Woman to Woman

By Nike

September 16, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this

Hello, very nice site! Please also visit my homepages:

Thanks!

By discountpharmacyshop

September 16, 2006 08:12 PM | Link to this

Online discount pharmacy shop http://discountpharmacyshop.info

discount pharmacy shop [url=http://discountpharmacyshop.info]discount pharmacy shop[/url]

By loan

September 17, 2006 07:29 PM | Link to this

student loan consolidation or student loan debt consolidation needs federal student loan consolidation, student loan consolidation program, student loan consolidation center (student loan consolidation calculator) consolidation loan refinance student. I need student consolidation loan information, private student loan consolidation depends entirely on direct student loan consolidation and government student loan consolidation is required by college student loan consolidation is required for student loan consolidation calculatorStudent loan consolidation [url=http://video.ikit.org/Members/allpillsen/index.html]Student loan consolidation[/url]

By Lyrazel

September 18, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

O they cant swear but at least their hair will be perfect.

To be blunt I am really tired of all this 9/11 stuff. Its not like a tragedy did not happen and we grieved for it but this constant pull to the heartstrings by TV/NEWS/Politicians is wearing thin. If you compare the payouts the survivors were given and compare them to the sacrifices, salaries or sufferings of American military servicemen & women & their families now endure it puts in a different perspective. Can we ignore the true violence happening in Iraq that is rapidly gaining in death tolls to the number of people killed in New York on one day? Why no hit TV mini-series My Boy In Iraq? Maybe because no one (in Rumsfeld’s military) wants to keep THAT open wound fresh in our hearts. American men and women are dying on duty to guard a quagmire from becoming a sink hole because of faulty directives, covert operations that are only recently being revealed. This is the tragedy and sacrifice caused by 9/11! Doubt it will get a peep of a mention.

When they show this movie and all the feel-good cliches in place will we see beyond the special effects that this tragedy is just another cash cow that the TV industry will exploit for years? What products will they sell for this TV event? Autos? Those gas guzzling reasons for being in Iraq? Food? Strange to see happy people cowing down after a staircase explodes… Shaving equipment and insurance are my bets…betcha no airline ads.

By Brian Curtis

September 18, 2006 08:12 AM | Link to this

Wow, more spam than usual today.

I’ll keep my initial post on this topic brief: parenting is the job of parents, nobody else.

My viewing choices, and those of the rest of the nation, should not be limited to what’s “kid-friendly.” Plenty of the real world is ugly, violent, and even sexy. It does a disservice to society to insist that our media pretend otherwise just because “kids might be around.”

By Scalia

September 18, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

I think Diane’s rebuttal was great. I never thought about all of the men that lost their wives, and have to raise their kids without them. She is true in showing the only footage was of families where the women lost their husbands.

It is like an article I read recently about military husbands, and how they are looked down on because their wives joined the army and they didn’t. The wives of the military personnel shun them, too.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Excellent comment as usual Brian.

It seems Shaunti and others like her want to walk around in this haze. I mean if the little kiddies do hear a bad word, what happens. I never cursed around my daughter (when she was little anyway lol) but she still heard bad words. And guess what nothing happened. I advised her that children do not say those words, and now I tell her there are words that you don’t use as a young lady. It’s about parenting.

We are about the ONLY country out there that spends all this time trying to censor everything. It’s actually quite nauseating. Especially, when the network is playing a movie, you know what they are saying, but this extermely cheesy voiceover comes on to cover up the curse words. It gets comical after a while. As if nobody knows what the actual word should be.

Lyrazel, while I understand where you are coming from, I can’t say I agree with you regarding 9/11. Not that this makes it right, but 9/11 was 3,000+ innocent people, including the heroes of the NYPD and Fire Department who were trying to save lives. Our brave soldiers who are overseas join the army and are over there, knowing full well there is a chance they won’t come home. They are willing to risk their lives for this country. Should there be more compensation for soldiers families? In my opinion, yes. But I don’t think the 9/11 families deserve any less. They actually deserve more.

The one thing that burns me up about 9/11 is this friggin memorial which is costing, if my memory serves me correctly, like 360 million dollars. Now this money could, and should, go to the survivors, the families, the children who lost parents…..something, anything. I mean the memorial has to cost THAT much. What is up with that??

By chuck

September 18, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. Another stupid topic that will be exhausted in one day or less. There are FCC rules in place that cover this topic. If it is during the “family hours” they should not be showing stuff that has that kind of language in it. Most families are channel surfers. You should be able to flip channels among the “safe” channels with your little ones in the room without hearing the f word. Networks should abide by the rules. After that time, I’m not fond of hearing it and I tend to watch shows that don’t use that kind of language.

The best way to end those behaviors is to punish them economically. Ford for instance is losing billions of dollars in lost sales because of their support of homosexuality and the ensuing boycott by Christians. If you want to bring about change, economic pressure usually works better than anything else. If I see something objectionable, I almost always change the channel and then return and watch the commercials. Then I contact the sponsors of the program and express my displeasure.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

Ford for instance is losing billions of dollars in lost sales because of their support of homosexuality and the ensuing boycott by Christians

~yawn~….Chuck, you are too predictable. But, you are wrong. Ford is losing billions of dollars because of rising gas prices. Please review attached cut and paste.

The central cause of Ford’s problems is that Americans are increasingly buying their cars from Japanese competitors such as Toyota. Ford has lost market share in the US for 10 successive years. It now has a share of only 16%, and said yesterday it expected that to drop to between 14% and 15%. Above all, it has been hit by falling sales of pick-up trucks such as the F-150 and sports utility vehicles (SUVs), once best-sellers that generated the bulk of profits, as petrol prices have hit $3 a gallon. “They get all their revenue from the F-150 and SUVs, and no one is buying them,” Mr Rubin said.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

although I’ve heard that some people still use “rabbit-ears” to pick up local television stations I would guess that it’s not how most of America gets its signal. With the move from analog to digital formats, that may not even be feasible anymore (I’m not an engineer so I can’t say that it’d be the death of “non-cable” television…). The whole concept of “cable television” was supposed to be what “pay-channels” or “movie channels” are now, a relatively non-regulated entertainment marketplace where you could swear and show nudity because everyone purchasing cable knew that these things would happen. I’m guessing that most television is “cable” so who’s Shaunti trying to fool with her references to “public airwaves”? The “public airwaves” were sold off a long time ago to make way for the digital-media pioneers and HDTV…

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

al-Qaida Warns Pope He, West Are Doomed

Published: 9/18/06, 9:26 AM EDT by MAAMOUN YOUSSEF

Related Stories al-Qaida Warns Pope He, West Are Doomed AP - 9/18/06 Iraq Shootings, Bombings Leave 8 Dead AP - 9/18/06 Bomb Kills 4 NATO Troops in Afghanistan AP - 9/18/06 Rebel Group Wants Peacekeepers in Sudan AP - 9/18/06 Pope Remarks Worry Christians in Mideast

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were “doomed” and proclaimed that the holy war would continue until Islam dominates the world.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum about the pope’s remarks last week on Islam. The authenticity of the statement could not be immediately independently verified.

“You infidels and despotic, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations,” the statement said.

The group said Muslims will be victorious and addressed the pope as “the worshipper of the cross” saying “you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere … We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword.”

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.

The statement said that the Quran tells Muslims in many occasions that “jihad continues and should never stop until dooms day where this religion ends victorious.”

The group also accused U.S. President George W. Bush of initiating the “new Crusades campaign against Islam by his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq while the servant of the cross, the pope of the Vatican, is continuing this path by his blatant attack on Islam, its prophet … and especially his talk about jihad.”

Benedict on Tuesday in Germany had quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said.

“He said, I quote, ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,’” he quoted the emperor as saying.

The pope on Sunday said that he was “deeply sorry” about the angry reaction and said the remarks came from a text that didn’t reflect his own opinion.

By Wikipedia

September 18, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Hezbollah1 is a Shia Islamist organization in Lebanon comprising a militia, a political party, and an extensive program of social development. [3] It was formed during the 1982 Lebanon War, and officially announced on February 16, 1985 when Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared the group’s manifesto, which included three goals: the eradication of Western imperialism in Lebanon, the transformation of Lebanon’s multi-confessional state into a Islamic state, and the complete destruction of the state of Israel.[4]. [5] Hezbollah has abandoned the goal of transforming Lebanon into an Islamic republic [6], but continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah has received arms, soldiers, and financial support from Iran, and many other sympathizers [7] and has “operated with Syria’s blessing.”[6] Hezbollah currently has achieved seats in the Lebanese government, a radio and a satellite television station, and has engaged extensively in front programs for social development. [8]

Throughout most of the Arab and Muslim worlds, Hezbollah is highly regarded as a legitimate resistance movement.[9] The Lebanese government confirmed it as a legitimate resistance against occupation.[10][11] Even 74 percent of Lebanese Christians viewed Hezbollah as a resistance organization.[12] All countries in the UN do not consider Hezbollah a “terrorist” organisation with the exception of the United States, Israel and Canada. Australia and the UK consider only the External Security Arm of Hezbollah to be “terrorist”. Russia and the EU do not consider Hezbollah “terrorist”.

Since 1992, the current leader and Secretary-General of Hezbollah is Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

I didn’t watch it and I really don’t care whether they censor the curse words or not. Can’t get all flipped out about this … I can’t watch much tv. It almost always gives us an unreal view of the world and life. Most of the content is written for the lowest common denominator and it’s highly unusual to have anything with intellectual content. The commercials drive me crazy. Bless the person who invented the mute button! I worked in tv and radio and the bottom line is totally about the bucks. I’m not surprised at all that they skew the truth and lead people to believe only men were killed and only men were heroes. That is nothing new for anyone who has ever studied media or feminism. Same old, same old.

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Hamas: Hizbullah funded us

In report on its website, group admits it received funds, assistance in training activists from Hizbullah, boasts Lebanese-trained cell was most prominent in West Bank

Ali Waked Published: 02.15.06, 08:50

The Hamas organization officially announced for the first time that it has received funding and assistance in training from the Lebanese Hizbullah terror group.

A report posted on Hamas’ website recently, describes the establishment of the organization’s first cell in Ramallah, immediately following the outbreak of the intifada.

According to the report, after the cell was founded, its members began looking for appropriate funding for their activity. Two funding channels were consequently opened, one vis-à-vis Hizbullah, by sending activists to Lebanon to train and return with money, and the other internal – money raised in the West Bank.

Until recently, Hamas has denied all claims that it received funds from Hizbullah. Other Palestinian terror groups have done the same, charging the reports were “Israeli propaganda” aimed at implicating the Lebanese group with responsibility for the intifada, in a bid to generate international – and mainly American – pressure on Syria and Iran.

However, in the current report on its website, Hamas boasts the cell sponsored by Hizbullah was one of the group’s most prominent wings in the West Bank.

In the same article, Hamas also denies it has begun confiscating weapons from its members, and states activists continue to hold on to their arms, “and continue to improve them in order to provide protection for the Palestinian people.”

By Scalia

September 18, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

The sad part is that most people just by it. In the movie “The World Trade Center” there wasn’t one woman shown in the preview. When the interviews are done, they never show the men that lost their wives. It is like these group of people are silent.

And as for cable, you still can’t see a bare bottom on MTV or VH-1 or any of these channels. And you also can’t see a woman’s torso on these channels.

So are MTV, etc. considered “public airwaves”?

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

funding Hizballah’s Money Pipeline in the Crosshairs Via the Little Green Footballs news feed on Tue, 2006-07-25 22:04. url: (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/…) Little Green Footballs

At last, the infrastructure of world terrorism is coming under serious attack, as the banks and charities that funnel money to genocidal groups like Hizballah are on Israel’s target list: Hezbollah banks under attack in Lebanon. (Hat tip: LGF readers.)

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Like we did not already have enough primitives foaming at the mouth about how RIGHT their chosen religion is. geezz, Flava.

While I think all these ‘swear’ words, most of which have to do with such discomfort for many uncomfortable with sexuality and the associated mechanical parts, are merely Standard American English, I feel people should be able to watch the public airways and not hear it if they wish to raise their children with falsehoods about the world around them, after all, that is their right. So let’s dub with “good Golly, miss Molly, a plane just hit the tower, dangitt” since we know that is how people REALLY talk.

Mara - I am a rabbit ear, well, technically a fancy 2-band(vhf and uhf) mounted on a telephone pole outside, so those people DO still exist that only get what comes over the public airwaves. Of course I would not be writing the FCC about content and bad words. And many sitcoms especially nowadays are filled with sexualy innuendo.

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Hezbollah Finances: Funding the Party of God By Matthew Levitt Chapter from Terrorism Financing and State Responses in Comparative Perspective, February 2005

Matthew Levitt contributed this paper to the project “Terrorism Financing and State Responses in Comparative Perspective,” sponsored by the Center for Homeland Defense and Security at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. This paper and others will be published in a forthcoming volume edited by Jeanne Giraldo and Harold Trinkunas.

Introduction

It is a painful reality that no counterterrorism technique or effort, however extensive, international, or comprehensive, will put an end to terror attacks or uproot terrorism. There will always be people and groups with entrenched causes, an overwhelming sense of frustration, a self-justifying worldview, and a healthy dose of evil, who will resort to violence as a means of expression.

The goal of counterterrorism, therefore, should be to constrict the environment so that it is increasingly difficult for terrorists to carry out their plots of destruction and death—making it harder for terrorists to operate at every level, such as conducting operations, procuring and transferring false documents, ferrying fugitives from one place to another, and financing, laundering, and transferring funds. This includes cracking down not only on operational cells, but on their logistical and financial support networks as well. In fact, one can so constrict a terrorist group’s operating environment that it will eventually suffocate.

September 11 drove home the central role logistical and financial support networks play in international terrorist operations. Clearly, individuals who provide such support must be recognized as terrorists of the same caliber as those who use that support to execute attacks.

Since September 2001, America—together with many of its allies—has spearheaded a groundbreaking and comprehensive disruption operation to stem the flow of funds to and among terrorist groups. Combined with the unprecedented law enforcement and intelligence efforts to apprehend terrorist operatives worldwide and thereby constrict the space in which terrorists can operate, cracking down on terrorist financing denies them the means to travel, communicate, procure equipment, and conduct attacks. Though the amount of money frozen internationally remains negligible, the impact of freezing terrorists’ assets can be significant if the right accounts, companies, or front organizations are shut down. Denying terrorists access to their preferred means of raising, laundering, and transferring funds complicates their efforts to conduct their activities.

However, al-Qaeda is not the only international terrorist network that poses a serious threat. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage identified Hezbollah as “the A team of terrorism,” and warned “their time will come, there’s no question about it.” (2) Semantics aside, such statements are more than just tough talk. Highlights of Hezbollah’s record of terror attacks include suicide truck bombings targeting US and French forces in Beirut (in 1983 and 1984) and U.S. forces again in Saudi Arabia (in 1996), its record of suicide bombing attacks targeting Jewish and Israeli interests such as those in Argentina (1992 and 1994) and in Thailand (attempted in 1994), and a host of other plots targeting American, French, German, British, Kuwaiti, Bahraini and other interests in plots from Europe to Southeast Asia to the Middle East. (3) As discussed in greater detail below, Hezbollah cross-border operations have spiked since the Israeli withdrawal to the “Blue Line” in May 2000, as has its proactive support for Palestinian terrorist groups targeting Israel.

According to U.S. authorities, concern over the threat posed by Hezbollah is well placed. FBI officials testified in February 2002 that “FBI investigations to date continue to indicate that many Hezbollah subjects based in the United States have the capability to attempt terrorist attacks here should this be a desired objective of the group.” (4) Similarly, CIA Director George Tenet testified in February 2003 that “Hezbollah, as an organization with capability and worldwide presence, is [al-Qaeda’s] equal, if not a far more capable organization.” (5)

Still, some maintain that Hezbollah is merely a “resistance” organization responding to Israeli occupation of disputed land. The distinction is, appropriately, lost on most Western experts, given that the “resistance” groups in question employ acts of terrorism such as suicide bombings to achieve their goals and that many of the operatives go back and forth between serving in guerilla units fighting in South Lebanon and international terror cells plotting bombings abroad. (6) In any event, no goal, however legitimate, legitimizes the use of terrorist tactics and the killing of innocent civilians.

US intelligence officials have also expressed concern over possible links between Hezbollah and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, highlighting the ad hoc tactical relationship brewing between Iran’s shi’a proxy and the loosely affiliated al-Qaeda network. In September 2003, when US authorities designated Zarqawi and several of his associates as ‘Specially Designated Global Terrorist’ entities, the Treasury said that Zarqawi not only had “ties” to Hizbullah, but that plans were in place for his deputies to meet with both Hizbullah and Asbat al-Ansar (a Lebanese Sunni terrorist group), “and any other group that would enable them to smuggle mujaheddin [sic] into Palestine.” (7) The Treasury claimed that Zarqawi received “more than $35,000” in mid 2001 “for work in Palestine,” which included “finding a mechanism that would enable more suicide martyrs to enter Israel” as well as “to provide training on explosives, poisons, and remote controlled devices. (8)

Similarly, while the 9/11 Commission found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah had advance knowledge of the September 11 plot, the commission’s report does note that Iran and Hezbollah provided assistance to al-Qaeda on several occasions. For example, al-Qaeda operatives were allowed to travel through Iran with great ease. Entry stamps were not put in Saudi operatives’ passports at the border, though at least eight of the September 11 hijackers transited the country between October 2000 and February 2001. The report also noted a “persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al-Qaeda figures” and drew attention to an informal agreement by which Iran would support al-Qaeda training with the understanding that such training would be used “for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States.” Indeed, al-Qaeda operatives were trained in explosives, security, and intelligence on at least two occasions, with one group trained in Iran around 1992, and a second trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Beka’a Valley in the fall of 1993. (9)

In the final analysis, whether suspected ties between Hezbollah and global jihadist elements such as Zarqawi and the 9/11 plotters are proved or not, Hezbollah warrants being designated a terrorist group of global reach on the merits of its own activities. The means by which the group finances its vast and varied activities is therefore of paramount concern to U.S. intelligence officials and policymakers.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 10:38 AM | Link to this

Chilao - do you think that a majority, or even a large minority, of people get their television using your method? (btw, isn’t putting stuff on utility poles a violation of their easement!? :^D) All I can go by is my own experience and I’ve found that on one of our sets we can get a “public” signal, albeit a fuzzy and scratchy signal, with the “rabbit ears” type of receiver, but on our other “cable ready” television we can’t get anything.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Flavor Flav

another psuedonym from our off-putting troll?

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

Charities and Front Organizations

Hezbollah uses charities and front organizations to conceal their fundraising activities. Take, for example, the al-Aqsa International Foundation, a terrorist front organization banned by the United States, Germany and Great Britain (though not the European Union). While al-Aqsa primarily served as a Hamas front organization, Sheikh Moayad, the head of the the al-Aqsa office in Yemen, was arrested in Germany and extradited to the United States for providing financial support to al-Qaeda. Moayad proudly told an undercover FBI informant that he not only funded Hamas but also raised millions of dollars, recruited operatives, and provided weapons to al-Qaeda. According to one report, one of the foundation’s offices in Europe also raised funds for Hezbollah. (61)

The “Martyr’s Organization” (Bonyad-e Shahid), headed by Mohammad Hasan Rahimiyan, admittedly supplies charitable funds for the family of suicide bombers. In 2001, Paraguayan police searched the home of Hezbollah operative Sobhi Mahmoud Fayad in Ciudad Del Este, a town along the Tri-Border area where the borders of Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay meet. Searching Fayad’s home, police found receipts from the Martyr’s Organization for donations Fayad sent totaling more than $3.5 million dollars. (62) Authories believe Fayad sent over $50 million to Hezbollah since 1995. According to press reports, Iran has traditionally funded Palestinian dissident groups in the Lebanese refugee camps, including al Maqdah, through the Institute of the Palestinian Martyrs. (63)

Another example is the Al-Mabarrat Charity Association headed by Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah. Formerly the spiritual leader for Hezbollah, Fadlallah maintains intimate ties with the organization and remains on the U.S. Treasury’s list of Specially Designated Terrorists. In 2003, Lebanese Finance Minister Fuad Siniora was barred from entering the United States because of a donation he made to the Al-Mabarrat Charity Association in 2000.

In some cases, the foreign remittances discussed above are funneled to Hezbollah though the group’s charities. Members of the Hezbollah cell in Charlotte, North Carolina, received receipts from Hezbollah for their donations, including receipts from the office of then-Hezbollah spiritual leader Sheikh Mohammad Fadlallah. (64) One receipt, signed by Ali Abu Al Shaer, the financial manager of “the office of his Excellency Ayat Allah Mr. Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah,” thanked “brother Mohammed Hammoud,” the subsequently convicted leader of the Charlotte cell, for a $1,300 donation. (65)

According to a declassified research report based on Israeli intelligence Hezbollah also receives funds from charities that are not directly tied to Hezbollah but are radical Islamist organizations and donate to Hezbollah out of ideological affinity. “Besides operating a worldwide network of fundraisers, funds are also raised through so-called ‘charity funds.’ Some of these are extremist Islamic institutions that, while not directly connected to Hezbollah, support it, albeit marginally, in view of their radical Islamic orientation.” (66) The report cites many such charities worldwide, including four in the Detroit area alone: The Islamic Resistance Support Association, the al-Shaid Fund, the Educational Development Association (EDA) and the Goodwill Charitable Organization (GCO). Also cited are the the al-Shahid Organization in Canada, the Karballah Foundation for Liberation in South Africa, the Lebanese Islamic Association and al-Shahid Social Relief Institution in Germany, and the Lebanese Welfare Committee, The Help Foundation and The Jam’iyat al-Abrar (Association of the Righteous) in Britain.

While some of these funds undoubtedly paid for Hezbollah’s military and terrorist operations, other funds enable the group to provide its members with day jobs, to drape itself in a veil of legitimacy, and to build grassroots support among not only Shia but Sunni and Christian Lebanese as well. For example, Hezbollah runs the al-Janoub hospital in the southern Lebanese city of Nabatiyah—one out of a network of some fifty hospitals the group runs throughout the country. The hospital receives $100,000 a month from Hezbollah and is run by Ahmad Saad, the hospital director who is also a member of Hezbollah’s “national health committee.” (67)

In light of its support from Iran, Hezbollah needs not rely on charities to raise funds as much as other groups like al Qaeda or Hamas. Nonetheless, as Assistant Secretary of State E. Anthony Wayne testified before Congress in September 2003, donating money to charities affiliated with terrorist groups like Hamas or Hezbollah frees up existing monies to support the group’s terrorist activities. “If you are funding the organization, even if there are many charitable activities going on, there is some fungibility between funds. You are strengthening the organization.” (68) Moreover, such funds are objectionable in their own right when they build grassroots support for terrorist organizations and subsidize the families of suicide bombers.

According to US intelligence officials, “Hizbullah maintains several front companies in sub-Saharan Africa”. (69) Little information is available on these purported fronts, though they are widely assumed to include import-export companies (an established terrorist modus operandi). These officials say that many Hizbullah activists in the tri-border region relocated to Africa and other locations as a result of the increased attention drawn to Hizbullah activity after the group’s role in the 1992 and 1994 truck bombings in Argentina. In an effort “not to have all their eggs in one basket”, one analyst adds, some Hizbullah operatives have “moved on” from locations in South America and Europe and set up shop in Africa, Asia and less conspicuous parts of South America. (70)

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Flava- can you get a cut/paste about all the terroristic activities people like Menachem Begin, for example, engaged in against the British, say upper 1940s, before Israel became a nation? Kinda do a Fox Fair and Balanced thing.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

No, Mara, this is a cutter and paster troll, not to be confused with our usual self-indulgent, super macho intelligent troll.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Mara - it is a personal pole, just happens to be a telephone pole, prior-owner worked for the power company and had access to alot of their wooden/lumber stuff, including bracing for fence-poles.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

Oh, f——-k! DOG do0-doo is back using a different name with each long-winded cut and paste post! Anybody read any of the crazy wild-eyed christian stuff about how Islam has to be destroyed? Maybe I’ll post some of that tripe.

