT say he was a retard, but he was
>implying I was. Now that that's out of the way, are you one of those
>PC morons? Woops, I just offended your entire group.
>
>If I said he had a low IQ wouldn't that be an insult to everyone with a low IQ?
>If I said he was ugl
The Prime Minister mentioned was in power at the same time as Eisenhower if
it helps to put the quote in some sort of historical context. Presumably we
can now judge American media companies on how they reacted to Eisenhower?
On 13/08/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> you are? ::blink:: if y
Thats a pretty decent summary of my feelings, Sam is a brick wall that I
would rather walk past than beat my head against.
On 13/08/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> perhaps, Brian, but life is too short to reason with him. I have spent
> entire weeks trying to talk sense to Sam. Net result
I like to hear about and consider differing views on subjects, but only when
they are well reasoned and intelligently put.
On 13/08/07, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Slightly annoying static?
>
> Sam gives voice to viewpoints that are shared by an awful lot of people in
> this country
For clarity I meant to type I did NOT say he was a retard, but he was
implying I was. Now that that's out of the way, are you one of those
PC morons? Woops, I just offended your entire group.
If I said he had a low IQ wouldn't that be an insult to everyone with a low IQ?
If I said he was ugly woul
>I did say you were a retard, I said you were talking like one, and
>attributing it to me.
>It does nothing to help the thread, if you want to participate please
>do but not by mocking me.
>
retard that's a very nasty phrase. Right up there with n***er or k*ke or other
hate speach. I used to work
> I did say you were a retard, I said you were talking like one,
The inference was mine, then?
> and attributing it to me.
I attributed nothing to you, *that* inference was *yours.*
> It does nothing to help the thread, if you want to participate please
> do but not by mocking me.
> It proves t
Why do you? You never actually answer anything properly; you just keep
changing the subject. It is rather annoying.
On 8/13/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >What ideological agenda? Show me.
> >
>
> At time why do I even bother.
>
> Surely you cannot be that clueless. For once I'm as
> you are? ::blink:: if you say so.
Oh, who can really tell...
:-P
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~|
Get the answers you are looking for on the
I did say you were a retard, I said you were talking like one, and
attributing it to me.
It does nothing to help the thread, if you want to participate please
do but not by mocking me.
It proves the Main Stream Media is biased to the left. Dana may play
it down now but years ago the BBC was the pe
you are? ::blink:: if you say so. By the way, the comments at the end
of the article seem to indicate that the author is talking about the
fairly distant past. But I dunno. I don't know this author, or his
show, or that much about the BBC's inner workings for that matter. All
I know is that they of
> Instead of talking like a retard
Little testy today are we Sam? Take a little poke at the home teams
and one flies off the handle.
I make a joke at the expense of EIB and Fox and now I am to be
pilloried because I don't address the BBC's bias?
Oh and yes, I read the article at the link. The BB
>What ideological agenda? Show me.
>
At time why do I even bother.
Surely you cannot be that clueless. For once I'm astounded by the utter depth
of your cluelessness. The Mariannas trench is a mere scratch compared to your
cluelessness. You are rapidly becoming the black hole of cluelessness wh
Instead of talking like a retard, why not discuss the BBC's admitted bias?
On 8/13/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hehe. Do I want to know what EIB is?
>
> see, you're showing your lib'ral bias!
>
> Ev'ry good American knows that EIB is!
>
> That Fox be to the left of EIB shows th
What ideological agenda? Show me.
On 8/13/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >There's no mention of stem cells.
> >
> >I see your point but still don't agree. This is not an attempt to
> >silence or dispute science. This has to do with setting foreign policy
> >and the AG does not have
> hehe. Do I want to know what EIB is?
see, you're showing your lib'ral bias!
Ev'ry good American knows that EIB is!
That Fox be to the left of EIB shows that Fox, too, is a bastion of
lib'ral ee-vil!!
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacce
>There's no mention of stem cells.
>
>I see your point but still don't agree. This is not an attempt to
>silence or dispute science. This has to do with setting foreign policy
>and the AG does not have the last say. If it were a suggestion to the
>policy makers it would be helpful. This is a call t
Is "its' the BBC, Foxnews or the other three networks I mentioned?
On 8/13/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> are you seriously claiming its part of the liberal media?
>
> On 8/13/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Changing the point is always a good way to sneak around the issue.
> >
~~
erm... preliminary research indicates that no, no, I don't... I need
to go have a nice cup of tea now...