By Archie

September 18, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

I say yes to the topic question because rules are rules and we make too many exceptions in this society and I don’t think it’s necessary to hear profanity to really understand what went on during 9/11, but I also don’t agree with Shanti’s idea of censorship. Diane is right to suggest that there are sitcoms that are offensive but profanity is not some great food that a person needs to experience so if you don’t get any profanity for certain hours a person won’t be lacking culturally,etc.

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Executive Director Robert Satloff

In August 1985, I was fortunate to join what was then a small, hardy band of Middle East experts who were motivated by the idea that scholarship could have an impact on the making of U.S. policy in the region. Over the years, one of my greatest sources of satisfaction has come from seeing how often the wisdom of that simple idea has been proven correct.

Our nation faces an extraordinary moment of challenge “Our nation faces an extraordinary moment of challenge in the Middle East.” in the Middle East. We are at war on multiple fronts, looking toward adversaries who confront us and our allies in many ways and in many places. For that reason, the Institute is currently expanding its core agenda to address this new series of threats.

One of the most menacing of these threats is ideological—a competition for the hearts, minds, and hopes of Muslims around the world. While this is, at its core, a struggle among Muslims, the United States cannot be a disinterested observer. The universal ideas of freedom, democracy, peace, and security that America has embraced and defended are under threat from the creeping totalitarianism of Islamist radicalism. For an Institute founded on respect for the power of ideas, this is a momentous struggle, and you will see a growing percentage of our research and programming directed toward that effort.

The launch of this website reflects another powerful idea.

Until now, access to the Institute’s “product”—the prodigious research of its scholars, the exchange of expert views in our Policy “Accessing this website should be part of your daily routine.” Forum seminars, and other exceptional programming—has been restricted to a tightly held circle of “consumers”: the several hundred government officials, analysts, journalists, diplomats, scholars, and experts who comprise the Middle East foreign policy elite. The motivating factor was exclusivity.

This website represents the most visible example of a new approach: inclusivity.

Middle East issues are now the central focus of American foreign policy and the pivot of international affairs. As such, discussion about U.S. Middle East policy is no longer the province of a small elite, but rather the stuff of front-page news and regular debate on the op-ed pages, radio waves, and talk shows of the national and global media. The goal of this website is to enrich this growing debate by welcoming informed citizens throughout the country—indeed, throughout the world—to access our “product” in much the same way that high-level Washington-based officials, prominent journalists, and senior diplomats have been able to for years.

Whether your hometown newspaper is the New York Times, St. Petersburg Times, Jordan Times, or London Times, accessing this website should be part of your daily routine. I promise that you will gain a deeper understanding of Middle East politics and U.S. policy. And you—along with the cause of a secure peace in the Middle East—will be better off for it.

The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036 Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2006 All rights reserved

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

n 1985, a small group of visionary Americans committed to advancing U.S. interests in the Middle East founded The Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Their mission was simple yet powerful: to inject the power of ideas and the discipline of scholarship into the making of U.S. Middle East policy. (In the spirit of policy relevance, they chose the term “Near East” rather than the more popular “Middle East” because they wanted the Institute’s name to reflect the U.S. State Department’s “The founders envisioned an institution that would reject romantic notions of what outside observers want the Middle East to be, and instead embrace what the region actually is.” own geographic designation). The founders understood that American interests in the region emanate from a handful of core ideas: security, peace, prosperity, democracy, and stability. But they also recognized that these interests can be best advanced through policies rooted in inquiry, debate, and research. Most of all, the founders envisioned an institution that would reject romantic notions of what outside observers want the Middle East to be, and instead embrace disinterested assessments of what the region actually is.

The Washington Institute accesses the policy process from many angles: the written word, the spoken word, and personal contact. The Institute’s senior research staff includes experts on a wide array of political, military, security, and economic issues that cover every corner of the Middle East. They speak the region’s languages, have lived and worked there, and often hail from the region itself. We are proud of the long list of Institute “We are proud of the long list of Institute alumni who have gone on to serve in virtually every arm of government that plays a role in Middle East policymaking.” “alumni” who have gone on to serve in virtually every arm of government that plays a role in Middle East policymaking—including the National Security Council, State Department, Pentagon, and intelligence community.

Every business day, Institute scholars and associates are quoted in major American or international media, appear on the op-ed pages of elite newspapers, or are interviewed on network television and radio news programs. Interpreting the complexities of the Middle East for both general and elite audiences is one of our most important functions.

And Institute publications—from policy briefs to full-length monographs—are widely recognized as “must-reading” for officials, diplomats, and journalists in Washington and around the world. They provide “instant analysis” of breaking events as well as thoughtful, long-range assessments of trends in the shaping of future policy.

Through “In the post–September 11 era, the Institute is dedicating new resources to assist the U.S. government in countering the destructive elixir of Islamist extremism, terrorism, and proliferation.” all of these avenues of access, the Institute seeks to inject dispassionate, research-driven analysis supported by fact and expertise—into the making of U.S. Middle East policy.

Originally, the organization’s research agenda focused on Arab-Israeli relations, political and security issues, and overall U.S. Middle East policy. In the 1990s, prompted by the fall of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War, and changes within the regional strategic make-up, the Institute’s research breadth grew, this time to include a special focus on Turkey and the rise of Islamic politics as the dominant leitmotif for understanding political trends across the “expanded” post-Soviet Middle East.

In the post–September 11 era, the Institute’s research agenda is once again undergoing an expansion. This growth is driven by the emergence of the Middle East as the central U.S. foreign policy concern, as well as by the daunting multiplicity of regional issues that today affect America’s most profound security interests. In addition to an ongoing focus on our traditional research areas, the Institute is dedicating new resources to assist the U.S. government in understanding and countering the destructive elixir of Islamist extremism, terrorism, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—particularly nuclear weapons. Each one of these ingredients is dangerous; two combined are menacing; all three working in concert are potentially cataclysmic.

Our hope is to see the emergence of a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous Middle East. American leadership—animated by the power of ideas and the talents of those dedicated individuals who can transform them into sound, workable policies—will bring us closer to that reality.

pdf Director’s Message Our Mission Our History Our Programs Our People Board of Advisors Experts in the Media Fellowships & Internships Contact Us Support Us

Site Design and Development by Matthew Schwartz Design Studio
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036 Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2006 All rights reserved

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Experts by Subject

Arab and Islamic Politics Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Mehdi Khalaji Visiting Fellow

Martin Kramer Wexler-Fromer Fellow

Hala Mustafa Keston Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Seth Wikas Visiting Fellow

Arab-Israeli Relations Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Energy and Economics Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Simon Henderson Baker Fellow

Military and Security Michael Bauer National Defense Fellow

Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Michael Eisenstadt Director, Military & Security Studies Program

Andrew Exum Soref Fellow

Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

Michael Knights Associate

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Peace Process Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Proliferation Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Michael Eisenstadt Director, Military & Security Studies Program

Raymond Tanter Adjunct Scholar

Terrorism Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

Emily Hunt Soref Fellow

U.S. Policy Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Andrew Exum Soref Fellow

Martin Kramer Wexler-Fromer Fellow

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

Raymond Tanter Adjunct Scholar

Beyond the Middle East Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

Egypt David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Hala Mustafa Keston Fellow

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

Iran Patrick Clawson Deputy Director for Research

Mehdi Khalaji Visiting Fellow

Raymond Tanter Adjunct Scholar

Iraq Soner Cagaptay Director, Turkish Research Program

Michael Eisenstadt Director, Military & Security Studies Program

Michael Knights Associate

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Israel Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Jordan Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Robert Satloff Executive Director

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Lebanon Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Andrew Exum Soref Fellow

Robert Rabil Adjunct Scholar

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Seth Wikas Visiting Fellow

North Africa Robert Satloff Executive Director

Palestinians Hassan Barari Visiting Fellow

Barak Ben-Zur Visiting Fellow

Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Christopher Hamilton Senior Fellow, Counterterrorism Studies

David Makovsky Director, Project on the Middle East Peace Process

Dennis Ross Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow

Persian Gulf States Simon Henderson Baker Fellow

Michael Knights Associate

Syria Uzi Dayan Distinguished Visiting Fellow

Robert Rabil Adjunct Scholar

David Schenker Senior Fellow, Arab Politics

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Seth Wikas Visiting Fellow

Syria & Lebanon Robert Rabil Adjunct Scholar

Jeffrey White Berrie Defense Fellow

Turkey Soner Cagaptay Director, Turkish Research Program

Mark Parris Counselor, Turkish Research Program

Site Design and Development by Matthew Schwartz Design Studio
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy · 1828 L Street NW Suite 1050 Washington DC 20036 Tel: 202-452-0650 · Fax: 202-223-5364 · Contact · Privacy Policy · © 2006 All rights reserved

By Flavor Flav

September 18, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Board of Advisors

“I congratulate The Washington Institute for the quality of its work, which I admire.” —Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations

The Washington Institute’s Board of Advisors includes luminaries from the diplomatic and policymaking arena, the business world, and the media. This bipartisan group of statemen provides ongoing advice and counsel both collectively and individually to our staff and leadership.

Warren Christopher Secretary of State

Lawrence S. Eagleburger Secretary of State

Alexander Haig Secretary of State

Max M. Kampelman Senior Diplomat

Jeane Kirkpatrick U.S. ambassador to the UN

Samuel W. Lewis U.S. ambassador to Israel

Edward Luttwak Center for Strategic and International Studies

Michael Mandelbaum Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies

Robert McFarlane National Security Advisor

Martin Peretz Editor in Chief and chairman, New Republic

Richard Perle Assistant Secretary of Defense

James G. Roche Secretary of the Air Force

George P. Shultz Secretary of State

Paul Wolfowitz* Deputy Secretary of Defense

R. James Woolsey Director of Central Intelligence

Mortimer Zuckerman Publisher, U.S. News and World Report

• resigned upon entry to government service, 2001

By Hey you

September 18, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

Does everybody recognized Flavor Flav as Dog? Notice how he keeps posting those log posts one right after the other? I guess it’s easy to say you’re leaving if you just change your name and come back. Oh well, maybe next week.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

so we’ll sanitize 9/11 so the kiddies won’t be shocked by cursing firefighters, cops, or terrified civilians. We’ll sanitize WWII (i.e. Saving Private Ryan) so that the kiddies won’t know that soldiers (gasp!) curse. What kind of whitewashed fantasy world do these people want their children to think we live in? Shall we go back to putting two beds in the sit-com bedroom of a married couple because having only one bed might make a child wonder about what goes on when mommy and daddy sleep together? It’s just silly to censor in the name of “protecting the children”. They hear it every day. They already *know that people curse. That’s the reality they hear on the street, the playground, the ballgame. It’s rediculous to think that they need to be “protected” from the “bad words” on television.

And no, we don’t need to hear the profanity to understand 9/11 but it does add a certain impact to the realism of the narrative.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Let’s censor everything. The government can control what we see and hear in the media. That is the best thing for society. Ignorance is bliss is it not?

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Anybody read any of the crazy wild-eyed christian stuff about how Islam has to be destroyed?

They’ve tried that before, (Christian Crusades), and all they got for it are more people who hate Christians.

*”I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mathatma Ghadi *

By chuck

September 18, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

The whole point Jack, is that if the FCC creates a set of rules, parents should be able to trust that so they don’t have to explain to their 6 year-old’s teacher why he all of a sudden started using the F word in class.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

Now ain’t that the truth? “Your christians are so unlike your christ.”

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

Maybe my last post got censored because of bad language. Sometimes it’s so appropriate. Like when some bozo high-jacks the blog and fills up space with a list of double spaced names that noone cares about. What a egomaniacal a$$.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

can anyone tell me which channels are considered “public airwaves” and which are “cable”? I’m guessing that in the Metro area Channels 2, 5 , and 11 along with the PBS stations….

By Jack

September 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

I know the point Chuck. Parents should trust no one when it comes to what they should or shouldn’t see. If they are over-sanitized, they have no idea of what the real thing may be. 9/11 and war are both things that should be shown as it happens. If Mommy & Daddy don’t want Junior to see it, they shouldn’t let Junior see it. Why leave it to the govt? You homeschool your children. Do you also control what they watch on TV or do you let govt censor for you?

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Public airwaves would be NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, FOX, WB. some uhf stuff, like 50-series stations as well.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 12:59 PM | Link to this

Mara. I would guess those that you can get without cable or dish.

By Scalia

September 18, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

And if it is left up to the government to censor, that leaves a lot of power in somebody’s hands. That can easily get carried away. Besides, where is the checks and balances? Are we supposed to check the government on what they censor?

By Jack

September 18, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Bla should be a Daddy by now.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

I finally saw “Brokeback Mountain” yesterday. What a sad movie. I didn’t know it was going to be so sad. How sad for the men who loved each other but could not be true and honest in that love. How sad for the women who married/loved the men who couldn’t love them. That’s the way it was in the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s. Chuck and many others would love to see it that way again. So I guess that’s one reason I can’t care too much about obscenities (definition, please?) on primetime 9/11 coverage.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

The whole point Jack, is that if the FCC creates a set of rules, parents should be able to trust that so they don’t have to explain to their 6 year-old’s teacher why he all of a sudden started using the F word in class.

Wait…I thought that true conservatives didn’t believe in government control? I thought they were all about personal responsibility and the minimization of government? That’s what I keep hearing…

So…why is government control OK when it comes to validating their own personal prejudices and hangups? Shouldn’t lack of government control mean…lack of government control?

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

So I guess that’s one reason I can’t care too much about obscenities (definition, please?)

Obscenity - Can’t be defined but you know it when you see it.

Profanity - Words or phrases with blasphemous religious overtones (root word Profane)or taboo religious overtones. May have meaning within the framework of the particular religion that is being profaned.

Vulgarity - Words that society deems crude. They have no inherent meaning other than that assigned to them by society. Obsessing over them is silly.

By chuck

September 18, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

I control what they watch, Jack, but if you are flipping channels and you are looking for something to watch, you can’t control the F bomb coming out of the tv in that moment that you light on that channel. That’s why the FCC rules are in place. There is no substitute for Parental censorship, but the so-called family time from 7-10 is not supposed to have that kind of language in it. These networks should just follow the rules alread in place.

I used to get really mad when Fox first got NFL football. I could not watch it with my kids in the room, because of the COMMERCIALS promoting the trash they showed in prime time. There ought to be some relief from that kind of stuff.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

obscenities (definition, please?

I thought I got that; if it has to do with the area between the navel and the knees….or any of the things that might happen in that area…..natural or otherwise and is non-clinical terminology, then it is obscenities.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

obviously, “obscenities” are different things for different ppl.

By Renee

September 18, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

lozen - the movie is really sad, especially the ending. I watched it when I was already feeling sad (we rented a movie to cheer me up) and needless to say I was worse LOL.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

I finally saw “Brokeback Mountain” yesterday. What a sad movie.

OK I know I’m getting off the subject but…..

I saw it a couple of months ago too. What I didn’t understand about the movie was why didn’t the female character who played Heath Ledger’s wife leave him when she saw him kissing another man? She HAD to have known then that her husband was gay!!! Why did she stay for years afterward?!? Then the part towards the end when she said “I put a note in your tackle box asking you to please bring back some fish for me and the kids and you never did”, should’ve had her alarms ringing off by then!!!

And then, why did she wait years later after they were divorced and she had remarried to confront him on it? That part made no sense to me at all.

Yes it was really a sad movie, but the saddest part to me is that the main characters remained TRAPPED in this cycle of denial that they refused to escape from.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

control what they watch, Jack, but if you are flipping channels and you are looking for something to watch, you can’t control the F bomb coming out of the tv in that moment that you light on that channel

It’s funny - I have every channel available through my cable service, and the only times I ever, ever, ever hear the F-Bomb (and I watch Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, etc) are on pay-only movie channels.

Sounds like someone is manufacturing a problem that doesn’t actually exist in order to hide his real agenda. Comments like “I used to get really mad when Fox first got NFL football. I could not watch it with my kids in the room, because of the COMMERCIALS promoting the trash they showed in prime time. There ought to be some relief from that kind of stuff.” suggest that someone is really more interested in controlling all content for all viewers rather than just limiting what language is deemed acceptable.

I’m guessing that “the trash” in question would be beer ads, scanitly clad women, and suggestive advertising…I mean, who would have thunk that FOOTBALL would have beer ads and half naked women…

By Jack

September 18, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Chuck. if your children have friends, they will hear the “F” word and it’s definition before you want them to. I will agree that prime time TV is trash but that is what the people want, violence, death, and sex. sex being the worst. Funny how it is ok to watch a brutal murder but not 2 people making love. Ok children, murder is ok. Sex is not.

By chuck

September 18, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

con·ser·va·tism (kən-sûr’və-tĭz’əm) n. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing or traditional order. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden change in the established order.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

DuckTroll(and we know..LOL), the ads are probably for all those ‘terrible’ FOX shows.

cannot think of any off the top of my head, since any SOME people would get upset about would, to me, just be ‘real TV’ and I am not talking about RealityShows.

By Lyrazel

September 18, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Renee, good point.

My initial dismay is totally about how we will be getting 9/11 shows from now on IF we watch this mega-show. Its the mud holding a dam together and once it starts being televised we will see shows all taking place at 9/11. There lies the exploitation factor that TV is famous for and it does NOT know when to stop…almost as bad as the Twin Tower keychain and memorial plate…or say…now that they all have flubbed careers lets have a reunion episode of Friends where the gang are trapped on the roof…and they all jump together…or maybe Chandler joins the mile high club on Flight 93….

As far as language the FCC is under law to curb violence, language and ads geared at children. It tells cable channels nothing because cable is an optional service. It HAS to direct programs to change its content during certain hours children could be watching. Its the law. Breaking the law is not an option for the networks nor stations that could loose their license if they broadcast without warnings, so there will be language, nudity and adult situations.

I have 8 channels with rabbit ears. Its free which sums up my TV viewing…minimal. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS are public channels…

By Mara

September 18, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Chilao - from the neck to knee, not from the navel. I don’t know about you but just I can’t get past the absolute horror I feet every time I replay that 30-second glimpse of Janet’s nipple-cover on my TiVo…LOL!!

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

Mara - I really must ask, exactly WHY do you replay it so much? (way too good to pass up..LMAO, that’s a touché)

By Jack

September 18, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

They should have fined janet instead of CBS.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

I have only seen that once(and not live), was it all of 30 seconds?

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

emphasizing respect for traditional institutions

I’m not sure what this has to do with language on television…to which “traditional institution” are you referring that relates to cable television?

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Mara, I just figured out why you would see it over and over. Perhaps you are on your community standards board and you have to remind yourself “Now this is obscenity, this is obscenity” so you will know it when you see it. Good job.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

There is a very interesting steel sculpture in a center-traffic island on one corner of the Federal Mint, downtown Philadelphia. Someone asked me what it was as we drove by, I replied “Must be Aht”.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

By the way, if we’re going to accept the dictionary definition of “conservative” going forward, surely we must agree to accept this definition of liberal:

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

By Zack

September 18, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

In response to a comment by Brian Curtis last week, Brian, it doesn’t matter whether you <—— agree <—— that abortion is murder. That isn’t the point. Abortion is murder. That statement isn’t up for discussion. It IS proven from an objective standpoint, and your radical, subjective opinion is irrelevant. The morning-after pill IS a form of abortion because it interferes with the process of life.

The raw obscenities being heard are offensive. However, I’m more offended by the crudeness of Hollywood and even your typical commercial. I’m not saying the former is okay. I’d rather hear the former than some punk like Jim Carrey cussing flippantly and unapologetically, which is one reason why I have no desire to watch any of his movies.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Jack, honey, you’re on a roll today! Yes, isn’t it amazing how it’s okay for kids to watch people blow other peoples’ brains out over and over and over again, but Janet’s boob getting exposed for one fast second is so terrible, so awful! And something has to be done to save our children! My friend has always let her son watch any movie and any tv show he wanted to see. She watches with him, they talk about it, and she gets her point across! I highly recommend that to other parents who are concerned about what their children may hear, see, watch.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 18, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

I’d rather hear the former than some punk like Jim Carrey cussing flippantly and unapologetically, which is one reason why I have no desire to watch any of his movies

So…you haven’t actually seen any of his movies, yet you feel qualified to judge the content of them?

By the way, I think you might be confusing the meaning of the words “objective” and “subjective”.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

and Zack rears his ugly head!

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Zack, in response to your comment of today, it doesn’t matter if you think abortion is murder. Abortion is NOT murder. That statement IS NOT up for discussion. A fetus is not a person, can’t exist on its own, isn’t counted in a census. Your radical subjective opinion is irrelevant. Get back to us when you grow a uterus and get pregnant.

By Mara

September 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Susie - don’t forget that the movie takes place in Wyoming in the early ‘60’s. Though Wyoming is called the “Equality State” for it’s traditionally liberal views on womens rights, they still were a god-fearin’ rural country. Homosexuality wasn’t even talked about. It was, at that time, still considered a mental illness. So she’d have “shamed” herself, her children, and her “husband” were she to apply for divorce in pre-No Fault Divorce America. Also, divorce was stigmatized and the female was generally considered “used” goods and a bad influence. It was thought better to stay married to a bad man than to not have a man at all. And don’t forget about the chil’dens. Does that old conservative whine about “Children need a mother AND a father…” ring a bell?

That was also before the laws prohibiting employment descrimination. It wasn’t til the ’70s that women began entering the workforce in any number, and those were in “traditionally” women’s jobs, perhaps not too plentiful in rural Wyoming.

As I said, I’m not speaking for the writer but all things being equal, perhaps she didn’t think divorce was an option…

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Yep, Zack slipped away from the guys in the white coats again today!

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Lozen: I’m glad I wasn’t an adult back then!! Everyone talks about the “good ole days” but what the heck was so good about them? I shiver everytime I see the civil rights marchers in the 60s getting set upon by dogs, cops and water hoses. When I read Sandra Day O’Connor’s bio about how she was the top graduate in her class at law school but couldn’t get a job as a lawyer, only as a legal secretary, when she first started out; I’m stumped!!! What was so dang special about that time that a lot of people wish to go back to it? Are they nuts?!?

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry — I meant to say Mara!! I must have Lozen on my mind……. (smile)

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Susie - the good ole days weren’t exactly that good, in fact if you were to go back there, everybody would be talking about some other even further way-back good ole days, which would mean those days not so good after all.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Susie. When you get older, you yern for ‘the good ole days”. Your “good ole days” may not be the same as others but still good to you.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

To Mara (again off the subject): I have a good friend of mine who is trapped in that “Cycle Of Denial” — and has been for years. He married a WOMAN five years ago, even though he KNOWS he’s gay and have known it for some time — but being gay and black in america was too much for him so he decided to deny who he is in order to fit in.

After all these years he STILL won’t admit out loud to me, (the woman who has seen him tonguing other men, in bed with other men, and hitting on other men), that he’s gay. He says he’s “open”. What the FUZZ?!? He’s married, has a wife and three kids and has been living this double life for years now. He’s very masculine, (and very proud of it because he can easily “pass” for straight), and he attracts as many women as he does men; but he is major unhappy and he doesn’t understand WHY he’s unhappy.

And no, I would NEVER tell his wife, (for a myriad of reasons one being that she thinks I want her husband and she’s very jealous of me and A* relationship. 2) she probably wouldn’t believe it even if Jesus came down off the cross and told her himself), but I feel like an accomplice to a gigantic lie.

Everybody is a looser in situations like this. You have people screaming rabid anti-gay hatred rhetoric, then you have people caught in the middle who have friends and family who are gay, then you have the other side screaming about the joy of being gay. I believe it’s only a joy, when you can come out and be who you are and stop hiding.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

It’s quite elementary, my Dear Watson: Once again the Loony Left and the (Self)-Righteous Right are foolishly wishing to return to the blissful ignorance of the Garden of Eden in their same predictable ways as shown in today’s discussion of the rightful use of obscenity.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Susie: It’s isn’t hard for me to understand the characters in the movie. I was a young adult in the 60’s and 70’s and I remember what it was like. What I didn’t understand about the movie was why didn’t the female character who played Heath Ledger’s wife leave him when she saw him kissing another man? She lived in denial? She couldn’t believe what she saw? There were no books or movies or tv shows back then about gay people. She loved him? She was working in a grocery store in a small town and didn’t want to try to raise the kids totally on her own? People in small towns didn’t get divorced back then because it was a disgrace? She was afraid to be alone? She wanted the kids to have a father? It was perfectly understandable to me why she stayed and why she couldn’t even face the facts until years later. the saddest part to me is that the main characters remained TRAPPED in this cycle of denial that they refused to escape from I think you’re putting the entire blame for these tragic lives 100 percent on the individuals involved and forgetting (or maybe you weren’t around back then) the political climate of the 60’s and 70’s. Ennis’ father made sure his sons got the message about what happened to “those men”! Can you imagine seeing that at that age and being told this is justified? It’s okay to drag a “queer” until you rip his penis off and leave him dead in a ditch? Ennis’ fear was perfectly understandable to me. (That was the first thing that went through his mind when he learned of Jack’s death.) They lived in insular, little western towns where small-minded, ignorant people laughed at “those people” and intimidated them, fired them, refused to rent to them, ran them out of town on a rail, beat them and murdered them. There was absolutely no support for gay people back then. I grew up in the same kind of little southern town hearing people talk about “them sickos” and how disgusting they were. It really hasn’t been that long since Stone Wall, gay pride, a swell of support for gay people. The world those men lived in was not like the world we live in today.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

You see, Watson, the “Barking Dog Which Didn’t Bark” in this case is found by simply looking back the past few weeks on the W2W board to discover what constitutes an “obscenity”. If you notice, every obscenity used falls into one of two categories (1) References to reproductive organs and their functions (2) References to religious or moral stigmas.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

As such, the truth is that references to reproductive organs, their functions, along with religious and moral stigmas reveal that our deepest emotions are tied in with these two subjects. A different way of saying this same thing is that these topics are TABOO.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

And as the brilliant Joseph Campbell explained in such books as “The Hero With A Thousand Faces”, TABOO fulfills a much needed function in society in the very same way that personal modesty/shame prevent young ladies from becoming ‘hos.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

Even though GOD gave us moral discernment as a GIFT, here again the Loony Left foolishly wishes for a “Return To Eden” by arguing that “bad words” shouldn’t make us feel ashamed when used capriciously. One of the features of TABOO is that once you overcome the shame of one level of TABOO, you have to invent even more extreme TABOOS to fill the void.

By Jack

September 18, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

I saw the kissing scene in the alley on a talk show. That was enough for me. Yuck.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

As proof of the inescability of TABOO, just look at the rising levels of violence, pornography, etc, accepted by our young people as being “status quo” due to the indiscriminate appearance of vulgarity in TV, movies, and popular music in the entirety of their young lives. Once again, total Lib Idiots like lozen will never make this obvious connection, or will argue that the obvious decline of basic respect throughout our society is a good thing.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

Oh, shucks. Should have read Mara’s post before sending off that last one to Susie. I’m 60ish, ya know and you can have the “good ole days.” Except for the later 60’s and the hippy phenomenon. I’d go back to that in a second. Before that, it seems to me everything was so fake. Donna Reed kind of fake. Father Knows Best kind of fake. But a lot of people bought into that whole fairytale world where women did housework in cocktail dresses! My parents did and their whole life was pretense and denial. They would not hear the truth about anything. And I was just like them until the post partum depression that sent me off to counseling in the mid 60’s where I faced the truth about my life and how fake it was!

By SusieHomeMaker

September 18, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Sherlock: Why is it in all these millenia of humans we haven’t progressed beyond the Scarlet Letter? Is our history going to repeat over and over again forever?

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

And, of course, chuck over in the (Self)-Righteous Right wants to do away with TABOO altogether by passing Taliban-like Laws which artificially remove choice. AND, while even the brain-dead Loony Left can see the danger in that, chuck hangs on to his self-assessment that it’s okay because he has “good intentions”, Yes, chuck, removing MORAL CHOICE is an ABOMINATION TO GOD.

By lozen sees the light

September 18, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things.” 1 Corinthians 13:11

Now for those of you who know me would probably wonder why in the name of all that is holy and sacred a religion-killer like myself would be quoting something from the bible. Well the matter of fact is simple anyway. When I was a child I did everything that a child would do…then something happened that changed my life as I knew it.

I grew up too fast.

It’s not saying that I’m one of those child prodigies or child stars that grew up having severe psychological issues with their existence. Certainly not. Then again, for some reason I stand in the limbo between those older than me and those that are at my age. It is the price to pay for understanding things beyond your time. It’s definitely a price to pay for trying to consolidate the person you’re supposed to be with the person you made yourself be.

In short, like the quote above, some things in life have to be sacrificed to make way for other things.

The innocence and my social abilities were what I had to give up.

I don’t know. If I had a choice to redo it all over again, I wouldn’t have given up all the books and all the knowledge that I have gained over the years especially in my youth. I wouldn’t have given up the hours and days I spent trying to make trebuchet’s and crossbows out of wood rather than playing with the kids outside.I wouldn’t have given up the scars for the future I know I can make.

It’s just when you cut yourself off from everyone else that you begin to have that sting of regret that comes with choice. Why can’t I be around the people my age? Why can’t older people take my words and works seriously? Why this and why that all around something you don’t even know how to control. All of it running through your mind so often that you actually understand now why a lot of child prodigies and stars have severe mental issues.

At the rate I’m going, I’m really not far off.

So what’s the point of this?

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Susie, the answer to your great question is once again found in the Bible (the greatest work of fiction ever written). You see, “GOD is not the author of Confusion”. In simpler terms, the ANSWERS ARE STARING US STRAIGHT IN THE FACE, BUT OUR ARROGANCE STOPS US FROM SEEING AND ACCEPTING THEM.

By Plagiarism Police

September 18, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

http://kamigoroshi.net/archive/2005/04/22/568

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

You see, Susie, spirits operate on us pea-brain humans all the time whether we are aware of it or not. And because “The Devil’s greatest trick was to convince humans he didn’t exist”, you have idiots like lozen here who try to reject morality and the purpose for morality out of hand without realizing they are simpy dancing a jig for the Evil One.

By Chilao

September 18, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this

Do you think the Jewish boy from northern Joisey slung dog poop thru the Gentile’s window next door, via those trebuchets?

By Jack

September 18, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

I smell a DOG named Sherlock.

By Lozen

September 18, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

TABOO fulfills a much needed function in society in the very same way that personal modesty/shame prevent young ladies from becoming ‘hos. Personal modesty/shame prevent young ladies from becoming ‘hos’! And what is it Sherlock, that prevents young gentlemen from becoming ‘hos’? Respect has to go both ways. If there’s nothing to prevent young gentlemen from becoming ‘hos’ then there will be nothing to prevent young ladies from becoming ‘hos’.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 18, 2006 05:14 PM | Link to this

Susie, as to knowing which spirit is operating on you at any given time, check for the following clues (as provided by the Bible): He tempts men (Mark, Corinthians); provokes to sin (1 Chronicles); causes offense (Matthew); transforms himself into an angel of light (2 Corinthians); resists others (Zechariah); enters into unions with others against GOD (Luke); sends messengers to defeat saints (2 Corinthians); hinders the Gospel (1 Thessalonians); steals the Word of GOD from people lest they believe it (Matthew, Luke); works miracles (2 Thessalonians); contends with messengers of GOD and sometimes holds them captive (Daniel, Jude); hinders answer to prayer (Daniel); sets snares for men to fall into sin (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy); makes war on the saints (Ephesians); causes diversions and blinds men to the Gospel (2 Corinthians); causes double mindedness (James); causes doubt and unbelief (Genesis, Romans); darkness and oppression (2 Corinthans, Peter); deadness and weakness (Hebrews); delay and compromise (Acts); and divisions and strife (1 Peter, 1 Corinthians).

He is presumptuous (Job); proud (Ezekial); deceitful (2 Corinthians, Revelation); fierce and cruel (Luke, 1 Peter); and aggressive (Ephesians). He is cunning (2 Corinthians, Ephesians); wicked (John, Matthew); and cowardly (James).

Hope this helps a little.

By RF

September 19, 2006 07:08 AM | Link to this

Good Morning one and all in Blog-land!!

I didn’t fall off the face of the earth—been a very busy and productive year at my school. I have a group of kids who realize they might actually need to know what we’re trying desperately to teach them, so I don’t have a single minute to do anything but TEACH and go at it alllllll day long!! (JBM would be proud!!) Been reading you guys some here and there in the evenings. Nice to see things are still pretty much as usual. I’m posting this early from home so I can get my two cents in before I go.

Hey Renee!!!!! How’s life “up north” dear heart?? Tell Net I said HEY, and JBM if you hear from her. I’ve soooo got to e-mail her, but with online classes and all the rest of life, I just plain don’t have a minute to stop here lately.

How’s the school year going Chuck? I’ve got the best group I’ve had in several years, and it’s soooo nice to go home tired and it be a productive, “good tired”, you know?

What a ridiculous debate! I don’t find profanity personally edifying, although the occasional ugly word does slip out, especially when I’m navigating the ever-death defying feat of driving on I-75! I didn’t watch a lot of the unedited shows because I do at least try to shield my kids from bad language. That is my choice as a parent, and I exercised that choice. Do I want the government to make that decision?? Does cow manure smell pretty?? (got caught behind a dump truck full of it the other morning- we dang near asphyxiated before I could get the old Honda I bought for gas saving up to speed enough to get past it!! LOL) Parents have to control the TV and I do just that. Simple, to the point, and final at my house. End of discussion, and my kids go right along with it. It’s about choice, folks. I have the power to turn it off and I do just that when necessary if the kiddies are still awake. I’ve even unplugged the thing if there was any debate about what was okay to watch.

I sat in the same chair in the same old living room on the 11th, with my baby-boy (who’s now EIGHT) who sat with me in the same chair in 2001 watching the news reports, and we both watched and talked about how sad it is still, even after all these years. The power of what we watched was still as strong as ever. For those who object to the profanity, I pose these questions: 1) were you there? 2) would you have worried about the language had you been there? 3) can’t you change the doggone channel if you don’t like it? I suspect most of us would have uttered a few choice words that day had we been at any of the sites.

My kids hear profanity all the time. They’ll tell me about it and we discuss why we CHOOSE not to use that kind of language. They are smart enough to know it’s wrong, and they’ve not appeared to be warped or mentally damaged in any way by it. They know it’s wrong, and that is a standard I have taught them as a parent. One day they will have to choose whether or not to use that kind of language. All I can do is set a standard and encourage them to keep it for themselves as adults. Hiding from the world isn’t the way to empower your kids to deal with it and rise above it. Hiding only sets them up for shock and eventual confusion. They have to be taught about issues and use their intelligence and upbringing to guide them as they become independent beings. I’m not raising clones or force-feeding their future to them. I’m raising future human beings who desperately need to know how to choose right from wrong and make decisions as thinking beings one day. Go to any school, public or private, or read your kids’ e-mails and text messages and you’ll see and hear language you would never think they’d know, much less use. They’re smarter than we think! Unfortunately, there are many who believe that strict government regulation will protect their kids from ever saying a bad word or drinking or smoking or having sex with the wrong gender. Yeah, right!!

Once again, we’re seeing how ridiculous conservatism has become in this country. While still a political moderate, I can’t help but think the GOP is losing it. With all the issues that are in urgent need of our attention, and all a bunch of tight-lipped conservatives have to squawk about is profanity in the 9/11 footage like it’s the anti-Christ himself leading the choir!! Geez, just watch it or don’t and let’s put our energy into solving some problems that are a real threat to our future—the list would be longer than my post!! LOL

Have a wonderful time debating the issue kids. I’m posting this from home and I’ll try to read the day’s posts and catch up with you later!! Sorry for the long post, but I had to catch up while I could. Nice to see so many haven’t changed. TTYL!

By Renee

September 19, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

OMG RF!!!! It’s good to hear from you!! Glad all is going well, and for you busy sounds like well. Drop in when you can. One thing I can say about here in the North is seasons change when they are supposed to. Leaves are already turning and falling, which is more than depresssing. I miss Georgia sooooo much!!!

On another note, the tone of this blog has changed so much. Even on our most hateful days, the blog has never been like this. I can understand why John and several others are no longer in participation. I don’t know if there is anything we can do to bring “us” back where we should be. I don’t know how much more I can even take.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

Susie: It’s isn’t hard for me to understand the characters in the movie. I was a young adult in the 60’s and 70’s and I remember what it was like.

Lozen: I went on line last night to try to get some background on the gay movement/lifestyles of the 60’s and 70’s and what it must have been like to live a double life because of other people’s insecurities. I guess I was a little naive to expect a person who was fully grown by the early 60’s, (hence they came from a 50ish childhood), to have associated a female of the 60s with a female of this era and expected them to have the same type of fortitude that women do now. Thanks for setting me straight. I never could underdstand that movie, and I guess it was because I was looking at it through a narrow lens.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Sherlock: My question was basically, why do we keep attributing shame as a way to restrict human behavior? Shame in all the anals of history really does not work. Since the time of Hester Prynne, (the Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne), and beyond shame has not stopped human behavior.

Another point I was trying to make was that shame is always attributed to the FEMALE partner but never to the male. Hester had to wear the “letter”, the Adultress woman in the bible, who was saved by Jesus, was the one who was being stoned,(if she was caught in the act, that means she had a male partner….why wasn’t HE dragged out into the public square to be stoned alongside her?), even in some literature, movies, and religions TODAY women are portrayed as the cause of all evils!!!

If a woman is raped,HER morality is questioned, not that of the man who raped her!!! (o.k. I’m preaching now, sorry) Basically my point is how has the casting of SHAME and BLAME helped to mold society? Society/Mankind always seems to find a way to do what they want to do regardless.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 19, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Susie, If you think shame is “bad”, try living without it. Many people have tried, with predictable results.

And while I can understand feminists’ cries that it’s not “fair” that the burden of sexual responsibility lies primarily wih them, that’s the way it is. There are many “double-standards” in life involving men and women that are natural and make sense. One of the more ridiculous concepts of the Womens’ Lib movement is that men and women are the SAME. We are of equal value, but we are not the SAME.

By Cracker

September 19, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

Of course it is the woman’s fault, dem women be hoes. If they zipped it up, they would not be available for a man. dang hoes.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 19, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

Also, Susie, watch out for low-qualtiy “fake DOG” posts like Cracker’s post a few minutes ago. Because these weak-minded Libs here couldn’t beat DOG in a fair fight, their only responses now are to (1) Hide (2) Admit defeat through cheap imitation.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Sherlock: Feminists writing aside, you did not answer my question: My question was basically, why do we keep attributing shame as a way to restrict human behavior?

And Has the casting of SHAME and BLAME helped to mold society?

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 19, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

My hope for you, Susie, is to realize that the Liberal Movement, which has nearly ruined our great country, is based on LIES. At every step of the way, GOD tells us the Truth through gifts like modesty. Libs foolishly proclaim that GOD’s messages are not needed, because they have it all worked out on paper (kind of like BC with his “paper Science”).

As hopefully the repeated failure of “Man’s Perfect Plan”, communism, has shown, what looks good on paper will not work in real life if it ignores HUMAN NATURE.

By Mara

September 19, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Excuse me?! As a feminist I must take exception with Bruno/Dog/sherlock’s assertion that we feminists try to say that there’re NO differences between genders. Poppycock! Of course there’re differences but that does not excuse society from providing ALL people with the same opportunities, rights, and responsibilities. Personally the only “double standard” that I could accept as being “natural” is in regard to women having more rights to decide how their uteri are used, primarily because they bear ALL the risk. Men, though their sperm is needed for impregnation, should have NO say on whether a woman carries to term or not.

Other than that, ones abilities shouldn’t be judged on their gender as there is NO “natural law” to support discrimination. For someone name “Sherlock” your are pretty frickin’ stoopid.

By Renee

September 19, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

See what I’m talking about, this self-righteous, know everything, pompous attitude is really getting old. It was old two damn weeks ago.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Uh huh! Sherlock believes spirits are working on him all the time! I guess that explains it. Doesn’t explain why he believes modesty/shame applies only to young ladies and chooses to leave out half the population – young gentlemen - in that equation. That’s just that tired old double standard again. It is still there in the minds of OLD men. And to say that’s just the way it is, uh,uh! For women today that is not just the way it is anymore. Ahhh, yes, the good ole days when women were ladies and only men were allowed to be ‘hos’ just the way god meant for things to be! * “…causes diversions and blinds men to the Gospel…” Are you talking about your diversions on this blog that turns ‘men’ against the Gospel because you are so unappealing?*
“…you have idiots like lozen here who try to reject morality and the purpose for morality out of hand without realizing they are simpy dancing a jig for the Evil One.” Ha, ha, ha, ha! Sherlock, you aren’t even smart enough to figure out what I’m rejecting. I don’t reject morality, you big dumb a$$. I reject the idea that sexual activity is the entire extent of what morality is all about and that god is just going crazy over people having sex! If by chance there is a God she must like sex; she created us with out huge appetite for sex in her image, did she not? You are just another simple minded bible thumper who is obsessed with sex because you can’t have any without shame. And that sure keeps it from ever being any fun doesn’t it? You can’t stand the idea that some people (esp. a woman) can have sex without any feeling of shame whatsoever! That just drives you crazy doesn’t it Sherlock, the Full Of It?

By Cracker

September 19, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

But I learned how to do that bogus posting from our blog DOG, a conservative.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Clapping for Mara!

RF, good to hear from you at last. Hiding from the world isn’t the way to empower your kids to deal with it and rise above it. Hiding only sets them up for shock and eventual confusion. They have to be taught about issues and use their intelligence and upbringing to guide them as they become independent beings. Sherlock is one of those men driven crazy by their imaginings about women out there having just as much freedom and just as much sex as men have always had! And one of those I’m sure who thinks females should pay for having sex by having abortion rights taken away. He thinks he knows what feminists think and he hasn’t a clue. He thinks he knows what liberals think and again, he’s clueless. We all have our blinders and Sherlock’s certainly show through. By the way, has anybody noticed that Chuck hardly posts anything these days (thank goodness, none of his long cut and pastes) but Sherlock seems to have taken his place as the great saintly prophet of doom?

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

And while I can understand feminists’ cries that it’s not “fair” that the burden of sexual responsibility lies primarily wih them, that’s the way it is.

Sherlock: Another quick comment, then I’ll get off of my feminist high horse (smile) — the majority of sexual offenses in the U.S. are created by the MALE species. Child Molestors, rapists, sexual predators, etc. are predominantly male. Why are we placing the shame game on women, when it’s the male of the species that are primarily the offenders? Is it because it is also the male of the species who have traditionally made all of our laws and conveniently left the blame entirely upon the female? Even Adam, when caught red handed in the Garde of Eden, refused to take the blame for HIS part. Instead he blamed God and Eve for his downfall, “It was the woman that YOU gave me Lord…….”

Men still play the blame game….. (end of feminist prose).

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Because they couldn’t beat DOG in a fair fight, they have to hide or admit defeat thru imitation? What a crock! If you think dog had anything to say that anybody needed to hear, if you don’t see what an egomaniac dog is, if you don’t see how rude the little s$$ is monopolizing this blog with his bullcrap then you are hopeless too.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 19, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Who said anything about passing Laws supporting discrimination? You might be thinking of chuck, but not DOG. Or maybe you’re thinking of Lib Laws like the legal discrimination in this country which goes under the Ministry of Truth name “affirmative action”.

So while your lame “ad hominem” dismissals of my ideas might soothe your overinflated egos, any fair arbiter of the W2W posts the past few weeks will clearly see what Lib minds are actually made of: MUSH.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 19, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Susie, maybe now you’re catching on to the meaning behind the moniker “DOG”. (It’s also GOD spelled backwards, the INVERSE of GOD, if you will).

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

“… the Liberal Movement, which has nearly ruined our great country, is based on LIES???? Another crock! We’ve been doing just great for the last 6 years haven’t we? We’re spending billions per day for a war in Iraq that will never be over and is making more and more enemies for the U.S. in the Middle East. We started after Clinton with a huge surplus; it’s all gone now. Prices are skyrocketing. I’m paying more for insurance and medical care costs more than it did 6 years ago. I could go on and on but I won’t because anyone with any intelligence knows all this already.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 19, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Susie, I also would like to direct you to an earlier discussion by DOG on how human females are very different from any other animal species in that other female animals have a LIMITED ESTRUS (heat) which naturally limits their sex partners and keeps the risk of unwanted pregnancies and venereal diseases low. To give human females CHOICE, GOD had to provide a natural tool for limiting sexual partners along with the year-round estrus. It’s called MODESTY.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Good point Susie. Let’s shovel shame onto those women. NOT! That’s the way it was for years and years. And, yes, it is because men made the rules and the laws. A person gets more time for stealing a car and getting caught than a priest who sexually molests a child! The priest is protected by the church and sent on to another parish to get another chance at more unsuspecting children! But let’s just make sure women can’t have abortions; they must suffer the consequences for having sex! That day is over. No more. Some people just can’t take their heads out of their nether regions to see that.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Human females eliminated the limited aspects of a period estrus in order to be less restricted in availability to man.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Sherlock you are full of it. Modesty is taught; it is not an inborn trait. Children have no modesty and are not ashamed of their bodies. They become ashamed because their parents teach them to feel shame. They become modest because they are taught to be modest. Children are curious and want to look at each other and explore each other until the parents catch them and shame them about it. Your ideas are beyond ridiculous.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Sherlock: You still have never really answered my question. What do YOU feel about the blame/shame game. I wish to know YOUR feelings on the subject. Yes, I am fully aware of biblical teachings that you spoke of, but you never pull out the teachings of Jesus. Jesus spoke of love and forgiveness — he said that the Pharisees loved the LAW more than they loved GOD, basically because the LAW gave them power over others.

Remember Jesus is the one who stopped the mob from stoning the woman by saying “Those of you without sin, cast the first stone.” No one is without sin, no one. Love is the greatest commandment of all, but it seems that a lot of LOVE is missing in a lot of the present day Christian teachings. It’s all about shame, damnation, hate, and tossing the first stones. YOUR thoughts on the subject?

“How can you love me whom you have never seen, yet hate your brother” Jesus

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 19, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Lozen, I know it is your wish to stay 2 years old, but the rest of us grow up one day.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Susie, again you are ROTM! Isn’t it strange how these self professed god lovers can ignore jesus’ teachings totally? Sherlock, do you have any joy at all in your life? I doubt it. If you did you wouldn’t always be trying to make others feel as awful as you do. My higher power sees nothing wrong with people having love and laughter and passion in their lives. I feel sorry for you and your joyless, shame filled, barren life.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

Yes, Sherlock, I would trust the instincts of any two-year-old more than your legalistic beliefs any day. What a pitiful dried up old man you are.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

To give human females CHOICE, GOD had to provide a natural tool for limiting sexual partners along with the year-round estrus. It’s called MODESTY.

OK if we go by that line of thought, then modesty is a choice. However, a person can be modest and still be sexually liberated. And I think the natural tool for limiting sexual partners that God gave to woman was pregnancy! If I had to live in a world without some form of birth control, (since I come from a very fertile family), then you bet, my sexual partners would be down to ONE!! (me).

By Scalia

September 19, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this

I’m glad that RF has reared his head. I seriously thought that he dropped off of the face of the Earth. It is good to know that your kids are doing well.