On 8/13/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hehe. Do I want to know what EIB is?
>
> On 8/13/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > are you seriously claiming its part of the libe
Larry, I don't really want to revisit this, but your own link said otherwise.
Dana
On 8/13/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >perhaps, Brian, but life is too short to reason with him. I have spent
> >entire weeks trying to talk sense to Sam. Net result -- Sam's mind is
> >unchanged and
hehe. Do I want to know what EIB is?
On 8/13/07, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > are you seriously claiming its part of the liberal media?
>
> well gosh Dana, *all* media is lib'ral isn't it? Except of course for EIB!
>
> --
> will
>
> "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
> are you seriously claiming its part of the liberal media?
well gosh Dana, *all* media is lib'ral isn't it? Except of course for EIB!
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~~~
>perhaps, Brian, but life is too short to reason with him. I have spent
>entire weeks trying to talk sense to Sam. Net result -- Sam's mind is
>unchanged and I have a few more grey hairs. May as well put my
>energies to effective use. I can't speak for Wayne, but those are my
>thoughts.
>
>Every so
are you seriously claiming its part of the liberal media?
On 8/13/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Changing the point is always a good way to sneak around the issue.
>
--
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery; None but ourselves can free
our minds
- Bob Marley
~~~
>But your argument was he's changing science, now you're upset because
>you think teaching abstinence to kids is a fundamentalist thing.
>That's the making of another thread that I'm not interested in.
>
>
NO I'm pissed because of the administration is twisting science to fit their
ideology. Abst
Changing the point is always a good way to sneak around the issue.
So are you now saying Fox News is part of the vast-right-wing conspiracy?
On 8/13/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, I am talking about Fox News and you are talking about the BBC.
> So you're saying something is wrong wit
well, I am talking about Fox News and you are talking about the BBC.
So you're saying something is wrong with the comparison now?
On 8/13/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now you want to compare Fox News to the BBC. What a joke.
> ABC, NBC, CBS? Bring it on :)
>
>
> On 8/13/07, Dana <[EMAIL PR
Now you want to compare Fox News to the BBC. What a joke.
ABC, NBC, CBS? Bring it on :)
On 8/13/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know that anyone is totally unbiased. The BBC does do news
> though, which Rupert Murdoch does not. I do find it interesting tha
> tyou had to go outside t
> Sam wrote:
> No, because you're taking normal weather patterns and attributing it
> to GW.
I'm not saying that at all - I'm saying that the insurance industry is
factoring in the *risk* of GW changing weather in an adverse way.
That's it. It's not me saying anything about the weather.
The poin
I don't know that anyone is totally unbiased. The BBC does do news
though, which Rupert Murdoch does not. I do find it interesting tha
tyou had to go outside the United States to find something it wasn't
laughable to call liberal. Assuming this isn't... haven't had a chance
to look at this yet. Wor
You said:
"that is that he persists in seeing liberal conspiracies
because that is what his listening tells him to look for."
So I showed you that the BBC, which I know you respect as a totally
unbiased news entity, admits they are liberally biased.
On 8/13/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
There's no mention of stem cells.
I see your point but still don't agree. This is not an attempt to
silence or dispute science. This has to do with setting foreign policy
and the AG does not have the last say. If it were a suggestion to the
policy makers it would be helpful. This is a call to acti
ok so... I am being reasonable. What does this have to do with anything, Sam?
On 8/13/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amazing, so I'm only ever right when I agree with one of your never
> changing point of views? Why can't everyone just see things the way
> you do?
>
> There's no liberal cons
No, because you're taking normal weather patterns and attributing it
to GW. Our insurance goes up because we know there will be hurricanes.
We don't pay extra because we know they'll be more intense or
frequent. If we do we're getting ripped off.
On 8/13/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gMoney wrote:
> Your stubborn refusal to even recognize other viewpoints seems awfully
> similar to behavior that we commonly criticize Sam and his ilk of doing.
>
+100, if you disagree say why, but reasonable people can disagree even
if you think he's unreasonable. He probably thinks the same
Amazing, so I'm only ever right when I agree with one of your never
changing point of views? Why can't everyone just see things the way
you do?
There's no liberal conspiracy :)
Confessions of a BBC liberal
The BBC has finally come clean about its bias, says a former editor,
who wrote Yes, Ministe
> Sam wrote:
> I'm lost. You're justifying paying for an theory? How much insurance
> are you willing to pay against the space invasion?