As for Brokeback Mountain, good movie. To reaffirm what was said about the guy being dragged until he was dead. After the first night that Ennis and Jack did anything, the next day there was a dead cow killed by wolves or coyotes, which reaffirmed what Ennis had already been taught.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Lozen: I still can’t understand sometimes how or why people profess to love Jesus and call themselves “Christians” (christ like), but then turn around and do some very un Christ like things. It seems to me they love the strict rigidness of the LAW, more then they love Jesus. In the Bible, the Pharisses HATED Jesus because he taught of forgiveness, instead of retribution, and now it seems that, in this day and age, we’ve come full circle with people who only think of the retribution and the shame but not of forgiving.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this

Scalia, I missed that one. Thanks for pointing that out. The movie was so rich and full of metaphors, I’m sure there were many things I missed. I will watch it again.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Chilao, you know I like you but I don’t buy this: “Human females eliminated the limited aspects of a period estrus in order to be less restricted in availability to man.” Where in the world did you learn this? How exactly did women do that? And why would women, without any means of birth control, (as far as we know) want to be available to more men? This sounds like a very “man” idea.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

this day and age, we’ve come full circle with people who only think of the retribution and the shame but not of forgiving.

Susie, do not confuse DOG etc with anything Christian. He is a member of God’sChosenPeople. (and all of that Old Testament ugliness.)

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

As for Brokeback Mountain, good movie. To reaffirm what was said about the guy being dragged until he was dead. After the first night that Ennis and Jack did anything, the next day there was a dead cow killed by wolves or coyotes, which reaffirmed what Ennis had already been taught.

Yeah, Lozen gave me a new way to look at that movie. I think I’m going to have to rent it again and see it through different eyes to get another perspective.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

People who love the strict rigidness of the law are people with no joy and no love. There are christians who are filled with love and joy and forgiveness. They understand it’s not their place to judge and condemn. You are right; Sherlock and Chuck (maybe the same split personality) are the modern equivalent of the Pharisees. If jesus were here today, they would hate him, condemn him, and probably crucify him all over again.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Lozen - As I understand it, and I am not a biologist, unlike others(snort), it was to keep the man around to protect and provide, and to keep him from going to the next ‘in estrus’ female.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

actually it was sheep they were herding. But funny I saw that and saw no connection between them doing it and the next day finding the dead sheep,(and comparing that to killing-homos-out-west). Thought it was just part of ranching. I miss that kind of metaphor stuff.

By Mara

September 19, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

Thanks, Lozen. Regards right back atcha :^)

Susie - (I’m addressing this to you becuase I prefer not to encourage idiots by engaging them but I really want to rebut this….) The idea that modesty is an inborn trait that has the purpose of limiting the number of a womans sexual partners is beyond rediculous. (throwing up hands, shaking head) Especially considering that “modesty” is wildly subjective. Take breasts, for example. In some cultures breasts are just there like an arm or leg. In other cultures, even showing a flash of ankle or wrist is considered so immodest that floggings and/or imprisonment happen. Of course modesty is only applied to women…

Forget that in most species the male isn’t in rut 24/7 either like HUMAN males are. What method do you suppose “God” implemented to regulate their sexual urges, erectile dysfunction?

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Susie, do not confuse DOG etc with anything Christian. He is a member of God’sChosenPeople. (and all of that Old Testament ugliness.)

No, I wasn’t. I was thinking of some of today’s “prophets” that go on the air and speak ugly thoughts out loud. They speak of the wages of sin with forked tongues because their actions aren’t matching their words. (Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, et al). It’s all over the news every day…it’s disheartening, and disgusting. These same people go up into the pulpits and say how other religions, (like Islam), are so awful!! Please forgive me, I’m a little disillusioned with traditional Christian teachings right about now!!! I guess I’m venting!!

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

What method do you suppose “God” implemented to regulate their sexual urges, erectile dysfunction?

Now we know any sexually-healthy man will tell you erectile dysfunction is the work of the Devil. (sorry, could not resist..LOL)

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Chilao, I believe, from my study of Anthropology, the tribe/group protected and provided for the females who were pregnant or old and needed protection. Those females didn’t depend on one man for that until much later in human development.

By Jack

September 19, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Human females eliminated the limited aspects of a period estrus in order to be less restricted in availability to man.

Well said Chilao. Vet school?

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

If erectile dysfunction is the work of the devil, he is really doing a good job based on the number of junk e-mails I get every day advertising Viagra!

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Lozen - you got me then, perhaps DOG is right, it is God’s plan. Your guess, perhaps? If you want to be sexually available, you need a partner. So why did women stop a period-estrus? so they could get some at will?

Jack - actually considered it at one point, Vet School.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 11:35 AM | Link to this

Especially considering that “modesty” is wildly subjective

True. New way of looking at that —- so, modesty, like the waves, changes with the tide? What was modest yeterday, (high collars, skirts below the knees, no public displays of affectin),is not necessarily considered modest today. Great thought!

What method do you suppose “God” implemented to regulate their sexual urges, erectile dysfunction?

OMIGOD!! ROFLMAO!!!

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

I’m having second thoughts now. Since females enjoy sex as much, if not more (until they’re taught shame and modesty), than males, maybe they did eliminate the limited aspects of the estrus period in order to have more sex with more men! You know with all of them sleeping in those caves together, it was probably like musical animal skins at night! And since they needed to reproduce a lot due to infant death etc. the more pregnancies the better. Does anyone else remember the scene from “Dances With Wolves” where Graham Greene and his woman are having sex under their blanket in the teepee with Kevin Costner and Little Bird awake and looking at each other? Great scene.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Oh, and here’s another thought. Women may act modest but you get a group of women together and you will see a wondrous lack of modesty. You will know every woman’s partner’s attibutes (or lack of) in a very short time. You will know what they like most and how many STD’s they’ve had. Not the women of my mother’s generation! But women of my generation hold little back with their friends; there’s not a lot of modesty or shame either!

By Renee

September 19, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

I actually missed that metaphor too, Chilao. Amazing.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Lozen - How about the scene in Black Robe in the long-house? Highly recommended movie, very early French priest travels via canoe to northern Quebec. Champlain’s time, in fact he a brief character in the movie. 1635 or so.

And let’s not even go near the Eskimos offerings of the women. And considered an insult to turn down such warmth.

By Mara

September 19, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Anyone seen this article about christian militant training camps? - http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FWNT%2Fprint%3Fid%3D2455343

Cut-n-paste excerpt -

“Speaking in tongues, weeping for salvation, praying for an end to abortion and worshipping a picture of President Bush — these are some of the activities at Pastor Becky Fischer’s Bible camp in North Dakota, “Kids on Fire,” subject of the provocative new documentary, “Jesus Camp.”

“I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places,” Fisher said. “Because, excuse me, we have the truth.”

“A lot of people die for God,” one camper said, “and they’re not afraid.”

“We’re kinda being trained to be warriors,” said another, “only in a funner way.”

….even the most moderate young evangelicals are inflexible on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

“It’s an absolute, straight-up us-against-them,” Sandler said. “It’s, you’re either with us or you’re against us. … Not only are you a sinner, but you are working for the enemy — the enemy being Satan.”

sick. just…sick.

By Kevin

September 19, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Mara,

Let’s review one fact of this story. If the kids truly are worshipping a picture of President Bush, then clearly it is NOT a Christian camp (the bible is pretty clear on forbidding idol worship).

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

I am sure the kids do not actually WORSHIP the photo of Bush. I read that yesterday and thought of the song Onward Christian Soldiers.

By Aghast

September 19, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

Is this bozo serious? God gave women modesty as a tool? Has the fool picked up a National Geographic lately? Modesty is about as man-made a concept as there is…pretty much like ALL our concepts.

These people who try to assign some kind of divine inspiration for human cultural phenomenon are hilarious…I mean, for every “God-given” quality in one culture you’re going to find another culture or cultures elsewhere that are directly counter to it.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 12:41 PM | Link to this

(the bible is pretty clear on forbidding idol worship).

and other gods as well, well, just as long as they are not Before Me.

does the NFL qualify? or American Idol?

By Confused

September 19, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

I guess I need some explanation. I have NEVER understood the reasoning or the thought process of why Shaunti feels I should revolve my life to suit her child. I do not expect her to change her life in any way to suit my beliefs regarding my children.

I do not expect the rest of the world to watch cartoons, because I feel thaey are ok for my family.

I do not agree with junk food. I don’t want my children to grow up to be fat, unhealthy adults. However, I do not expect the rest of the world to not be able to drive through and get a big mac.

I don’t expect anyone in the world to do any favors for me or live their lives to make mine own life more comfortable.

Can somebody — perhaps even SHAUNTI — yes that was a call out — please explain the unmitigated gall and arrogance behind her reasoning.

By Just Being Me

September 19, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

~~waving~~ Heyyyyyyyy RF!!! I’m still here, just sitting on the sidelines annoyed as heck at what this stupid blog has become, but too addicted to stop dropping in! :-) Glad to hear you and the boys are doing so well! :-)

On another note, the tone of this blog has changed so much. Even on our most hateful days, the blog has never been like this. I can understand why John and several others are no longer in participation. I don’t know if there is anything we can do to bring “us” back where we should be. I don’t know how much more I can even take.

So true, Renee… I hate the tone and I hate all the stupid spam. I never thought that would be enough to turn me away, but it really IS enough. I won’t be back on the regular until this blog calms down some… which probably won’t happen. lol

By Brian Curtis

September 19, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

So Bruno is still trolling here, hmm? Still incapable of discussing the topic at hand OR answering any of the questions and refutations to his B.S. Why am I not surprised?

Your entertainment value has dwindled away to nothing, Bruno; now you’re just a pompous blowhard with nothing to say. Why don’t you run for office? Or better yet, you could dare to answer the refutation of all your idiotic claims and comments posted at http://calybos.tblog.com/

…and quit wasting everyone’s time here. Sheesh, what an insecure little ego you must have.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

I mean, for every “God-given” quality in one culture you’re going to find another culture or cultures elsewhere that are directly counter to it.

and that is why those Other Cultures are HEATHENS. (It is always ‘dem der udder folk’, and yes, that is meant to sound like ‘librul’)

By Mara

September 19, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

Kevin - if they’re being taught that this type of thing is “Christian”, if they believe that this behavior is how “Christians” behave, if their religious leaders tell them that this is what “God” wants them to do, if they’re being indoctrinated to value the “Christian soldier” mindset…then they are being taught to be Christians as much as the militant madrassas teach young Muslims how to be Islamic.

To some who tout their own piety they are merely learning how to be “politically active christians”. After all, everything they’re doing, including the semi-deification of Bush, is nothing more than enacting the rhetoric of mainstream evangelical preachers so what would make them question it’s rightousness?

By Kevin

September 19, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

Chilao,

I am sure you are right - but I am just repeating what the writer of the article said. With that statement I can conclude one of two things:

Either way, I don’t have to worry about it being a Christian militant training camp. BTW, if it is a Christian militant training camp, I am sure that the children were instructed in firearms and explosives. LOL!!!

By Mara

September 19, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

the bible is pretty clear on forbidding idol worship

and yet we still hear screams when someone dares to challenge the 10-Commandment monuments, crosses, and statues of Christian saints on public property…sounds a lot like idol worship to me.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Aghast, These people who try to assign some kind of divine inspiration for human cultural phenomenon are hilarious… Truer words were never spoken. In some native tribes in this country before white men invaded it, women were valued for their ability to reproduce. The teenagers were expected to fool around before they chose a mate. The girls who became pregnant were highly valued by the males for mates because they had proven their ability to reproduce. In this country in the past females were taught they must be virgins or no man would want them. Such ignorance is a sad, tired thing to see. People who think this country with it’s puritanical foundation has the only answer to all human problems are just plain and simply ignorant.

By Mara

September 19, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

if anyone is interested in seeing video footage of the camp it’s available over on Andrew Sullivans blog - http://time.blogs.com/dailydish/2006/09/christianismwa_1.html

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Sherlock has left the building! Good riddance.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

Oh, I am sure the kiddies are being taught extreme violence, they are right, after all, the Bible says so.

I knew there was a reason I joined the NRA years ago..LMAO

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Thanks Mara for scaring me to death today! Are we all ready for our next religious war? God please protect us from your followers!

By Kevin

September 19, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Mara you said:

and yet we still hear screams when someone dares to challenge the 10-Commandment monuments, crosses, and statues of Christian saints on public property…sounds a lot like idol worship to me.

You may be right that these monuments are idols. But what is wrong with the debate over the legality of these monuments? On the one hand you call Christians sycophants - yet when we have the audacity to question court rulings we are labeled as militant.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this

My parents were hip to the religious Gestapo years ago, and made a point of teaching most of us kids *wilderness survival * stuff. The Huguenots/Waldenses were their heroes. LOL

By Mara

September 19, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

On the one hand you call Christians sycophants - yet when we have the audacity to question court rulings we are labeled as militant

Beg your pardon? The only one I’ve called a “sycophant” lately has been Joe Leiberman…LOL!

But to your point, were the debate limited to the legality of having them on public property perhaps I’d concede your point. But it’s not. Anyone who dares to espouse the “Seperation of Church and State” doctrine is immediately labled “anti-Christian” and reviled for “wanting to remove God from society”. Or we’re demonized as those eeeeville “secularists”. You say that merely “questioning” the courts rulings gets you vilified? No. It’s the mouth-foaming rabidness of the denunciation that gives me pause, and the instant lableing of any jurist who follows the “seperation” precedents as an “activist judge”.

Now, do you see the difference?

By chuck

September 19, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

Hey RF. I’m glad you are having a great year. It’s really hard to teach if you have 2 or 3 years in a row with a majority of the kids not caring. That hasn’t happened to me in a while. The group I’ve got this year …about 160 of them…are okay. We had a GREAT group last year so this group SEEMS worse than they really are in comparison. We changed our schedule significantly this year and I’ve been having to bust it to keep up myself. I find time to post every once in a while just to keep my hand in.

My own 2 kids are older now, so it is not as front burner an issue as it used to be with me. However, call me old fashioned, but I just think it is unseemly for that kind language to be broadcast during what has been deemed “family time”. As for ducktroll,apparently you didn’t read the topic articles at the top of the page. This was prompted by the CBS decision to air the 9/11 special last Monday that was supposedly laced with profanity. They refused to bleep out the worst of the words. It’s not as you put it, a “made up problem”.

By Aghast

September 19, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

She told the truth about worshipping the picture. If she is telling the truth, the camp is NOT CHRISTIAN.

And most Muslims reject the murderous ways of their fanatic brethren. Yet, the average person in this country probably thinks that all Muslims believe in blowing themselves and others up for the glory of God.

It doesn’t matter if you think that this camp is Christian or not. THEY think they are. THEY are acting based on this.

From a historical perspective, veneration of one’s leaders is not “UnChristian”. You have to remember that the leaders of yore claimed to rule by divine right. After Constantine converted (depending on the historian because of belief or simply because of political expediency) the Roman emperors were known as “Holy Roman Emperors”. Kings were annointed by the Church. It’s not so far off to ascribe similar virtue to a modern-day leader. They certainly wouldn’t be the first to suggest that Bush WAS annointed by God as leader of the nation.

Or are you one of those revisionist types who think they can wipe away or excuse two thousand years of Christian history by pretending that Catholics aren’t Christians?

By Just Being Me

September 19, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

Ummm, scuse me, but Catholics aren’t Christians.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

I heard Constantine converted because he had a Super-Large-Ego, and the thought of going on forever and forever and forever, thru eternal life, REALLY appealed to him.

By DuckingTheTroll

September 19, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

As for ducktroll,apparently you didn’t read the topic articles at the top of the page. This was prompted by the CBS decision to air the 9/11 special last Monday that was supposedly laced with profanity. They refused to bleep out the worst of the words. It’s not as you put it, a “made up problem”

Oh, but it is, and I did read the topic articles. Shaunti says:

The networks’ indignant comments about “censoring” a historically important special seem disingenuous once you know that they don’t want a one-time exception, but a complete absence of family hour protection, forever. And their concern would seem more genuine if they hadn’t used the same justification for airing the un-bleeped “authentic” language of war during movies like Saving Private Ryan.”

Now…first, I have never read anything that suggests that the networks are dying for a complete absence of family hour protection. In fact, I can’t imagine that any network in its right mind would want to eliminate entirely the “family friendly” hours from its programming. Kids encourage parents to buy products, advertising revenues are based on total audience, so…I can’t see CBS thinking “Hey, if we can keep ALL the kids away we’ll make more money…”

Second…so what if they used the same reason for Saving Private Ryan. Surely there isn’t just ONE historically relevant piece of filmaking that deserves to be presented in its entirety, with all its scars and thorns and skeletons presented uncensored for our edification. Now, if the networks used this excuse to justify, oh, the airing of “Kill Bill” then well, yeah it sounds disingenuous. But since the reason for showing the unexpurgated SPR essentially IS the same as the reason for showing the unedited 9/11 documentary…

I suppose the point here is that one program ran one time on one channel, with numerous warnings about language that may be inappropriate for young children…and you’re making that into some kind of horrible problem. Don’t you ever think you might be…you know…whining?

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Ummm, scuse me, but Catholics aren’t Christians.

we knew it was coming, but did not expect it from you. LOL

By Jack

September 19, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

We should get a batch of venonmous snakes…..and handle them! Billy could do his “tea bag” with one. LOL

By Aghast

September 19, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Ummm, scuse me, but Catholics aren’t Christians.

But they are…In fact, for the greater part of the last 2000 years they were for all intents and purposes the ONLY Christians.

I understand the logic behind this argument. I’ve read all of the diatribes about why they aren’t Christians because they do this or venerate that, but that is simply revisionist nonsense.

The differences named in the “Catholics aren’t Christians” speeches are just a modern-day rehashing of the main differences between Protestants and non-Protestants. You may not LIKE some of the things that Catholicism stands for, but you can’t say with historical accuracy that they aren’t Christians any more than a Shiite can accurately claim that a Suni isn’t a real Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew can claim that a Reformed Jew isn’t a real Jew, or than a Mahayana Buddhist can claim that a Theravada Buddhist isn’t a real Buddhist.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

You may be right that these monuments are idols. But what is wrong with the debate over the legality of these monuments?

Kevin — I feel when you open up this can of worms you’ll find all types of other creepy crawlies coming out of the can too. This country isn’t just a country of Christians, we are also a country of Muslims, Hindus, B’nai Br’th (sp), Wiccans, etc. If one faith wins the right to place their monuments on public buildings, won’t the other faiths want the same thing? How would you feel if you saw the Koran posted next to the Ten Commandments on a Federal Building?

By Jack

September 19, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

“Ummm, scuse me, but Catholics aren’t Christians.”

Please splain Lucy.

By Randy

September 19, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Talking about Catholics being Christians, I bought a book today and couldn’t put it down “The Unusual Suspect” by Stephen Baldwin. Read it!

By Jack

September 19, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

Back it up JBM. You just insulted millions. Back it up.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this

I feel when you open up this can of worms you’ll find all types of other creepy crawlies coming out of the can too

Kevin - I don’t think she meant it quite like that reads…LOL

By Jack

September 19, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

What you do is heat your can of worms. Then close your eyes and reach in.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

The Unusual Suspect: My Calling to the New Hardcore Movement of Faith Now why would anybody want to read that tripe?

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Catholics were the first christians, nimrod. If there had been no catholics, there would be no protestants. Protestants only exist because someone rebelled against the catholic church and it’s excesses. The first protestant was a rebel just like Jesus. Now go and obey, obey, obey without question the protestant rules and regulations!

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

How about The Cross and the Switchblade, by David Wilkerson. Go to visit some relatives on some commune in the middle of nowhere, Nova Scotia, back in the day, and coming to find out one of the couples there had recently found religion. We end up driving 2.5 hours, one-way,(they did not have a GOOD car and we were being charitable) to see David Wilkerson, all pimped out in glitter.

By Kevin

September 19, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

72John … I mean Aghast,

You have some good points @ 2:17. However, you are missing the fact that Christians who claim that Bush was appointed by God also have to claim that Clinton was appointed by God.

Stating that God appoints world leaders (which is in the bible) is far different than claiming said leaders to be deity that should be worshipped.

Suzie - sorry, but I have no desire to be on “Fear Factor”. LOL!

In all seriousness, if people collective vote to tear down every Christian symbol on public property and replace them with symbols from another religion, I would be extremely disappointed. However, I would respect the will of the people. I believe our system of government, with all of its flaws, to be the best. Public debate on these type of issues is a GOOD thing. But when one group (Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist) tries to stop the debate on any issue, we ALL suffer.

By GOB

September 19, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Talking about Catholics being Christians, I bought a book today and couldn’t put it down “The Unusual Suspect” by Stephen Baldwin. Read it!

So a book written by the dumbest of all of the Baldwin brothers (which let’s be honest, is an impressive feat on its own) is something you cant put down? I think that speaks volumes about your intellectual capacity.

By Jack

September 19, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

I thought I would get some kind of reaction from my worm post. What, no disgust? Did all my friends go home to take their nap?

By Just Being Me

September 19, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

LOL@ Chilao’s 2:35p… ahhh, just when you thought you knew me, huh? LOL!

Sorry for all those who were offended, but contrary to what Aghast points out, it has nothing to do with my opinion or whether or not I like Catholics’ beliefs.

Christians believe - and such is the very definition of Christianity - that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Lord, and that He is the only mediator between God and His people. Christians pray to, and are saved by, God in Christ Jesus ONLY. They honor God only, worship Him only, adhere to His teachings only, and trust in Him only.

Catholics believe that Mary is a mediator between them and God. They pray to Mary, which is anti-Biblical, and not Christ-like.

They are not followers of Christ, therefore, they are not Christians.

By Just Being Me

September 19, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Umm, Lozen, who are you calling a nimrod? And why are you calling anyone names anyway?

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

I am so happy protestants say catholics aren’t christians and catholics say protestants are not “true believers.” We would be in deep doo doo if these many sects ever began to agree with each other and work together!

By Jack

September 19, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

Christians believe - and such is the very definition of Christianity - that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Lord,

Attend a mass then tell me Catholics don’t believe the above. Nimrod.

By Lozen

September 19, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Sorry, JBM, I didn’t know that was you. Let me just repost this:

By Aghast September 19, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Ummm, scuse me, but Catholics aren’t Christians.

But they are…In fact, for the greater part of the last 2000 years they were for all intents and purposes the ONLY Christians. I understand the logic behind this argument. I’ve read all of the diatribes about why they aren’t Christians because they do this or venerate that, but that is simply revisionist nonsense. The differences named in the “Catholics aren’t Christians” speeches are just a modern-day rehashing of the main differences between Protestants and non-Protestants. You may not LIKE some of the things that Catholicism stands for, but you can’t say with historical accuracy that they aren’t Christians any more than a Shiite can accurately claim that a Suni isn’t a real Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew can claim that a Reformed Jew isn’t a real Jew, or than a Mahayana Buddhist can claim that a Theravada Buddhist isn’t a real Buddhist. That sums it up nicely. And their churches are much more beautiful too. At least catholics, at some period in their long, long history, recognized that people needed the female influence of Mary. The protestants threw her out with the bath water much to the detriment of western civilization.

By The72John

September 19, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Awww…I’ve been unmasked. Partially.

You have some good points @ 2:17. However, you are missing the fact that Christians who claim that Bush was appointed by God also have to claim that Clinton was appointed by God.

Why? The same people who say that Bush was appointed by God are the same people who decry anyone who shows disrespect for the President as unpatriotic, forgetting that they themselves were probably showing disrespect for Clinton 8 years ago. Consistency and logic is not the strong suit for fanatics of ANY type.

Stating that God appoints world leaders (which is in the bible) is far different than claiming said leaders to be deity that should be worshipped.

Dangerous thinking. This is the very reasoning that convinces people to cede their free will to dictators, or bestowed unprecedented power of life and death to men and women whose only qualification was being the first-born of the current man in power. Why, by this logic one has to assume that the system of government is meaningless. If God decides the rulers, then it wouldn’t matter if one lived in a despotism or a democracy. And then where would our Middle Eastern strategy be?

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Isn’t there a Christ-on-the-Cross statue as the centerpiece for every Catholic church? high in back(or front, depending on how you look at it)

I always love these it’s dem udder folks outta line convos.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 19, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

Have you ever wondered how one book or doctrine, (bible, koran, declaration of independence), can bring about so many different views and interpretations? The bible has brought forth over 25 different religions and interpretations alone. Christianity goes the gamut from Mormons to Protestants to Lutherans to Southern Baptists to Jehovah Witnesses.

By Chilao

September 19, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

But Mormons aren’t Christian. (just had to throw that out there..LOL)

By The72John

September 19, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Catholics worship differently from Protestants, that is true. The basic structure of the church is more mystical, because Christianity shares much with Mystery religions. Concepts like Transubstantiation, or Immaculate Conception or Transfiguration seem distant from the popular evangelical faiths of today because they were born out of a world that embraced mysticism.

Yes…Catholics venerate Mary and pray to various Saints to intercede on their behalf. Again, this is because what we now know as the Catholic church grew by doing what every other successful religion before it had - by absorbing and transforming the traditions of the peoples to whom it spread.

You can’t take monotheism and shove it down the throats of avowed polytheists, but you CAN convince them that the “deities” of their pagan faith are not actually deities but are trully saints of the new Faith, beholden and subservient to the One True God, but holding sway over their ancient areas of influence.

The Catholic church is what it is because of where it came from. But Jack is right - the central creed of the Catholic church is “We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen. And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the son of God. Eternally begotten from the Father. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God. Begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through whom all things were made.”

Now…does that sound “un-Christian” to you?

And yeah, I wrote that from memory. Shoot me.

By Kevin

September 19, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

72John @ 4:29,

Dangerous thinking - not really. If one believes that God appoints leadership, then people have a reasonable expectation that these leaders should follow godly principles when they govern (shepherding the flock). When the leadership fails to follow these principles, the people have a right to throw off such leadership. Seems like I’ve heard that somewhere before…….

By The72John

September 19, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Dangerous thinking - not really. If one believes that God appoints leadership, then people have a reasonable expectation that these leaders should follow godly principles when they govern (shepherding the flock). When the leadership fails to follow these principles, the people have a right to throw off such leadership. Seems like I’ve heard that somewhere before…….

Yes, really. Now, if a leader appointed by God doesn’t “follow godly principles” then doesn’t that mean that God made a mistake in appointing him in the first place? But, God doesn’t make mistakes, does he?

Really - people who think that leaders rule by Divine Right frighten me.

By TramadoL2844

September 20, 2006 12:06 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By Allstate

September 20, 2006 05:28 AM | Link to this

elf devises Humphrey:watches arc .

By TramadoL38497

September 20, 2006 07:03 AM | Link to this

My life’s been pretty dull recently. Shrug. My mind is like a void. I haven’t gotten anything done lately. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By Robin Williams

September 20, 2006 07:14 AM | Link to this

Good Morning Vietnam! As my special guest today, I would like to introduce my friend Mr. Peabody. Even though he is just a DOG, he’s rather intelligent, as I’m sure you will all agree. A tad pretentious, but hey, aren’t we all?

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 07:21 AM | Link to this

Hello silly humans. Out of pure kindness to you imbecilic Libs, I have generously decided to spend my ENTIRE DAY here on W2W in a vain attempt to get some of you to actually THINK for a change. Based on a review of yesterday’s posts, I expect SusieHomemaker to be my prize pupil. With her respectful attempts to truly understand where others are coming from, I believe she shows the most intelligence of anyone here on W2W by far.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 07:28 AM | Link to this

I still retain hope for Kevin one day to fully “connect the dots” between Science and Religion. It’s very possible to do that Kevin, you just have to think very hard about what the proper definitions of certain key phrases (like GOD) MUST BE for it all to make sense AT THE SAME TIME. As I keep suggesting to you, beginning with the traditional, false vision of GOD taught in “Christian” churches is going to leave you on very shaky ground every time. The key, my friend, is to think deeply about the concept of Emmanuel, i.e. GOD WITHIN.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 07:38 AM | Link to this

Think deeply, Kevin, about Emmanuel. Any definition of GOD which involves an “extrinsic God” is unworkable, as even brain-dead idiots like BC can easily prove. The main problem with such definitions is that they introduce the crazy idea of “two realities”. As my “Christian” friends are only to happy to explain to me, there are two realities in their minds—of course, there is the Earthly reality with which we are all very familiar in which the “normal Laws of Physics” apply. Then, because these “normal Laws of Physics” ultimately can’t answer our deepest questons about Life, these folks conclude that there must be another possible set of Physics Laws at work, i.e. the “magical Laws of Physics” only available to some corporal God who sits just on the edges of space and capriciously performs “miracles” which defy the “normal Laws of Physics”.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 07:44 AM | Link to this

Looks like another day-long spamfest from Bruno the Cowardly Troll.

Wake me when he runs out of hot air….

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 07:54 AM | Link to this

The correct answer to this very important puzzle, Kevin, can once again be found BOTH in the realm of REAL SCIENCE and the realm of REAL SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING. Furthermore, the correct answer agrees with the deepest truths revealed through BOTH of these GODLY disciplines AT THE SAME TIME. This is the REAL MEANING OF OVERTONES, and is both the Mystery of the Christ and the Mystery of the Buddha.

As you have hopefully noticed, cheap manly attempts to solve this Mystery fall short, as in BC’s ludicrous attempts to cover up the obvious fact that The Second Law of Thermodynamics is at best a vague description of a property exhibited by inert materials which does NOT APPLY TO LIVING SYSTEMS.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this

Pausing for a minute to salute BC for his ongoing efforts to feed the Bruno Troll! If you’re so smart, BC, how come you just can’t let the “paper Science” arguments go? At least chuck and John were smart enough to surrender after they realized they were outmatched.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

Beginning in the realm of SPIRITUAL TRUTH, we once again simply have to remember two key Truths as revealed by the Bible: (1) God is not the author of confusion. (2) For now (as humans), we see through the glass, darkly.

The problem I see, Kevin, is that while folks seem willing to accept each of these obvious Truths independently, there seems to be an inability or unwillingness to understand them as being TRUE both AT THE SAME TIME. By deeply understanding the ramifications of these truths simultaneously, simple human mysteries such as why hospitals can’t prevent staph infections become crystal clear.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

Bruno, I’ve beaten you over and over again, and your denial of that obvious fact doesn’t change a thing. You’ve been thoroughly and consistently humiliated in every nonsensical claim you’ve made, both here and at the T-blog (still waiting at http://calybos.tblog.com/ , if you’ve got the guts).

Instead, you continually dodge, retreat, and hurl insults becuase you’re the one who’s realized he’s outmatched. Like most far-right reactionaries, you’re a fool… but you’re also a cowardly idiot with delusions of intellectual prowess.

If you care to deny that, or defend your silly “arguments,” by all means pick up the gauntlet at http://calybos.tblog.com/

But you won’t—because you’re hopelessly outclassed and you know it.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

… although I DO enjoy seeing how obviously and thoroughly I’ve got Bruno flustered and outraged, given his endless attacks and insults hurled my way even when addressing others.

Must’ve really gotten to you, haven’t I Bruno? What a loser.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

Breaking it down for you, Kevin: Because GOD is not the author of confusion, there cannot be “two sets of Physics”, as again even brain-dead Libs like BC understand. What BC keeps forgetting, however, is the fact that, at the SAME TIME, we can only see through the glass, darkly. That means that due to our limitations as humans, our best “paper Science” explanations will always fall short, as is extremely easy to prove.

Seriously, do any of you here other than BC really believe the fairly tale that some Big Bang explosion occurred followed by even more improbable random events like Evolution REALLY EXPLAIN THE MIRACLE OF LIFE??????????

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this

BC, I’ve told you before, I already jumped through enough of your hoops. Go jerk off to your calybos site on your own while I attempt to explain the TRUTH to the more intelligent folks here on W2W.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Later, BC, I will show everyone once again how F-ing Stupid you are by cut-n-pasting some of your earlier misstatements about Science which even a bright junior high school student could rebut. Also, I will show how you can’t even parrot the crap from talkorigins.com correctly, in the same vein that I showed how chuck doesn’t even get his pagan rituals right.

By Mara

September 20, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

Brian - I was going to continue the very interesting discussion that had begun on this forum yesterday but…well…it just isn’t worth having to scroll through the troll poop. I’ll check back later but it’s looking more and more like Bruno/Dog/etc has ruined this blog with the mass postings of his rude, abusive and, frankly, uninteresting diatribes.

I’m outta here.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Understanding this same “human confusion” in the realm of TRUE SCIENCE can be demonstrated in my earlier references to the “Earth-centered” model of planetary motion vs. the “helio-centered” model now in vogue.

If you study the history of Science, you will see that because our experience as humans suggests to us that we are stationary here on Earth and that the Sun and planets appear to move across the sky, the earliest models of planetary motion put the Earth at the center of the scheme. This is now referred to as the “Ptolemaic model”. To map out the relative motions of the Sun and planets becomes very problematic, however, as witnessd by the now infamous “epicycles” introduced to further refine astronomical predictions.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

Mara, I will get back to Morality in just a moment, hang in there.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Mara: I understand completely.

A final comment for Bruno the Tiresome Troll:

The “truth,” hmm? Let’s see…

As a far-right reactionary drone, you’ve already demonstrated an inability to think for yourself or admit mistakes;

As a mystic zealot, you’ve demonstrated a disdain for logic and reason, as well as a knee-jerk viciousness toward anyone who disagrees or points out your errors;

And as a poster on this blog, you’ve demonstrated absurd levels of arrogance, childishness, and dishonesty.

So tell me: Why on EARTH should anyone believe that you have a particular grasp on “truth?”

Face it: you’re just another troll. More pretentious than most, but still a stubborn egomaniac who can’t handle honest debate. You’re BORING us, Bruno.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

Later, when the helio-centric model of planetary motion was introduced, it made astonomical predictions much simpler to make, so to this day we are taught in Science class that the Sun is “actually” MOTIONLESS and it is the Earth which actually IS REVOLVING AND SPINNING. In fact, virtually any “scientist” like BC will tell you that this model is FACT, and not simply a convenient way of describing physical events.

HOWEVER, a huge problem with helio-centered model is that it doesn’t match our everyday experience of believing that it is actually US WHO ARE MOTIONLESS HERE ON EARTH. As such, our brain forms an unnecessary disconnect between what Science tells us and what our own “lyin’ eyes” tell us every day.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

The answer to this disconnect was provided by the True Scientist, Albert Einstein, with his brilliant Special Theory of Relativity. You see, my buddy Albert proved that ultimately, no one frame of reference was more “objective” than any other when considering “relative motion” such as that which occurs between the Sun and the Earth. The curious result of this revelation is that IT IS TOTALLY CORRECT TO BELIEVE THAT WE ON EARTH ARE MOTIONLESS AND THAT THE SUN DOES RISE AND SET, JUST LIKE OUR LYIN’ EYES TELL US EVERY DAY.

By Pixie

September 20, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

I guess when Dog said he was going away, he meant going away as Dog, and returning as someone else. Can’t do this anymore. He is so boring. What would anybody want to.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

The point, Kevin, is that as our understanding of Science grows, we get closer and closer to Spiritual Truths which were revealed thousands of years ago, not further away as idiots like BC foolishly think. I truly believe that by being very careful with the definitions of certain words, that the two disciplines are already in good agreement. Unfortunately, the 1/100th wits in the world like BC just can’t see that even though it is staring him in the face. Again, there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

By Hey You

September 20, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

OMG, Dogs here again! Was there ever a more boring person ever born? I think not, and I’m only reading about 10 percent of what he’s posting. Talk about being bored to tears, he can do it.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

BC, instead of mouthing off about your supposed “victory” over me, why don’t you actually try to rebut anything I’m saying here? Start with something simple, like my claim that yes, in fact, IT IS TOTALLY CORRECT TO SAY THAT WE ARE MOTIONLESS HERE ON EARTH RELATIVE TO ALL OTHER BODIES IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE, AND IN FACT WE ARE ACTUALLY AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE ACCORDING TO THE VERY LATEST REVELATIONS OF MODERN PHYSICS.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

Pixie, you seem to forget the DOG is from joisey, and can come at you from angles you never, ever considered. Thank GOD that DOG believes in GOD (the real GOD, not the phony Gods of Religion or Science) and believes in morality. Otherwise, it might be scary what a man of his intellect and imagination could do to harm others.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

Well, I gotta take a break for an hour or two to feed the bunnies and take care of Sweetie’s leg. I’m hoping SusieHomemaker will come on board so that I can answer her excellent question yesterday asking for examples from History to support my claim that Shame is a wonderful gift from GOD. To get a head start on that discussion, I will direct you all to reread the biographies of Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. who both brilliantly used good old fashioned SHAME to defeat men who had MUCH MUCH BIGGER GUNS.

By What?

September 20, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Dog, you can spin it anyway you like, the bottom line is you are a boring person. Nobody likes boring, Dog.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

And BC, while you’re still scrambling for an answer to my simple Relativity question, you might review talkorigins.com again for their explanation of how well Science actually models Real Living Systems. While you claim that Science does this very, very well, your own Mecca, talkorigins.com explains, in agreement with me, that such efforts are silly because “perfect worlds” which obey the Word of Man only exist in Mathematics. Of course, if the idiots at talkorigins.com truly understood Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem, they would realize that this perfect world which can be well-described by simple equations doesn’t even exist within the realm of REAL MATHEMATICS.

By Why?

September 20, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Why do you continue to bore everbody to death (not to mention people are leaving in droves)? Bloggers are telling you repeatedly they don’t care about what you are saying (if they can even figure out what you are saying), yet you keep posting to yourself if necessary. I’d almost bet you are at least 80 years old and so bored that you don’t care if you are boring everbody. I’m leaving now and letting you have it. You have taken all the fun out of this blog.

By LeviticusCatchUp

September 20, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

I, the Lord thy God, was snoozing (and getting a bj). Thou shalt not eat spinach, and thou shalt not fertilize with uncomposted animal waste, for to do either is an abomination unto the Lord.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

This is so friggin annoying. I mean how seriously do you take a friggin blog. Is it necessary to post 500 times droning on and on. If you don’t want to hear anyone elses opinions and everybody is so friggin beneath you, why do you continue posting.

And Brian, Brian, Brian puhleeeze, puhleeeeze, stop egging him on LOL.

This makes no damn sense. Get a f***!ng life. Who posts BS constantly and has NOTHING else to do all day.

By Child of the 60s Flashback

September 20, 2006 09:30 AM | Link to this

By Why?

September 20, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this

Why do you continue to bore everbody to death (not to mention people are leaving in droves)? Bloggers are telling you repeatedly they don’t care about what you are saying (if they can even figure out what you are saying), yet you keep posting to yourself if necessary. I’d almost bet you are at least 80 years old and so bored that you don’t care if you are boring everbody. I’m leaving now and letting you have it. You have taken all the fun out of this blog.

By Bruno August 23, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this I agree with you, lozen, that John IS very intelligent and appears to be extremely likeable. And perhaps, my criticisms of his political opinions and debating style ARE nothing more than verbal abuse. My feeling, though, is that John could take his thinking to an even higher level if he would consider human nature a little more, including his own. I will attempt to expand this point more in my next post. My own sense of urgency in blogging here and writing letters to the editor is that I believe we are in the early stages of a nasty world-wide conflict. Islam was virtually dead at the end of WWI as a political force. This began changing in the late 1950s, as Islam began a big revival throughout the Middle East and other places. Jimmy Carter fell asleep at the wheel in the late 1970s when both Khomeini and Saddam Hussein seized power. Of course, hindsight is 20/20, but now we’re dealing with a foe who will be difficult to defeat. If any of you on this board don’t believe that Muslims are a threat to democratic societies world-wide, take a look around the globe at “Islam’s bloody borders”. John, you in particularly need to think about what life for a gay man would be like under Shariah. You think you’ve got it tough now??? Of course, all the Neville Chamberlains on this board are going to say these concerns are “just the fantastic ramblings of another right-wing whacko”. Study history, guys—Life during the Crusades was arguably far more tolerable under Saladin than the Christians, but things have changed a good bit since then.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

Boring, boring, boring, obnoxious, boring and full of $hit, that’s DOG POOP! BrianCurtis is one intelligent man and if you think you’re a match for him you are also delusional.

By Bruno

September 20, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry to say that this my last post on W2W. I have learned recently that I am no longer allowed to use the computer in the facility in which I am housed. I want to apologize to all of the bloggers here for my inane ramblings. The truth is that I have never had an original thought or a rational one for that matter.

By Bruno

September 20, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

As for john, BC, Chuck, Mara and others, I realize now that you have left the blog out of sheer boredom and consideration for my feelings. Thank you for not humiliating me further by pointing out my obvious short comings. The doctors here have reminded me that the stress of being proven wrong over and over is not conducive to my recovery, especially in this fragile state of mind.

By Bruno

September 20, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this

Finally, the doctors tell me that with good behavior I could be out of here in a matter of a few short years. I hope then to meet each and every one of you in person to thank you for putting me into my place. Thank you again for your patience.

By Understand

September 20, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Are we beginning to understand how a culture could go to Europe for 1000 years and end up being so hated?

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this

By Bruno September 20, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this I’m sorry to say that this my last post on W2W. I have learned recently that I am no longer allowed to use the computer in the facility in which I am housed. I want to apologize to all of the bloggers here for my inane ramblings. The truth is that I have never had an original thought or a rational one for that matter.

Please, please please let this be TRUE!

By Child of the 60s Flashback

September 20, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Sorry, Lozen, your wish is just another Lib fantasy because the “Bruno” posts tosay are the cheap imitations I warned you about coming from the weak minds of the defeated.

By Child of the 60s Flashback

September 20, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

And as for the TRUTH about who the “Science Instigator” is on this board, check out the following flashbacks:

By Bruno August 24, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this BUT, Brian, you’re grossly missing my point, which at least John got. I’m not trying to discuss the merits of these ideas within the narrow context in which they were originally created. I’m trying to do the opposite—i.e. show that outside of these sometimes unrealistic constraints, a lot of these Laws break down.

By DOG September 13, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this Before I do, BC, again I apologize to everyone here for this extended Science discussion. If you go back a few weeks in my discussion, I tried many times to steer BC away from a discussion of the actual Science itself in order to move on to what is most important, the proper role of Science in the human “toolbox” of understanding. By DOG

By DOG September 14, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this So, BC, if you want me to spend another 20 hours going over the Second Law of Thermo, I can and will. However, if you will simply get a book on quantum mechanics, you will see that the Law is flawed even when trying to apply the concepts to Inanimate objects, let alone Living beings. But, because you are the ONLY one here on W2W who is stuck in that “dimension”, I will spare everyone else here on my last day on W2W to hopefully discuss some more important things, like GOD. That is unless you choose to open your IGNORANT UNINFORMED MOUTH ONE LAST TIME.

By DOG September 14, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this What “words” or “explanations” folks come up with to describe the miraculous process of life isn’t really important to me (or probably to GOD, either), as long as they ACKNOWLEDGE THE MIRACLE AND HAVE RESPECT FOR LIFE. My hatred for you, BC, is you are one of the EVIL, HORRIBLE JACKASSES OF THIS WORLD WHO HAS NO RESPECT FOR GOD. You stare in the face of miracles and cling desperately to your man-made descriptions of things, even when those descriptions become laughable. As I stated earlier, Ptolemy would be proud! September 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this Billy - don’t go. Who is going to say ‘Dump the wh2re’ when FM talks about taking his g/f to Cancun? LMAO

By DOG September 13, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this Billy, I would have hoped to get to the IMPORTANT STUFF long ago, but BC kept on with his Science dogma despite my every early protestation otherwise.

By Bruce September 13, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this Don’t leave Dog, the only reason they want you gone is really simple. THEY CAN”T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!! You have shut them all up and since they are not the ones in control it scares the hell out of them. Everything is fine as long as the one contolling the blog is saying things they want to hear or agree with.

By DOG September 13, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this Ya see, Billy, I shut chuck up and John up, but BC kept running his uninformed mouth, so now all of you have to suffer the consequences. September 13, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this Renee and SusieHomemaker—Sorry we had to meet here on this board in this way. My Science message isn’t really for you, because I’m pretty confident that you two already see what it’s all about: Just more cracker jive used by the Man to keep the brotha’s down! I’m serious!!! You see, if it was just us Sistas hanging here, we would have moved past this crap long ago. But you know how just plain stupid some crackers like BC can be.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Incredibly, all the Libs have fallen now for Chilao’s mistaken assumption that DOG is Jewish. In fact, DOG laughs at all the anti-Semitic insults, because HE IS NOT JEWISH. He laughs even harder because if you notice, the “compassionate” Libs, once again, seem mighty ready to hurl racial, ethnic, and cultural insults every chance they get against those whose opinions they do not agree with, or in this case DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND. Catching on, SusieHomemaker?

By Lyrazel

September 20, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this

Mr. Peabody, when someone needs to praise themselves as you do, Thank GOD that DOG believes in GOD (the real GOD, not the phony Gods of Religion or Science) and believes in morality. Otherwise, it might be scary what a man of his intellect and imagination could do to harm others it just makes me believe you are uncertain of your own beliefs because of the constant attempts to prove it to others. Chuck, for example never tries to prove what he believes by belittling others, he just tries to convince others to come into his fold’s way of belief. This means he is secure in his faith. On the other hand you seem to want to convince yourself (mainly because few of us are reading your texts and say so) that your intelligence is a calibre to be reckoned with but hide under pseudo-names because the audience tires of the maligned criticisms of others that you inject to your argument when you cannot prove your point. The resorting to name calling totally disproves your argument as being a superior intellect.

By chuck

September 20, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

Bruce, while brudog occasionally says something that is true, do you really want to cheer someone on who not only denounces the truth of scripture, but the deity of Christ Himself? I don’t think so.

My guess Chilao is that he is not Jewish at all. I think rather that he ia a mormon or Jehovah’s Witness. My best guess is that he is Mormon

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

If you check, Lyrazel, the name calling existed here on W2W long before I came on board. You didn’t notice it so much, because it was “your boys”, John and Lozen, who were doing most of it.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Also, Lyrazel, my point in coming here isn’t to prove my “superior intellect”. I’m simply explaining why the world-view which you have apparently chosen, the false atheistic world of Libs, is a total crock of shlt. Unfortunately, because you are stuck in the dimension of the false dichotomy of having to choose between a literal Biblical Creation or “Rational” Science, you keep missing obvious truths.

By Debbie

September 20, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Question: If you had the chance to be 21 all over again, would you take it and why/why not?

Scenario: You can not take the knowledge that you’ve garnered over the years back with you. You’d be the exact same 21 year old that you were before.

My answer: No. I was a VERY stupid 21 year old!!! I was arrogant, vain, and thought I knew EVERYTHING!! My mother used to tell me that a “hard head makes a soft behind”. At the time I didn’t understand what she meant, but now that I’m in my 30s I understand it all too well. I would never like to go back to the fool that I was. Now if I could go back with some of my hard earned knowledge………

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

chuck, the plain fact remains that I AM NOT RELIGIOUS IN ANY WAY, FORM, OR FASHION. I AM NOT JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, BA’HAI, AND CERTAINLY NOT MUSLIM. IN FACT, I LAUGH AT PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHURCH LIKE YOU WHO SUSPEND PLAIN OLD FASHIONED COMMON SENSE ALL TO BE A MEMBER WITHIN SOME “PACK”

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

My point to Kevin and all is that it is POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP A VERY RESPECTFUL MORAL POSITION IN LIFE WITHOUT RESORTING TO FAIRY TALES, BOTH THE ONES TOLD AT CHURCH AND THE ONES TAUGHT IN THE CLASSROOM UNDER THE GUISE OF “SCIENCE”.