>
This has nothing to do with me; it's us - you, me, and every home
owner in America that's not self-insured. Here's how *your* home
owner's insurance rate is f
perhaps, Brian, but life is too short to reason with him. I have spent
entire weeks trying to talk sense to Sam. Net result -- Sam's mind is
unchanged and I have a few more grey hairs. May as well put my
energies to effective use. I can't speak for Wayne, but those are my
thoughts.
Every so often
>
>The first US surgeon general appointed by President Bush accused the
>administration of political interference and muzzling him on key issues like
>embryonic stem cell research.
fwiw here is Cardoso's testimony before the house oversight committee on the
editing of the world health report:
Car
Thank you oh great Oracle, your wisdom mystifies me. Just witnessing
your exhaustive attempt to translate those genius thoughts into text
gives me goose bumps.
Rest now, you'll need your strength.
On 8/13/07, Wayne Putterill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nope - you are the equivalent of slightly a
I'm lost. You're justifying paying for an theory? How much insurance
are you willing to pay against the space invasion?
On 8/13/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > You implied insurance companies are justifiably raising your premiums
> > due to the link between global warm
Slightly annoying static?
Sam gives voice to viewpoints that are shared by an awful lot of people in
this country.ignoring him or dismissing him outright because those views
differ from yours, doesn't seem to me to be a very constructive course of
action.
Your stubborn refusal to even recogni
Nope - you are the equivalent of slightly annoying static on this list, just
a noise without any meaningful content and as such you're just not worth
bothering about. When I see your name on a post I will just think of that
eagle on the Muppet show and pass on with a smile on my face.
On 13/08/07,
> Sam wrote:
> You implied insurance companies are justifiably raising your premiums
> due to the link between global warming and hurricanes even though no
> science exists there. I was pointing out that you needed a refund
> because there where no hurricanes last year. While if it was tied to
> gw
That's gibberish. Do you want to gather your thoughts and try again?
On 8/13/07, Wayne Putterill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't be bothered to be honest Sam, you lost any credibility here a good
> while back. Carry on with your flawed reasoning, post all the biased links
> or out of context
You implied insurance companies are justifiably raising your premiums
due to the link between global warming and hurricanes even though no
science exists there. I was pointing out that you needed a refund
because there where no hurricanes last year. While if it was tied to
gw we would have had more
But your argument was he's changing science, now you're upset because
you think teaching abstinence to kids is a fundamentalist thing.
That's the making of another thread that I'm not interested in.
On 8/11/07, Larry Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So in your opinion this administration is wa
It's a grant, you ask for money to teach this and follow it's
guidelines you get the money. It doesn't have anything to do with the
current teachings unless you want to use the money to fund the current
sex-ed classes. Then you'd be limited.
On 8/10/07, Dana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> really? Do
I can't be bothered to be honest Sam, you lost any credibility here a good
while back. Carry on with your flawed reasoning, post all the biased links
or out of context quotes you want, I really can't be bothered any more.
When you were arguing that the US health care system was superior to the UK
> Sam wrote:
> How many hurricanes did we have last year?
>
How many run-away dump trucks drove through your house? Yet you still
have home insurance ... You must be deluded by the drive-by media.
Since nobody can prove that anything catastrophic is going to happen
your house, and since nothing
> So in your opinion this administration is wasting its money telling
> kids to abstain from sex. Fine, but we're talking about Bush changing
> science. The abstinence only program is in addition to the safe sex
> program not instead of.
>
No what I'm saying is that abstinence only programs are n
On 8/9/07, Sam wrote:
> I don't know about a decade, maybe a week. But can you state with
> confidence the planet won't fix itself?
That's the saddest part, Sam. The evidence is right in front of us.
In most states you can probably find huge tracts of land that have
just been decimated.
There's no such thing as 'facts of life'. Only standing theories that
haven't been disproved as of yet.
Simon Travaglia
On 8/10/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/10/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However therein lies the truth. We CAN model what we THINK will
> > happen bas
really? Do you have a reference on that? I seem to recall that the
only allowable reference to condoms is a warning that they can break
..
> science. The abstinence only program is in addition to the safe sex
> program not instead of.
~~
How many hurricanes did we have last year?
On 8/10/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sam wrote:
> > Raising taxes is a Liberal stance not a Conservative one. Especially
> > when it puts companies out of business.
> >
>
> Unless the CBA shows an offset by even greater cost or risk; whi
1 - 100 of 219 matches
Mail list logo