By The72John

September 20, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Looks like another day-long spamfest from Bruno the Cowardly Troll.

I believe you mean “wankfest”, as that’s all his meanderings really amount to - virtual masturbation to the perceived glories of his imagined intellect.

Guess we’ll try again next week. Too bad this little bit of excrement has managed to ruin an enjoyable blog so completely. One

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Debbie, you’re singing DOG’s song! Unfortunatley, all these Libs here like Lozen want to go all the way back to the womb in terms of real understanding of Life and what it means to grow up.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Also, to “chuck”-Thought by now/you’d realize/there ain’t no way/ to hide your lyin’ eyes, John.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

The whole problem with atheism is that it leads straight to Existentialism and the resulting “moral relativism” in which you are free to invent your own Meaning of Life. Then, because “anything goes”, it all comes down to, as an earlier blogger referenced, “men with small guns being hunted by men with bigger guns.”

By Vizzini

September 20, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

John: [as he is unsuccessfully fighting Bruno] Are you toying with me?
Bruno: No! I want you to feel you’re doing well. I hate for people to die unhappy.

Bruno: All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right… and who is dead. John: But it’s so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you: are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet or his enemy’s? Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool, you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Bruno: You’ve made your decision then? John: Not remotely. Because insults come from Australia, as everyone knows, and Australia is entirely peopled with criminals, and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. Bruno: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect. John: Wait til I get going! Now, where was I? Bruno: Australia. John: Yes, Australia. And you must have suspected I would have known the powder’s origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Bruno: You’re just stalling now. John: You’d like to think that, wouldn’t you? You’ve beaten my giant, BC, which means you’re exceptionally strong, so you could’ve put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you’ve also bested my nemesis, chuck, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me. Bruno: You’re trying to trick me into giving away something. It won’t work. John: IT HAS WORKED! YOU’VE GIVEN EVERYTHING AWAY! I KNOW WHERE THE POISON IS! Bruno: Then make your choice. John: I will, and I choose - What in the world can that be? [John gestures up and away from the table. Bruno looks. John swaps the goblets] Bruno: What? Where? I don’t see anything. John: Well, I- I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. First, let’s drink. Me from my glass, and you from yours. [they drink ] Bruno: You guessed wrong. John: You only think I guessed wrong! That’s what’s so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a gay man when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha… [John stops suddenly, and falls dead to the right] Mara: And to think, all that time it was your cup that was poisoned. Bruno: They were both poisoned. I spent the last few years building up an immunity to insults.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

John, I am loving your “one”!!

Now you tell Chuck you are not relgious, yet you offer to meet Kevin at Church or vice versa. This is so not serious is it???

Also, Lyrazel, my point in coming here isn’t to prove my “superior intellect”. I’m simply explaining why the world-view which you have apparently chosen, the false atheistic world of Libs, is a total crock of shlt. Unfortunately, because you are stuck in the dimension of the false dichotomy of having to choose between a literal Biblical Creation or “Rational” Science, you keep missing obvious truths.

I’m sorry, we must have asked you to continually show us over and over again. And when you state your opinion, we must have given you the impression that we didn’t understand. What the hell don’t you understand about we don’t give a damn.

You are an intellectual, not a liberal and whatever else, we get it. I’ll even tell you, that you are smarter than the rest of us, if it will get you to leave. An intellect wouldn’t not go back and forth with such inferiors, they would leave, or either act like an intellect with class and PROPERLY DEBATE THEIR OPINION.

Are you crazy or just a lunatic? Like my mother used to say “all the book sense but no COMMON sense”.

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 10:51 AM | Link to this

Sorry, it must have been those trebuchets, The Crusades, Saladin, and the so pro-Israel stance. We already know DOG not into any organized religion, he is just getting on in years and has a terrible fear of death and had not yet made his peace with dying.(and the subseqeuent EGO loss)

interesting trivia: the mortality rate during the Crusades was much higher for the invading Europeans than it was for the local Moslems. Why? Moslem fighters wore silk body suits under their clothes. When Europeans, in loose clothing, got cut, they bleed, profusely. When the Moslem fighters got cut, the silk helped act as a bandage, pulling tight against the wound, lessening blood loss.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Renee, I’m truly sorry that you can’t see the consistency in all my blogs here. I have alwasys openly stated that I am not religious, and in fact spent a good bit of time proving that by deconstructing chuck’s false theology of a literal Bible. My comfort in meeting Kevin on “his turf” at church is not a compromise of my views, but an affirmation of them.

By Lyrazel

September 20, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

Mr Peabody, the fact that your superior intellect has to resort to name calling disproves the validity of your arguments, sorry. I never had to resort to name calling as you do. More times than I can count I am not on the side of the posters and they have let me know how way off base I am from their opinions. As far as my beliefs: have I ever mentioned them? So how would you know them? I keep my faiths private because they hold zero relevance to the blog or bloggers. Lozen and I have something in common: age. We both have seen more of the world and its players thus we parlay on different level than others do. While I differ on her nostalgia for the 60s I dont try to invalidate her opinions by slander. They are just her opinions. I see you as a very lonely man. While you laugh at others and their beliefs you fail to be comforted by your own. C’est la vive.

Debbie, I would never want to be 21 again. Never had the desire to re-live my childhood because of my childhood, nor my twenties because of my 20s. I think folks who are raised in affluence tend to get nostalgic about their youth more than those who did not have silver spoons and comfy home life. I enjoy life NOW and live each day in the blessing AGE is.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

The fact is, Renee, that you, along with John and every other gay person in the world, have just as many prejudices as anyone over on the “Evil Right”. Your arrogance prevents you from seeing that, however.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

I think what perplexes you, Renee et. al., is that I don’t seem to fit any of your pre-decided stereotypes about which “type of people” hold which “type of views”. The only two people on this board with an open mind and a respectful attitude seem to be SusieHomemaker and Kevin.

By Aquagirl

September 20, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

A viewpoint for everyone who is getting run off of this blog by whatever that nut’s name is at the moment: just keep scrolling. I just read enough of a post to figure that it’s by Dog or Bruno or whoever, then start scrolling, and completely ignore any other posts under that name. Yeah, I do get sucked in when he/she/it changes her name (temporarily) but it reduces a real pain in the a** to something more akin to…well, an offensive TV show that you can hit the “off” or “mute” button to get rid of.

But you do have to discipline yourself to skip—-and not even read, if possible—-the nutty, attention seeking posts.

Really, I’ve enjoyed lurking through the discussion here, and I hate to see people split due to someone who is emotionally developed as a three year old. Just treat them as such (ignoring tantrums is not easy, yes?) and go about your business.

Just my 2 cents.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, you tipped your hand big-time about your views a few weeks back in your meaningless rant about how young, black women are “getting the shaft” from the medical community due to an incresed incidence of a certain type of breast cancer. Pure liberal rubbish.

The “actuarial fact” is that 100% of all people, regardless of race, die from “something”. Every time some specific category of “cause of death” is “higher” in a minority group, it is held out as EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION AND VICTIMHOOD.

You see, genius, if a certain category of “cause of death” is higher in young black females, it concurrently means that the aggregate of all other causes must be LOWER in comparison to other groups. You follow? As such, there are many causes of death which are higher in say, white males, but you never hear about these because they don’t support your prejudice that members of minorities are automatically victimized by society in every way possible.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this

Yeah, yeah…everybody has their “prejudices”, so what’s your point? I don’t think the right side is evil, nor am I am on the left side. Seems like you make assumptions (you know what happens when you assume) without having your facts. Oh, and I’m far from arrogant, and you can call people a lot of names, but you can’t call anyone arrogant.

By Osama

September 20, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Because of your solidarity with us, Chilao, in our deserved hatred of Jews, we have already made you an honorary member of the pigsty of Islam. For your coronation party, I have reserved my favorite goat, Fatimah, for your “batchelor party”.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

I think what perplexes you, Renee et. al., is that I don’t seem to fit any of your pre-decided stereotypes about which “type of people” hold which “type of views”.

Perplexed, no…annoyed, yes! I don’t care what your views are…it’s the manner in which you express them.

By Felix Unger

September 20, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

Yes, Renee, I do know what happens when we A*/U/ME.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Also, Renee, I have never called you a name or tried to stereotype your views so that I could simply dimiss them without thinking like apparently AquaGirl does. I have answered every respectful question or disagreement with respect. As for BC, he started the name-calling war with Bruno by stating that he “needed to back to high school to learn Physics”

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Because the sad fact about BC is, even though he holds onto Science as his God, his understanding of Science is juvenile. Unfortunately no one on this board has the education to see how foolish his misstatements are. I have openly stated my qualifications: besides attending the most difficult college in the entire world, Harvey Mudd College, I have supplemented my studies via additional college courses locally and via reading REAL SCIENCE books (not crackpot websites like BC). But with all that working, I have repeatedly said that I don’t hold college degrees in any particularly high esteem, simply because they often become a barrier to true understanding (think John).

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

Bruno likes to lie, dodge questions, ignore proof of his errors, and then declare victory.

He’d make a perfect Bush supporter!

I keep going back to your errors, Bruno, because you refuse to acknowledge them and keep insisting I admit “defeat” when it’s YOU who’ve been proven wrong… over and over.

As I said, that’s classic troll behavior. You’re pretentious, boring, and mainly talking to yourself because no one cares what you have to say. You’ve proven you can’t speak politely OR intelligently, but your raving arrogance won’t permit you to shut up—or even tell the truth.

Go away, troll.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

Because the biggest truth, again, is that we are already in the middle of World War III, and the terrorists have once again found their greatest ally in the Libs in this country, just like the ones here on W2W. I can say with certainty that the war has “officially” begun in light of France’s surrender to Iran yesterday by Chirac along with his back-handed slap of a cry for our help.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

And the reason for the Libs capitulation is simple: When you are a GOD-less, spineless, arrogant atheist, you foolishly believe that you can invent your own Meaning of Life and create your own Truth. Yep, better Red than Dead.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

Even though I really don’t care about qualifications, BC, just exactly what are YOUR QUALIFICATIONS? Care to answer that, Rocket Scientist? Was it Dekalb Tech or Perimeter College? And just what is your job? I have prayed it is not in education, but I keep getting a feeling that my prayers aren’t going to be answered due to your incredibly myopic dogmatism. If you are a man, you will publicly answer about your credentials.

By Child of the 60s Flashback

September 20, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

By DOG September 13, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Ya see, Billy, I shut chuck up and John up, but BC kept running his uninformed mouth, so now all of you have to suffer the consequences.

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

Osama - Thanks, but that seems to be more your thing. being up there in that cave, big bounty on your head, perhaps those imported blonde Saanens were the closest you could get to some blonde. I understand, I suppose, if I were in your shoes…

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry good people. I am a eunich, and have been since I stared in one of Shakespeare’s plays so long ago. Please do not hold it against.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

And not that I really care about IQ, because I’ve met a lot of “stupid geniuses” in my day, but I will say that chuck is hurting if he’s only bringing a 149 to any match against me. I actually do agree with Vizzini’s observaton that Plato and Aristotle were dolts.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Once again, weak minds admit defeat through cheap imitation, as the Mr. Peabody quote made at 11:44 demonstrates. None of you lightweights here can do the job, however, because to be DOG, you have to speak the Truth. I don’t think any of you here can speak the Truth, because you’ve never seen it layed out before like I’m doing for you here, free of charge.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Once again, to understand The Truth, you first have to solve the Mystery of The Buddha, and then the Mystery of the Christ, which are both ultimately commentaries on the nature and fallibility of EITHER/OR logic, as consistently demonstrated by both BC and chuck.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this

So we see the troll’s measure of success: how well he can force others to “shut up” and let him rave.

Not gonna work, Bruno; you can’t drive me off OR shut me up. I will, however, (out of consideration for the others here), address your so-called “points” and why they’re wrong in a separate forum.

One which you’re still afraid to visit because you know what awaits you there. Troll.

By Mr. Peabody

September 20, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

Anyone following? To be forced to choose between a literal Bible and the Science Fiction being passed off as Science today provides no real meaningful choice. The reason is, is that Truth is stranger than fiction, as REAL GENIUSES like Einstein, Heisenberg, and Godel have shown us. Unfortunately, BC will never understand the true ramifications of these True Scientists work because his education and intellect are extremely limited.

By Vizzini

September 20, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

DOG: We face each other as GOD intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone. BC: You mean, you’ll put down your REAL Science Books and I’ll put down my Fake Science Books, and we’ll try and kill each other like civilized people? DOG: [brandishing Real Science Books] I could kill you now. BC: I think the odds are slightly in your favor at hand fighting. DOG: It’s not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don’t even exercise.

By Vizzini

September 20, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

DOG: We face each other as GOD intended. Sportsmanlike. No tricks, no weapons, skill against skill alone. BC: You mean, you’ll put down your REAL Science Books and I’ll put down my Fake Science Books, and we’ll try and kill each other like civilized people? DOG: [brandishing Real Science Books] I could kill you now. BC: I think the odds are slightly in your favor at hand fighting. DOG: It’s not my fault being the biggest and the strongest. I don’t even exercise.

By Vizzini

September 20, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

BC: [admiring his torture contraption] Beautiful isn’t it? It took me half a lifetime to invent it. I’m sure you’ve discovered my deep and abiding interest in pain. Presently I’m writing the definitive work on the subject, so I want you to be totally honest with me on how the machine makes you feel. This being our first try, I’ll use the lowest setting. [BC activates the water powered torture machine. Bunny writhes in great pain] BC: [calmly] As you know, the concept of the suction pump is centuries old. Really that’s all this is except that instead of sucking water, I’m sucking life. I’ve just sucked one year of your life away. I might one day go as high as five, but I really don’t know what that would do to you. So, let’s just start with what we have. What did this do to you? Tell me. And remember, this is for posterity so be honest. How do you feel? [Bunny cries and moans in pain] BC: Interesting! Another great advance in the name of Science!

By Vizzini

September 20, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

BC: Your prince is quite a winning creature. A trifle simple, perhaps. His appeal is undeniable. NetBanker: I know, the people are quite taken with him. It’s odd, but when I hired Vizzini to have him murdered on our engagement day, I thought that was clever. But it’s going to be so much more moving when I strangle him on our wedding night. Once Bush is blamed, the nation will truly be outraged - they’ll demand to stop the War on Terror. BC: [snickers, then examines a huge tree] Now where is that secret knot? It’s impossible to find… [he finds it and the tree opens to reveal a hidden passage] BC: Ah. Are you coming down into the pit? Bunny’s got her strength back. I’m starting her on the machine tonight. NetBanker: [sincerely] BC, you know how much I love watching you work, but I’ve got my company’s 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my husband to murder and Bush to frame for it; I’m swamped. BC: Get some rest. If you haven’t got your health, then you haven’t got anything.

By Vizzini

September 20, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

DOG: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro? DOG: You are using Bonetti’s Defense against me, ah? BC: Naturally… but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don’t you? DOG: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa… which I have.

[DOG stands up after getting stabbed by a knife thrown by BC ] BC: Good heavens. Are you still trying to win? [DOG falls back against the wall] BC: You’ve got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It’s going to get you into trouble someday [BC draws his sword and lunges at DOG who then forces the blade to his left shoulder. Again BC lunges at DOG and the blade is deflected to DOG’s right arm. BC swings his sword but DOG blocks it and then begins advancing] DOG: Hello. My name is DOG. You killed my FATHER— prepare to die. [He falls on a table. BC attacks and DOG blocks four times before he continues to advance on BC] DOG: Hello. My name is DOG. You killed my FATHER— prepare to die. [Now BC attacks five times and DOG blocks every single one] DOG: [Louder] Hello. My name is DOG. You killed my FATHER— prepare to die. BC: Stop saying that! [BC attacks and DOG blocks it and then stabs BC in the shoulder. Then BC swings his sword. DOG ducks and stabs BC in the other shoulder. Then he advances quickly and they fight] DOG: Hello! My name is DOG! You killed my FATHER prepare to die! [BC gets his sword knocked away and DOG slices his cheek] BC: No! DOG: Offer me money BC: Yes! DOG: Power, too—promise that! [he slices BC’s other cheek] BC: All that I have and more. Please. DOG: Offer me everything I ask for. BC: Anything you want. [BC attacks but DOG grabs his arm and stabs BC in the stomach] DOG: I want my FATHER back, you son of a b***. [DOG plunges the sword into BC’s gut and BC falls down dead]

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

Anyone following?

Naw, you’re a SkipPost.

By SusieHomeMaker

September 20, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Why are you doing this? If it’s to educate all the bloggers, pretty soon instead of educating you sound like you’re preaching; and most people turn away from that.

By Inquiring Minds Want to Know

September 20, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

So just where did you go to school, BC?? Hmmmmmm. We’re waiting.

By blog police

September 20, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

Anyone who responds to Bruno, Dog, God, Mr. Peabody, Child of the 60’s flashback or any of the other obvious monikers used by Bruno the TROLL or even acknowledges his presence, is hereby suspended from W2W for 1 week, beginning NOW.

By Inquiring Minds Want to Know

September 20, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

And which is more “True”, BC, an earth-centered model of planetary motion, or a sun-centered model of planetary motion?? ( The mechanical device used in classrooms which demonstrates planetary motion is known as an “orrery”, Mara). Hmmmmm. Could it be that both are simply models which exist only in our minds?? Or could a picture of an ocean REALLY be the same thing as an ocean??

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

Glad to see you Susie. Did you read my answer to your question about what examples from History demonstrate the rightful use of shame?? How about two dudes named Ghandi and Martin Luther King?? I believe they used Shame in a righteous way, which is why they could defeat evil cracsers who had MUCH BIGGER GUNS.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

The bottom line, once again, Susie, is that most people hold very strong opinions about the big issues of Life, like Morality, but ultimately have NO IDEA WHY THEY HOLD THOSE VIEWS. And when you challenge people in such a fundamental way as I have here the past four weeks, they generally run away or start calling you names, as has happened here. If you go back to my first day here, on Aug 21, I tried to initiate intelligent dialogue many times, but only got a lot of ad hominem attacks. After I answered the ad hominem attacks, then the racial and cultural insults started flying from the so-called “compassionate” Libs here.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

So, because I never shy away from a good fight, I took the gloves off and gave these guys a taste of their own medicine by answering each insulter within the plane of reality in which they are stuck.

By Lyrazel

September 20, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

Mr. Peabody, Snicker…I never made any claim to be a genius. Its nice to be labeled as one but I do not believe it. My rant was NOT meaningless if you were a black female…or a concerned partner…and it has long been established that the medical community has ignored diseases that primarily affect minorities—and women but that—can be documented by the medical community itself. My reason for the post was to inform thus I kept my opinion out. The results of the study came from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill schools of Public Health and Medicine and the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer not my own theories. This blog is called WOMAN TO WOMAN…thus concerning itself with women’s issues and breast cancer is a woman’s issue (although men should be checked for breast cancer).

By Mr. Peabody September 20, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this Anyone following?

Nope. Most of us are very bored with such drivel posted by such an egoist.

To the Blog Police: suck eggs and go tell someone else what to do or not to.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

So now I’m waiting for BC to put up or shut up. It is him and him alone who kept me on the board the past few weeks. Chuck was a little smarter and admitted surrender after just a few rounds. But BC’s dogmatism won’t allow him to do the same.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Your silence is deafening, BC.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Actually, I think Child of The 60’s flashback is legitimate. But…I could be wrong….I thought it was lozen.

By blog police

September 20, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, you are hereby suspended from W2W for 1 week. Please turn in your credentials as you leave your computer. Do not attempt to return until 12:25 p.m. on Wednesday 9/27.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

Renee, my estimation of your ability to “read the clues” is going down rapidly. Of all people, I thought you would have figured out the “Flavor Flav” moniker—You get it, “What Time Is It”? A. It’s Jihad Time!!

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, getting any “clues” about how your Lib “buddies” behave when the heat is on?? They’re even turning on you, one of their own, now.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

Come on everybody. The poster who said we should not let this egomaniacal sicko drive us away from our blog is right. I am not reading what he excretes here but I will read and respond to the regulars who want to have a conversation. Mara, come back! 72John, come back!

By TramadoL21366

September 20, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to anything today. I don’t care. I’ve just been staying at home not getting anything done. Basically not much happening right now. Maybe tomorrow. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

I miss my Sweet Thing!! Hope all is well darling. The blog has been a drag of late. (especially without you)

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Since BC ran like a scared little girl again, I will happilly resume the discussion started by Diane, what is the rightful place for Shame in our society. My assertion, again, is that Moral Discernment is a Gift from GOD, and is used both successfully on a personal level by young girls who don’t want to gow up to be ‘hos, and by great Leaders of Men like MLK and Ghandi who won great Battles without ever firing a shot.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, Susie, when you start from a GOD-less place like all of the Libs here, Shame has no meaning in it’s natural place in the Human Toolbox of Understanding. In their world, men like MLK and Ghandi could only succeed by “hunting men with small guns using bigger guns”.

By Lyrazel

September 20, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Oooooo……my credentials? Where are yours bubba? Or should I say: bubbette? You mean that tag I folded spindled and mutilated? Doesn’t everyone staple their IRS donation cheques to the envelope? Snicker…I leave being called a genius…by a pompous bore…but ya know if helium was good for ya women would never need implants….and men would never need Viagra….Ta ta….

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

You see, when the fearless WARRIOR John Lewis marched across that bridge in Alabama, all the crackers everywhere felt genuine shame for the abuse he had to take for simply being a black man. The TV images of the police dogs and fire hose is what got the lawmakers scrambling. MLK’s elegant words were just the icing on the cake. It was John Lewis’s beating that shamed White America, not MLK’s speeches.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

By blog police September 20, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this Lyrazel, you are hereby suspended from W2W for 1 week. Please turn in your credentials as you leave your computer. Do not attempt to return until 12:25 p.m. on Wednesday 9/27.

Lyrazel, do not feed the troll please! Anything you say to this crazy freak is wasted. He is not going to hear anything you say.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

Lozen. Were you the Child of the 60’s? many thought you were.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Sherlock. You are so full of it. Better watch it may come out of your ears.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, lozen and jack both waving at you! Jack, honey, the troll seems to have driven your favorite person away from the blog. Kimberly, we miss you and your wise cracks.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

I can hear the Lib groundswell growing at my charge that they dishonor Ghandi with their GOD-less love of abortion pills. And don’t give me any of that “selective compassion”, Chilao. The reason I wrote that I thought you defended the defenseless like guys named “Brucie” or “Johnnie”, is because I already knew you didn’t. I was merely retesting your “manhood” by giving you a chance to come clean. Nope, you just sat on the sidelines when guys took beatings they didn’t deserve. Fortunately, I didn’t need help from human scum like you.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

I was the child of the 60’s the other day but not today. That’s the troll I think with just another of its many, many names.

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

So once again, the answer is to find GOD, to have a real foundation for understanding morality. Hint: you’ll never discover GOD in any church or Science class offered in America. I’ve done my best to show you Libs the way, but all I keep hearing is a bunch of moronic Lib BS and a bunch of insults from crybabies who can’t win a fair fight.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, don’t take it seriously. Theblogpolice is just trying to get people to ignore the troll. If we don’t bite, maybe he’ll get as bored as we are and go away. I don’t read any of his postings as soon as I realize who it is. The only thing he’s good at is hooking people into an argument or into defending themselves against his appalling craziness. It is useless however to try to converse with a psycho.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

See, he’s going for Chilao again. Please ignore the troll Chilao. What a crazy!

By Lyrazel

September 20, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel, getting any “clues” about how your Lib “buddies” behave when the heat is on?? They’re even turning on you, one of their own, now. Honey, they have done it with more gusto, gumption and teeth than you will ever receive but these buddies remain consistent when they log in and do not post under thousands of names. Wise up and welcome aboard.

Lozen, I just received my shipment from Powells. I am off to enjoy the luxury of reading on the porch. Fear not, no one will ever stop the regulars from coming on, posting or even being silly…many have tried…few who tried survived. :-) toodles…..

By chuck

September 20, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Lozen was Child of the 60’s

Troll was Child of the 60’s FLASHBACK

I think anyway

By No Shlt Sherlock

September 20, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I will come clean about one mistake of mine: I thought you were another gay blade here on W2W. If you actually are a female, I apologize from the bottom of my teeeeeny Grinch-like heart.

By Lozen

September 20, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

Hey Jack, been to any good plays lately I saw Sistahs and that was really good. I saw The Spelling Bee thing (can’t really remember the name) at the Alliance. It was okay but I’m glad I didn’t pay to see it (got a free ticket from a friend). I’m going to see the new one at Horizon this weekend. How is life under the bridge, Jack?

By Randy

September 20, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

I read another great book “Godless” by Ann Coulter. For those of you who are interested in the actual truth. Read it!

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Listen up Libs, I’ve let you muck around for the answer long enough. To beat the Bruno troll, you have to beat him at his own game. The first step is to stop beating yourselves at your own games. Chuck did wise up the quickest, and I believe even John finally saw the light with his “Ducking the Troll” moniker.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

The next step is to actually figure out what the Bruno Troll’s real game is. He is good at creating deception by holding up mirrors. When people like Billy, chuck, John, BC, and Lozen finally see themselves, just look at the vitriol!!!

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

And the answer isn’t in trying to appeal to authority and credentials.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

And the answer isn’t in trying to appear intelligent by using big words no one ever heard of, right Mara?

By Jack

September 20, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Been pretty good Hon. The Mrs. and I haven’t been to any plays lately. I wanted to go see Lord of the Dance again but I was out voted. The Fox is such a great place that I don’t mind seeing the same thing twice there. Not to mention the all of the fine ladies dreesed to the “nines’ at those events. :)

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

And the answer CERTAINLY isn’t trying to pretend you know something about Science, BC. Again, the undereducated Libs here might be impressed with your poppycock, but please try to get a real Science education before you start bragging about the “size of your package” next time.

By chuck

September 20, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Hey Chilao, welcome to the club. I learned to set my computer on ignore. Hope you can do the same.

Anybody see the irony this week. The Pope quotes Mohammed from the 14th Century talking about violence and how Muslims should be violent. The Muslims got so mad because he quoted their leader, thereby making Islam appear to be violent,that they threatened to kill him and begin killing Christians. HMMMMMMMMMM.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

The answer was never found by running away, insulting, or pouting, which is all I’ve seen and heard coming from the Libs here for four long weeks.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this

Between his Pavlovian induced preening, Chilao did manage one small flash of brilliance by actually checking into something I was referring to, and came back at the Bruno Troll nicely with a multi-leveled meaning song reference in “I Talk To the Wind”.

By chuck

September 20, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

“Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Macbeth Quote (Act V, Scene V).

By Mara

September 20, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

Renee - just for you, darlin’, I’ll give it another try (sigh)

Randy - I read another great book “Godless” by Ann Coulter. For those of you who are interested in the actual truth. Read it!

WAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Anne COULTER!!?? and the TRUTH?!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…the twain have never met. Try “Liars and the Lying Lies They Tell” for the scoop on Anne-the-man

HAHAHAHAHA!

By chuck

September 20, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

Ego is the warm blanket to insecurity

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

The answer all along, was contained in my only website reference, that of a layperson’s explanation of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem and what it means for Bible Thumpers and Science Dogmatists alike. Here it is again: ams.org/notices/200604/fea-franzen.pdf

By chuck

September 20, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

George Bernard Shaw: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

I tried to cut-n-paste for the lazy bloggers here, but my new-found skill doesn’t seem to work on .pdf files. Anyway, the hired apologist, franzen, eventually admits that “everything can’t be proven”, and that ultimately, the “logical conclusions ” we draw in Life are simply a result of the assumptions we start with. (Assumptions is another word for prejudices).

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

And chuck, I have to say you are quite sharp in many ways. Too bad you’re REALLY DUMB about the important stuff, like the true definition of GOD and the meaning of the Bible.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

My defeat lies in the acknowledgement of this simple fact. Because, in order to reach this conclusion, I had to start with a set of assumptions myself. So, if any of you were truly as bright as you think you are, you could have started the “dragon eating it’s own tail (or should I say tale ?)” by turning my conclusion about assumptions into a death spiral by noting that that this very conclusion depends upon assumptions itself.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Awwww Mara……that was not one of your better ones. Alas, today, I don’t have the energy to challenge you.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

Unfortunately, for any of you to turn Bruno’s Logic against itself in order to defeat the Bruno Troll, you have to master the Mystery of the Buddha, which Chilao had a very brief glimpse of last week.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

The Mystery of the Buddha can be stated in an infinite number of different ways, becuse it is simply a transcendence of the normal EITHER/OR Logical frameworks which we all get used to in our Weatern way of thinking. In it’s simplest form, it occurs in such questions as “Is nothing actually nothing, or is it something?”

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 01:56 PM | Link to this

didn’t I mention once reading an Ann Coulter article at the car dealership once in some right-wing newspaper? and remarking “What an UGLY and LYING human being” think the article was whining about how GW Bush was not Reagan.

Glad I read this blog, I never would have remembered I posted ‘Talk to the Wind’ lyrics on another blog about 2 years ago.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

Another common way of explaining this important Mystery is found in the yin-yang symbol, which shows two opposite figures intermeshed, yet alwasys separate. The traditional Zen question is, “Is the yin-yang symbol represent the quality of “oneness” or “twoness”? A good argument can be made for either case.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

See, Bruno, the vast majority of us are not interested in defeating anyone, just debating each other. There is no right or wrong, no black or white etc. There are facts which apply to certain subjects and even some facts are up to interpretation and their validity can be challenged.

I don’t know why you feel the need to defeat someone, or be crowned as the victorious one. No one is dueling or fighting to the death.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

Those with limited logical skills (think BC or chuck), will vainly argue that the “right answer” has to be ONE OR THE OTHER. It has to be “one OR two”. But since an equally valid argument can be made for either interpretation, the correct answer is that it is actually BOTH ONE AND TWO AT THE SAME TIME. IN A NUTSHELL, THIS IS THE MEANING OF THE MYSTERY OF THE BUDDHA.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

Renee, in case you haven’t noticed, “winning” any argument was never my intention. I’ve agreed to every insult thrown, except the charge that I wasn’t original. I’m trying to help some of the others here see the point that you understood from the outset: None of us are “right” or “wrong”, even the terrorists funded by political Islam.

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Just out of curiosity, Renee, are you ready to fight the Muslims? They are coming, you know, and they aren’t interested in having nice debates. I actually have no philisophical quibbles with them at all, if you have discovered the consistency within my arguments. I’m against them because they are trying to force thier way of Life down my throat, period. And if I don’t accept, my throat will be cut with no debating allowed. Getting the big picture?

By Defeating the Bruno Troll

September 20, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this

Well, gotta go for today, I’ll resume tomorrow with the Mystery of the Christ one more time (Hint: It is the Spiritual version of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem).

By blog police

September 20, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Renee, join lyrazel outside of W2W. You are hereby suspended for 1 week. You may return at 1:59 p.m on Wednesday 9/27. Leave your credentials at the door on the way out.

By Why?

September 20, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

If you want the troll to go away, why do you keep talking to him? Do you really want him to go, or not?

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

(checking in) Any action going on with the actual topic lately, or is Bruno still babbling to himself about stuff I refuted weeks ago?

Nope, more of the same. For all his condemnation of “throwing big words around,” he sure does lean heavily on his own misinterpretation of Godel, doesn’t he? Of course, that’s been refuted at the T-blog too, if he had the guts to check.

As for the TOPIC… I stand by my earlier statement that parenting is the job of no one but the parents. Networks don’t have an obligation to censor legitimate news, information, or even entertainment “for the children.”

By Shakespeare

September 20, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

BC, thou dost protest too much with the (checking in) and the (yawn, stretching). You know DOG’s got your number, and you can’t let it go.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

The answer was never found by running away, insulting, or pouting, which is all I’ve seen and heard coming from the Libs here for four long weeks.

Then don’t go away mad. Just go away. You rip my favorite folks on this blog. Too bad we can’t meet. It would be so lovely but alas it will never be.

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

So where did you attend college, chump? You don’t happen to be a Science teacher, do you? Your insane DOG-matism (pun intended) suggests to me that you are an educator who has a DOG (pun intended) in this fight.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

So now that Bruno’s been reduced to babbling incoherence (again)…

any discussion left for this week’s topic? Anyone willing to defend the idea that networks should self-censor documentaries because “the children” might hear a naughty word?

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Be careful about acquiring so many new orifices with John hanging around, BC. After his disappointment to losing to a lowly mutt like DOG, he might be looking for revenge on some weakling like you.

By Mara

September 20, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Sorry Renee. Didn’t mean any offense by refering to her as “-the-man” but she does have a bobber. IMO, she reliqueshed any right to my respect or consideration, let alone any politeness, by spewing her hate filled lies all over the media.

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Jack - you think he was in Canada back in the day?

By Ripping John Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

And just how many of your “partners” have you been abusive to, John? You don’t want to know the word on the street. Are you sure you’ve learned your lesson about abusing others, or have you merely turned the tables?

By Ripping JackYet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this

Jack, are you from joisey? Which exit? If not, I don’t fear you in a real M2M confrontation.

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

BC, your silence is deafening. Where did you attend college, chump? I was giving you at least Dekalb Tech before. Now I’m beginning to think it must have been the Phoenix Online Program, or was it strictly from crackpot websites, like talkorigins.com??

By PyschoCity

September 20, 2006 03:10 PM | Link to this

here we come….

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this

So tell me again about your laughable concept of “directed” energy. The electricity that runs your refrigerator is only “directed” because someone INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED THE REFRIGERATOR THAT WAY. IT ISN’T A RANDOM ACCIDENT CAUSED BY A BILLION YEARS OF RANDOMLY MUTATING REFRIGERATORS.

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

I’ll leave you alone if you will just show me once in a Labaratory how non-living, “unintelligent” atoms can be stimulated to organize themselves into “intelligent” atoms which constitute a Living System.

Your totally laughable arguments that amino acids produced by a lightning bolt hitting a mud puddle (also never reproduced in ANY Lab) just happened to fall into the Perfect Plan that is represented by a living cell are even crazier than chuck’s vision of a manly God watching us from outer space.

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Okay, I accept your surrender, BC. I told you that you are a F-ing coward just like the rest of the Libs on this board.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Still waiting for Bruno to defend his many, documented errors, or shut up. He won’t, of course; that’s the nature of pompous trolls.

It looks like the topic is pretty much dead, thanks to Bruno’s spamming. I suppose he’ll count that as “victory” in his sad, frightened little ego. What a loser.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

By the way, Bruno: I accept your surrender, too. Wasn’t that fun?

By Flavor Flav

September 20, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

At U.N., Chavez Calls Bush ‘The Devil’

Published: 9/20/06, 2:46 PM EDT By KIM GAMEL [Click to Enlarge]

Related Stories At U.N., Chavez Calls Bush ‘The Devil’ AP - 9/20/06 Britain to Muslim Parents: Watch Kids AP - 9/20/06 African Union Troops Staying in Darfur AP - 9/20/06 Analysis: Hope About Iraqi Leader Fading AP - 9/20/06 Abe Poised to Become Japan’s Next PM AP - 9/20/06

Join the Conversation

Discuss your viewpoints on this subject with others. Join in on the discussions in the BellSouth Message Boards now!

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez took his verbal battle with the United States to the floor of the U.N. General Assembly on Wednesday, calling President Bush “the devil.”

The impassioned speech by the leftist leader came a day after Bush and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sparred over Tehran’s disputed nuclear program but managed to avoid a personal encounter.

“The devil came here yesterday,” Chavez said, referring to Bush’s address on Tuesday and making the sign of the cross. “He came here talking as if he were the owner of the world.”

The leftist leader, who has joined Iran and Cuba in opposing U.S. influence, accused Washington of “domination, exploitation and pillage of peoples of the world.”

“We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head,” he said.

The main U.S. seat in the assembly hall was empty as Chavez spoke. But there was a “junior note taker” there, as is customary “when governments like that speak,” the U.S. ambassador to the U.N said.

Ambassador John Bolton told The Associated Press that Chavez had the right to express his opinion, adding it was “too bad the people of Venezuela don’t have free speech.”

“I’m just not going to comment on this because his remarks just don’t warrant a response,” Bolton said. “Serious people can listen to what he had to say and if they do they will reject it.”

Chavez drew tentative giggles at times from the audience, but also some applause when he called Bush the devil.

Chavez spoke on the second day of the annual ministerial meetings, which were overshadowed by an ambitious agenda of sideline talks.

The Mideast peace process also was in the spotlight, with ministers from the Quartet that drafted the stalled road map - the U.S., the U.N., the European Union and Russia - planning to meet. The Security Council also was scheduled to hold a ministerial meeting Thursday that Arab leaders hope will help revive the Mideast peace process.

Bush tried to advance his campaign for democracy in the Middle East during his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, saying extremists were trying to justify their violence by falsely claiming the U.S. is waging war on Islam. He singled out Iran and Syria as sponsors of terrorism.

Bush also pointed to Tehran’s rejection of a Security Council demand to stop enriching uranium by Aug. 31 or face the possibility of sanctions. But he addressed his remarks to the Iranian people in a clear insult to the government.

“The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation’s resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons,” the U.S. leader said.

“Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions,” he said. “Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran’s pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program.”

He said he hoped to see “the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace.”

Ahmadinejad took the podium hours later, denouncing U.S. policies in Iraq and Lebanon and accusing Washington of abusing its power in the Security Council to punish others while protecting its own interests and allies.

The hard-line leader insisted that his nation’s nuclear activities are “transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eye” of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. He also reiterated his nation’s commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Earlier this month, Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Bush at the General Assembly’s ministerial meeting after the White House dismissed a previous TV debate proposal as a “diversion” from serious concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.

But even though the two leaders spoke from the same podium, they skipped each other’s addresses and managed to avoid direct contact during the ministerial meeting.

Also on Wednesday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned that terrorism is rebounding in his country and said efforts to build democracy there had suffered setbacks over the past year as violence increased, especially in the volatile south where NATO forces have been battling Taliban militants in some of the fiercest battles since the hard-line government was toppled in 2001.

“We have seen terrorism rebounding as terrorists have infiltrated our borders to step up their murderous campaign against our people,” he told the General Assembly.

He said the situation was so bad it had contributed to a rise in polio from four cases in 2005 to 27 this year because health workers were unable to reach the region.

But he said the problem had to be fought beyond Afghanistan’s borders as well as within.

“We must look beyond Afghanistan to the sources of terrorism,” he said. “We must destroy terrorist sanctuaries beyond Afghanistan.”

He also expressed concern about “the increased incidents of Islamophobia in the West,” saying it does not “bode well for the cause of building understanding and cooperation across civilizations.”

The crisis in the ravaged Sudanese region of Darfur also was on the agenda Wednesday, with the African Union’s Peace and Security Council meeting to discuss breaking the deadlock over a plan to replace an AU force with U.N. peacekeepers.

The Sudanese president said his country won’t allow the United Nations to take control of peacekeepers in Darfur under any circumstance, claiming that rights groups have exaggerated the crisis there in a bid for more cash.

But Omar al-Bashir did say that the African Union, which now runs the peacekeeping mission in Darfur, should be allowed to augment its forces with more logistics, advisers and other support.

“We want the African Union to remain in Darfur until peace is re-established in Sudan,” al-Bashir said at a news conference. Those comments suggest that the African Union will not face any resistance in renewing the peacekeeping force’s mandate, which expires Sept. 30.

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Renee - Taboga? Maybe he had to sell his Navigator.

By Mara

September 20, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

Brian - totally agree. When did it become society’s job to “protect” other peoples children from the real world?

By Archie

September 20, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this

I am sorry to be late but the following is such a good point.

“Why? The same people who say that Bush was appointed by God are the same people who decry anyone who shows disrespect for the President as unpatriotic, forgetting that they themselves were probably showing disrespect for Clinton 8 years ago. Consistency and logic is not the strong suit for fanatics of ANY type.”

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Mara: I’m guessing, since parents decided it was too hard. (Or maybe it was when those uppity blacks and women decided to reject their natural “shame” that was keeping the kids safe.)

By Camden, New Jersey Board of Tourism

September 20, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

Chilao, also FYI, beautiful Camden, New Jersey, which DOG grew up near is in SOUTH joisey, not NORTH joisey. And where are you from, Chilao? Your viewpoints are so decidedly “cultured”, I don’t believe your parents are from the US originally.

By Kevin

September 20, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this

Two quick points and then I’ll run away before I frighten 72John with more of my Jeffersonian thinking.

On the topic at hand - I am in control of what my children watch. I cannot rely on the government or media to meet my moral standards of what is acceptable.

Bruno - BC did not use the term “directed energy” - I did. I used it in the same context as you - to state that simple organisms cannot change into more complex organisms without “directed energy” (hence the need for a “Director”). I also readily admit that the vast majority of scientists disagree with my position, but I also believe their biases cloud their judgment just as my biases may cloud mine.

By Ripping John, BC, AND chuck Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Hear, hear Archie, I couldn’t agree more.

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

I just can’t help wondering why BC won’t reveal which college he attended? Sounds like a good question to be spammed repeatedly on tomorrow’s W2W. What do you all think?

By Ripping BC Yet Another New One

September 20, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

And is he employed as an educator? I guess I can alternate these two questions ALL DAY LONG.

By All Hail Kevin

September 20, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Kevin, I really hope you do try to accept the Einsteinian concept of “one Reality” someday. It is challenging to puzzle through at first, but the reward is no more disconnects between Science, Religion, and common sense.

By All Hail Kevin

September 20, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this

And even though BC did not specifically mention “directed energy”, Kevin, his Mecca, talkorigins.com tries to float that very same idea in trying to deny the falseness of The Second Law of Thermodynamics as applied to Living Systems.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

No. Lower East side of Philly. Chilao he probably was in Canada. (wearing a dress)

By All Hail Kevin

September 20, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Here you go , Kevin, straight from talkorigins .org/faq in response to objections that The Second Law of Thermo is violated by Living Systems:

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

By All Hail Kevin

September 20, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

The answer to the idiot’s last question about why order is ubiquitous in nature but the genius Evolutionists can’t figure out why can be found in my earlier posts about how it is ARROGANCE WHICH PREVENTS US FROM SEEING OBVIOUS TRUTHS.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

We know his wife/girlfriend is a lousy carpenter.

By All Hail Kevin

September 20, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

Also, notice the BS ARGUMENT REGARDING “SYSTEMS HAVING ENOUGH ENERGY FLOWING THROUGH”…. I’M WITH YOU, MASTER TWAIN, THERE ARE LIES, DAMN LIES, AND STATISICAL THERMODYNAMICS.

By All Hail Kevin

September 20, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

So BC can babble all he wants about DOG not addressing his cockamamie Science. I have publicly disrobed him here on the Board repeatedly, while he keeps adding to his calybos archives so that he can masturbate later to his own words and claim that he somehow “defeated” me. He still won’t answer where he received his so-called Science education. It’s gonna be a long day tomorrow until he answers.

By All Hail Kevin

September 20, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

It is easy to see now how BC misparroted The First Law of Thermo, because his Mecca here only speaks of The Second Law being valid for “closed systems” like the Sun + Earth. When I mentioned to him a few weeks ago that the First Law of Thermo has to apply to this SAME “CLOSED SYSTEM”, HE ARGUED FOR DAYS WITH ME. WHAT A F-ING IDIOT!

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

“scum” and “cultured” all in one day, I am so Blessed.

I’ll have to pass on such Wisdom to my (could be a Member of the DAR, if they had not snubbed Marian Anderson in the 1950s) Mom. She’ll get a good laugh.

“what exit?” only makes sense in northern New Jersey. Not sure it is meant to make sense but….

By Bob Dole

September 20, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

But Kevin, you know, and I know, and the American people know that all this Big Bang and Evolution crap is a total fabrication based on weak premises such as “every Body in the Universe is moving away from the Earth” (based on the “red shift”). Do you think BC will ever see that?

By Bob Dole

September 20, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

And you know, and I know, and the American people know that it’s going to be a long week, month, and even year until BC comes clean about where he received his poor excuse FOR a Science education. (Kisses to you, John)

By Camden, New Jersey Board of Tourism

September 20, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

Many highways pass through and near Camden, Chilao, and they all use exit numbers.

By Camden, New Jersey Board of Tourism

September 20, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

You know anything about Camden, Chilao? If you do, then I don’t think YOUR money will be on John on our upcoming fist fight. Nor Jack. Renee I fear, but not John or Jack.

By The Swamp Fox

September 20, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

Screw those snobs, Chilao. None of the DAR were out ther risking their a*******es like I was.

By Renee

September 20, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

I don’t know Chilao - even taboga made a point now and then.

By Chilao

September 20, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Is Camden near Olga’s, in Marlton? LMAO

my money is on Jack.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Shakin in my boots.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Hell. Whiley could kick your butt. Even JBM. No doubt Kim or Lozen could.

By DOG FECES

September 20, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

As a matter of fact, I have sat in Olga’s many times absolutely Sht-faced.

By DOG FECES

September 20, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

I was hoping Mara could “kick my butt”, but apparently she is married and is so old that she pulled that “A woman never reveals her age” crap on me. I’m guessing the mid-40s for Mara.

By DOG FECES

September 20, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

No, Jack will lose because I have some “Brokeback Mountain” strategies in mind for him. That will really throw him off, because he’s from the “old school”.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Thanks Chilao. He’s on ignore now. Gotta go.

By DOG FECES

September 20, 2006 04:48 PM | Link to this

Which, hey, reminds me of a good cracker joke: What’s the difference between __ and Dog Feces?

By DOG FECES

September 20, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

Heard that one before, Chilao? Actually, I first thought Chilao might be some funny way of saying Chilean. Pero, no es verdad. Then, due to my love for Master Suzuki, I started thinking Chi-lao. Now, hard to tell.

By Jack

September 20, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

I’m guessing the mid-40s for Mara

Wayyyyyyyyyy wrong! My guess is she is blond low to mid thirties and very fine.

By Brian Curtis

September 20, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

You’ve lost already, and again, Bruno, because you misunderstand the First and Second Laws (as related in detail on the T-blog, which you won’t visit because it deprives you of your audience).

The Sun IS losing energy; it’s called “shining.” That’s why it will eventually run down and burn out, in perfect accord with the Second Law. But everyone with even a high-school science education already knows this, so why do you keep pretending otherwise?

And the First Law isn’t invalidated by that rundown… the energy is converted to another form, unrecoverable waste heat. To quote a self-proclaimed genius on this very forum, WHAT A F-IN’ MORON. (Do ALL CAPS help you feel powerful, Bruno?)

Anything to say on this week’s topic, or would that get in the way of your preening and bragging? Egad, what an insecure loser you must be, to brag so much about your “qualifications” and “intellect” while instantly condemning anyone who disagrees with you as a moron (and evil, to boot!) You really are a pathetic troll.

By DOG FECES

September 20, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

So get ready for the you-know-what to hit the fan until BC publicly reveals where he went to college and whether he is, in fact, a teacher.

By TramadoL85979

September 20, 2006 06:11 PM | Link to this

Not much on my mind right now, but it’s not important. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me. I just don’t have anything to say right now.

By texas holdem rule

September 21, 2006 06:27 AM | Link to this

hello word ,Thes is best site of pharmasi and gambling toyota ithaca new york mazda salt lake city camry fog kit ligh toyota mazda portland oregon toyota jamestown new york toyota dealer bergen toyota dealer nassau 2007 camry se toyota [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/2007-camry-se-toyota]2007 camry se toyota[/url] toyota newburgh new york [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/toyota-newburgh-new-york]toyota newburgh new york[/url] mazda nassau [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/mazda-nassau]mazda nassau[/url] mazda middlesex [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/mazda-middlesex]mazda middlesex[/url] toyota newburgh new york [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/toyota-newburgh-new-york]toyota newburgh new york[/url] mitsubishi jacksonville florida [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/mitsubishi-jacksonville-florida]mitsubishi jacksonville florida[/url] honda newburgh new york [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/honda-newburgh-new-york]honda newburgh new york[/url] mazda fort worth [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/mazda-fort-worth]mazda fort worth[/url] 2007 toyota tacoma [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/2007-toyota-tacoma]2007 toyota tacoma[/url] mazda middlesex [url=http://big.katal0g.ru/mazda-middlesex]mazda middlesex[/url]

;) See you and you frends.

By TramadoL41546

September 21, 2006 06:47 AM | Link to this

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour , September 21

September 21, 2006 07:33 AM | Link to this

Hi fans—Can you believe it? Today is my “LAST” Farewell Tour, The Farewell Tour of September 21, 2006. I PROMISE.

By Eric Clapton

September 21, 2006 07:35 AM | Link to this

Sing along, everyone: “We made a vow we’d always be friends. How could we know that PROMISES end?”

By Eric Clapton

September 21, 2006 07:39 AM | Link to this

Hey to my buddy, Jack. Would you believe that I picture Mara in the same way you do—-Hot, hot, hot! Plus that blonde hair! Now I can’t help wondering if “the carpet matches the drapes”. What’s your imagination suggest to you? I’m guessing yes, because you can tell that she KNOWS how hot she is.

By Eric Clapton

September 21, 2006 07:41 AM | Link to this

I’ll let you in on a little secret, Jack. When I was with my girlfriend last night, I imagined that I was with Mara. My “happy ending” ended up on the ceiling!

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 07:48 AM | Link to this

Also a quick shout to Lozen before getting down to business. Lozen, sweetie, DOG made a big mistake. He thought you were another guy (sorry), that’s why he “called you out” here on the board last week. If he knew you were a woman, he wouldn’t have done that. DOG has tremendous respect for women, has never struck a woman, and has intervened more than once when he saw a man strike a woman. And you all know what a mean SOB DOG can be. Pity the fool who strikes a woman when DOG is around (or harms a bunny rabbit).

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 07:52 AM | Link to this

And Jack, I’ll let you in on another secret. When DOG kissed his girl last night, he even tried to imagine it was you in preparation for your upcoming battle. He was thinking if he got you in a headlock, a big kiss on the smacker might do the trick. BUT, after trying it once, he thought that you guys might ought to just call it a draw, get a 12 pack, and put on some Ritchie Blackmore and rock out. What do you say?

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 07:59 AM | Link to this

And BC, honey, I know that you’ve been feeling picked on by DOG, but if you think about it a little, you might understand why. You see, DOG absolutely LOVES SCIENCE! Therefore, it is VERY PAINFUL for DOG when he meets folks like yourself (think chuck) who think they know a lot more about the topic than they really do, especially when they misuse this wonderful TOOL in a way that crosses the line into WEAPONRY. As a free gift to you, DOG is going to spend a little time in my body today and try to tell you in a NICER WAY where your errors are. So listen up, or DOG might have to pull a “Brokeback Mountain” on you too. It’s EITHER/OR.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:04 AM | Link to this

Thanks for “being a man”, BC, and hanging in there. Now that you’ve summarized your “mixed metaphors” regarding the First and Second Laws of Thermo, I believe that I can work with you more efficiently to help you sharpen up your definitions a little more. With more precise definitions of the words and concepts used, I believe you will also see more clearly exactly why these Laws are only valid within a certain narrow framework, and don’t apply outside of this narrow scope.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:09 AM | Link to this

The key concept to master, my friend (and lover), is once again that of the “closed system”, which is the “narrow framework” in which the FLOT and SLOT potentially may apply. The branch of mathematics which describes the features of a “closed system” is Set Theory. If you aren’t deeply familiar with Set Theory, I would like to suggest to you in the nicest possible way to have a second look. Your knowledge of Physics and other fields will likely be enhanced.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:14 AM | Link to this

You see, BC, when you kept insisting that “The sun IS losing energy”, I knew EXACTLY what you MEANT. However, that statement, as it stands, is NOT CORRECT IN PRECISE TERMS. In normal human communication, a little imprecision is fine (and even a few typos), but when you state Scientific Laws, you must be as precise as possible so as not to allow for false conclusions to be drawn from the statements.

By Brian Curtis

September 21, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

I can see why you like Robert Rosen, then; he WORSHIPS set theory, and indeed insists that there is no other valid perspective for looking at things.

I know you don’t have anything to say about the topic at hand—it would interfere with your bragging and posturing—but I’ll be fascinated to watch you embarrass yourself again with the same sweeping generalizations and the inappropriate misapplications you so loudly condemn in others. Let the entertainment begin!

(Everyone else, feel free to take a nap. This WILL be tedious, as lectures from Bruno the Windbag usually are.)

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

In analyzing the term “closed system” more carefully, I will set aside for the sake of this argument my earlier objection that there can actually be no “closed systems” which don’t ultimately contain the entire Universe. For our discussion, I will agree that the Sun + Earth + Surrounding Space (the S/E/SS) constitutes a valid “closed system” in which the FLOT and SLOT DO apply.

The key point, BC, is that once we agree on using a certain “closed system”, we also have to agree on a reasonable BOUNDARY to CONTAIN our “closed system”. Once we have agreed upon a certain BOUNDARY, this BOUNDARY BECOMES FIXED for all subsequent discussions regarding that particular system (here the S/E/SS). IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES AT WILL DURING THE DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SENTENCE.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

More specifically, BC, when you insist that the “sun IS losing energy”, you are WRONGLY REDRAWING THE BOUNDARIES OF OUR S/E/SS CLOSED SYSTEM TO A DIFFERENT “CLOSED SYSTEM” WHICH ONLY CONTAINS ONE ELEMENT, THE SUN (the S system). Once again, in mathematics, it is possible to create Sets which contain either one Element or even NO Elements (the null Set). However, in the realm of Thermodynamics, Sets which contain zero or one Element are MEANINGLESS BECAUSE ENERGY IS NOT CONSERVED IN SUCH SYSTEMS.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

Hey, BC, glad you’re here. Seriously! If you will hang around for a few minutes, I believe we cna put to rest some of these more trivial issues, like precise definitions of the terms, and get to more interesting things, like me leaving.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

I’m sure you’re already thinking that I’m just splitting hairs about your midsentence redefinition of what our “closed system” was, but my objection is more because (like in the case of chuck and the Bible), I believe that this action reveals a deeper misunderstanding of the “spirit” of these Laws. Please look in any good College Physics text for a discussion of the History and Intent of the FLOT. At my house I keep a copy of “Physics For Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics” by Serway and Beichner on hand for nice simple explanations before reading books by folks like Roger Penrose who simply A$$/U/ME that you already have mastered the more basic material.

By blog police

September 21, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Jack, Chilao, Brian Curtis, and Kevin. This is your official notice that your posting privileges have been temporarily revoked. I’ve tried to be nice about this, but multiple violations occurred yesterday and this morning while I was off duty. You may return to W2W next Thursday morning at 8:00. Any further violations will result in a 1000 page cut-n-paste on evolution, morality, Noah’s Ark, indecent television, the minimum wage, homosexuality and a lengthy discussion on which dog breed is best. Is that understood?

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:49 AM | Link to this

The word “thermodynamics” literally means the “dynamics” (movement) of “thermo” (heat). As the phenomenon we now call “heat transfer” was studied in detail, the first observation was that “Heat is conserved” during thermal conduction in a “macroscopic sense”. The earliest “formulas” regarding heat transfer describe this CONSERVATION IN MACROSCOPIC TERMS.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

John, I promise to leave if BC will read this explanation and show me that he sees the light.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

You see, BC, the FLOT is simply a GENERALIZATION OF THESE MACROSCOPIC LAWS OF THERMAL CONDUCTION TO ALSO INCLUDE “INTERNAL” CHANGES THAT OCCUR DURING ENERGY TRANSFERS AT THE MICROSCOPIC, OR ATOMIC LEVEL. The big point here is that the FLOT IS IN ESSENCE A STATEMENT ABOUT CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. As such, your midsentence redefinition of our “closed system” is not only a “slippery” debating technique, IT VIOLATES THE WHOLE SPIRIT OF THE LAW TO BEGIN WITH BY CREATING A SYSTEM WHICH ONLY INCLUDES THE SUN.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

You see, BC, you have never mastered the MYSTERY OF THE CHRIST, WHICH IS ULTIMATEY A STATEMENT ABOUT THE “SPIRIT” OF LAWS. Like any home improvement contractor knows, NO CONTRACT IS AIR-TIGHT, ULTIMATELY YOU HAVE TO DEPEND ON THE “GOOD WILL” OF THE HOMEOWNER TO GET PAID. Godel says the same thing in Mathematics, that no set of “presuppositions” will ever be sufficient to generate all possible true statements possible within that system. THAT IS WHY THE CHRIST THREW OUT THE SADDUCES AND PHARISEES WHO CLAIMED TO FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT VIOLATED THE “SPIRIT OF THE LAW”.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Now I know you don’t believe in “spirits”, BC, but I hope you oneday open your mind to try to grasp this very important Scientific/Religious concept. In applying it here a little more, it’s easy to see that the whole PURPOSE in selecting a reasonable “closed system” is to choose one in which the Total Energy of the “system” stays WITHIN the “system”, so that it is not unexplainably “Lost” outside the system, unable to be accounted for. Again, CONSERVATION, get it BC. So when you very sloppily say “The sun IS losing energy”, you have TOTALLY VIOLATED THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

You see, BC, the reason I can defeat the sharpest insurance defense attorneys around is that I am able to expose the “SPIRIT” behind their false dichotomies that they create by framing questions in an unfair manner. The juries love it—let’s stick it to the Man. Of course, one day they will be the “Man” themselves, just like in that commercial (or as any parent has to do with their children).

By TramadoL35038

September 21, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

I can’t be bothered with anything these days, but shrug. I just don’t have anything to say recently. I haven’t gotten much done recently. Nothing seems worth thinking about.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

So now that we’ve settled on what a proper “closed set” is, a much more important question from Set Theory needs to be asked: Are all of the ELEMENTS contained within the Set SIMILAR ENOUGH that we can APPLY THE LAW UNIFORMLY WITHIN THE SET? If you think very deeply about this question, you might see the light that the “ELEMENTS” in the “Earth” portion of our “closed system” are not homogenous. There is a HUGE, OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE between the way the Sun’s energy affects INERT OBJECTS LIKE ROCKS versus LIVING BEINGS LIKE PLANTS AND ANIMALS.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

You see, BC, inanimate objects like rocks are PERFECT CANDIDATES to apply the FLOT AND EVEN THE SLOT, because the effect of the sun’s energy is primarily one of heat transfer in their case. For inanimate objects, your statement that the sun’s energy is converted to useless heat energy is pretty much true for(although an Earth Scientist or Eco-Biologist might give you a good argument about even that).

By Lozen

September 21, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

It’s Thursday! One more day until joke day…. If people would just ignore him and go on with our normal ;-) conversation it would be good. Don’t let the troll hook ya folks.

By TramadoL83459

September 21, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

I haven’t been up to much lately. I’ve basically been doing nothing , but it’s not important. I can’t be bothered with anything recently. I’ve just been letting everything happen without me lately.

By Lyrazel

September 21, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

blog police— Realize that when someone hijacks the forum it becomes a chance for the rest of us to return to our personal lives, concentrate on work, read a good book, reunite with our partners and return ourselves to the pleasures beyond a keyboard. So—take off that badge and go take yourself a walk in this fabulous weather—and realize there is more to YOUR life than trying to control just another impolite poster. Relax. That’s it…we will see you on joke day…

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

For Living Beings, however, an additional effect of interacting with the sun is the “harnessing” of this non-specific energy to provide the specific energy needed to drive VITAL CHEMICAL REACTIONS WHICH SUSTAIN THE LIFE OF THAT BEING. On a personal level, how you can’t perceive this process as a bon fide MIRACLE is simply beyond my comprehension. In the words of the great Vizzini, “It’s INCONCEIVABLE”.

The bottom line, BC, is that the series of “chemical reactions” in plants which we call photosynthesis (the “union” of the “body” with “GOD’S LIGHT”) is simply outside the scope of the FLOT and the SLOT. These Laws were never designed to describe Living Systems, and to make that stretch is simply WRONG.

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

So once again, we are back where we started about 4 weeks ago. From the beginning, I have tried my best to steer you away from discussing the merits of these Scientific Thories within the often narrow, artificial, and unrealistic frameworks n which they may potentially apply, and to get you to see the bigger reality, that SCIENCE IS INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH MOST OF ACTUAL REALITY. As your own website, talkorigins.org explains, these Scientific Theories are only “true” in artificially created mathematical worlds which rarely coincide with reality.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Jack - My guess is she is blond low to mid thirties and very fine

awwww…shucks!(blushing) Now I need the fan, whew! ;^P

you got everything right (except, imo, I’m more “kitten cute” than “fine”…)

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - good point, I will additionally mention to blog police my parents had problems with me related to authority since way back..LMAO. And on the job, when asked “Who gave you that authority?”, I always reply “I created my own”.

chuck - thanks, I slipped, I know, will try harder..LOL

But I am one of those money-driven capitalists who always believed social change resulted not from Shame, but from getting hit hard in the pocketbook. I believe Gandhi caused an economic slowdown of the Indian economy with his non-violent protests, but I went for Chinese and Latin American history way back, so who knows…LOL

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel - another point to mention is that there are many other very pleasant web experiences out there…LOL

By Renee

September 21, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

lozen good suggestion!!

By Cher's FINAL Farewell Tour, September 21

September 21, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

And as I have stated many times, BC, I don’t care if you go to your grave, like chuck, steeped in your disrespectful arrogance. I might think it’s a crying shame, but that’s between you and GOD. However, your poisoined views DO have a HUGE IMPACT on MANY, MANY OTHER AREAS OF LIFE, LIKE ANIMAL RIGHTS AND FOREIGN POLICY. These are the areas which I have attempted to discuss, but your boneheadedness about Science kept preventing me from moving forward. Again, at least chuck had the intelligence to realize that his theology is nothing but a house of cards based on Lies and quit fighting himself after a short time. In the same way, your own “theology” is TOTALLY SCREWED, DUDE, BUT YOU’RE TOO STUPID TO EVEN REALIZE IT.

By GOD

September 21, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

So my commandment for you all is to study me, but do it SCIENTIFICALLY. Because, Truth is really “stranger than fiction”—and WHY? Well, fiction is created by Man, and Man has a limited imagination. Were any of you ever convinced that the Klingons on Star Trek resembled real aliens?? Looked like a couple of guys dressed up in tin foil costumes to me. But then again, what do I know?

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

and the only reason I posted I Talk to the Wind lyrics on another private/social blog 2 years ago was to share some nice lyrics with some psuedo poets to show not everyone has to understand them. and indeed many would not. Seem to remember doing a copy so some people could enjoy the flutes.

here I just posted it to do a Nicole Simpson, from the original MadTV: “lalalalalalal, we don’t hear you”. (LMAO)

By Lyrazel

September 21, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Lozen, what makes this troll any different from the regulars who post 8 pages off the web to prove some religious point no one cares about? Yeah, I dont enjoy DOG. We seldom have any real debates about any relevant issues because its so thick with people trying to prove their religion is better than (fill in the blank) which always leads to the same people trading insults…We have lost more people because of the endless faith posts than this troll could ever produce but somehow have forgotten that…This tired puppy reminds me of that Tramillo (sp?) who came on beginning of the year to insult and educate… remember that fool? We survived then…PS the forum is wide open because regulars read each others posts! So go ahead and give us a topic and I am sure it will stagnate into a debate about abortion..j/k…(please laugh because isnt it really ridiculous to gets one’s wig in a twist over WTW)…My best always…Lyrazel

By GOD

September 21, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Look for the Truth everywhere, my Loved Ones, in perhaps Godel, Esher, AND Bach. Look for me in Santana, the Dead, and even Wang Chung (Everybody have fun tonight!) Don’t limit yourself, BC. Plus, do me a favor, remember that I am everywhere, and my Truth can’t be altered by committees of men voting on the “Truth” as was done both at the Council of Nicaea and in State Board of Education meetings regarding the proper way to teach Science in the classrooms.

By GOD

September 21, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

So, a last poem, then I shall disappear from W2W as a serious blogger, perhaps only to return on occasion as a fun blogger. Let me know your opinion, Chilao, since you are a connoisseur of fine poetry!!!

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Nicole Sullivan(not Simpson)

By Mara

September 21, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

One point regarding the actual topic…there is the question of profanity in a presentation of actual, historically important events, such as the 9/11 recordings, and the gratuous cursing one hears during an average “Prime Time Movie Extravaganza”. Does anyone else think that in order to present a true-life situation honestly, one can’t censor the language without compromising the integrity of the event?

By In Search Of The Lost Chord

September 21, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

This GOD and Universe vibrates complete/ Some we get a sound so sweet/ Vibrations reach on up to become Light/And the through Gamma, out of sight.

Between the eyes and ears there lie/ The sounds of color and the Light of a sigh/ With thoughts of within to exclude without/ The Ghost of the Chord will expel all doubt.

And to hear the Sun, what a thing to Believe/ But it’s all around if we could but perceive/ To know ultraviolet, infrared, and x-rays/ Beauty to find in so many ways.

Two notes of the Chord, that’s our full scope/ But to reach the Chord is our Life’s HOPE/ And to name the Chord is important to some/ So they give it a Word, and the Word is OM.

By GOD

September 21, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

So that’s it for now, kids. Try to master The Mystery of The Buddha AND The Mystery of the Christ, and try to apply them BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. When you do, you will find all the answers you need about abortion, Lyrazel.

By Randy

September 21, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

In response to Mara 1:32 yesterday. Still reading books by Al Franken who is with Air America? Since Air America is basically bankrupt, (can’t even get enough listeners and money to pay Franken) his opinion is irrevelant. I did however like him in Trading Places, years ago.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

Chilao, talking about “other websites”, have you ever checked out russian-voyeur.com? I keep looking for Mara on there to figure out the Mystery of the Carpet and Drapes.

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

MoodyBlues, In Search of the Lost Chord, 1968.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

You know you’re a hotty, Mara. So why do you enjoy torturing us poor DOGS IN PERMANENT HEAT so much?

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

I loved what one executive said many years ago who was getting sued for sexual harrassment “If you can’t use your position to get some booty, what’s the point of working so hard to get there?”

By Randy

September 21, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

I was watching CNN and Fox last night and saw Chavez and the leader of Iran speak to the United Nations, I wondered why many other countries hate us. I think there are many reasons, however the main one is how we portray ourselves and how their media protrays us. We show ourselves to be as evil as any culture that has ever existed. They get their opinion of us from shows like Jerry Springer(50 countries get this show), movies(which for the most part are getting worse and worse) and our news(where everything bad is shown). These countries don’t know that there are many good God fearing people in the USA, how could they. I’m sure their leaders know more of the truth, but they exploit their people and we give their people no evidence that most of us are normal, that most of us go to church(at lease on occasion) and we have no ill will towards them.

By Lozen

September 21, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel, that’s true. This isn’t the first crazy fanatic we’ve had on this blog. I have always been amazed by people in groups who are so self centered they monopolize the time without seeming to ever think someone else might have something to say. What arrogance to assume noone has anything important to say except me!

By On A Serious Note

September 21, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this

Isn’t it amazing Randy how even the Libs in our own country fall for the Muslim Propoganda that somehow WE are the ones to blame for the corrupt leadership ubiquitous (winking at you Mara) throughout the Arab World? Any fool should be able to see the real purpose of the “Down With America” BS—it’s just an emotionally driven diversion so that the folks over there don’t overthrow the despots like those that run Saudi Arabia.

By On A Serious Note

September 21, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this

It’s even more amazing that no one can see the “real meaning” of the Iraqi War. It’s not about Iraqi oil, dummies, we’ve already spent more there than we could ever hope to recoup with any future oil contracts with Iraq. The whole point all along was to send a message to our truest enemy in the region, Saudi Arabia.

By Who Really Cares Who I Really Am, Anyway?

September 21, 2006 11:17 AM | Link to this

I have children, and I teach. I also knew people who were in those towers that day, and also those who lived and worked in that immediate area.

However, I feel that ‘sanitizing’ the event would be a disservice to all who died or were injured (emotionally, physically) that day.

If you don’t want your child hearing such words, there were plenty of warnings before and during the broadcast. This was a documentary..of REAL life.

Shaunti, you poor closeted individual…in the real world, when “bad things” happen, people use “bad words.” Even Christ-like “good people.”

This was an obscene act. Obscenities were definitely not out of place at the moment it happened..so why, when we televise actual footage, should we delete that? Because it makes the over-diligent parents get offended because Precious and Darling might hear such dirty words?

Get real: they are words-and in that situation, who is to say what words were inappropriate or NOT?

Freedom is a wonderful thing. God gave us the ability to reason-this is what really separates us from the animals. Use your God-given reason…and decide FOR YOURSELF what is appropriate for your children. As for the rest of us? Let us decide.

My sons did watch—obscenities and all. I found the violence perpetrated upon my country and its innocent citizens more obscene than the words were.

I also find the subsequent war more offensive than some four lettered word that so upsets Shaunti.

This is the real world. It ain’t always pretty…censor your own viewing habits. Leave the rest of us, who do not plan to live in a bubble to decide what is best for us.

By Who Really Cares Who I Really Am, Anyway?

September 21, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

RF:

I couldn’t have said it any better. (I tried tho, lol..)…

And for your “3 questions?” My point exactly…if we are going to tell “the truth” about that day, then we need to do it in its entirety—not some sanitized, safe for the kiddies token.

If your child is subjected-for whatever reason-to language or actions you feel inappropriate, it is a good teaching opportunity.

I am reminded of an incident when I was nearly driven off the side of a bridge in CT, when my children were young. This bridge stood about 200 feet over a river..and some moron (on a phone, of course), veered into my lane…i nearly slammed into the wall..and could have very easily landed up and over the (very low) retaining wall, into the river below.

Of course, I let out a VERY BAD WORD in my shock/fear. My sons, 3 and 6 at the time, were shocked…then asked why I said “those bad words.” I explained that I was very, very frightened, and didn’t think about what I was saying, but had I had the chance to think, I wouldn’t have. I then used that time to explain that profanity is the choice when people can’t find words to express themselves. (Unimaginative minds come up with profanity….there are so many different words I can use to insult a person -or describe a situation- without using profane words!)LOL!Actually, they were told the truth…mom got scared, and yelled the first thing out of her mouth when she realized we were going to be in a bad wreck!

Nevertheless, my sons grasped, even at their tender ages, that those words were wrong…and no, they didn’t repeat them. They understand that sometimes, a situation drives the vocabulary. It is sad that my sons, at 3 and 5 understand what some people here (coughcoughshaunticoughough) don’t get.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

I can’t wait until that puke, Chavez, from Venezuela gets what is coming to him one of these days. Maybe we can use that Iranian puke’s $6000 suit to bury him in. Won’t that be sweet?

By Lozen

September 21, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this

Randy, it’s not us, the people of the U.S. that they hate. It’s our guvment. I think it’s our devil president that Chavez hates. I can even understand him calling Georgie Jr. the devil although it’s really Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz (sp?) that are the devils behind the puppet.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

Who Really Cares, I’m with you. One quick question, however. Do you think the Hollywood producers with their “gratuitous” use of profanity is “good” or “bad” for society? By misusuing these words which we rightly save for truly shocking events, are they not “devaluing” what is truly shocking, i.e. as you stated:

My sons did watch—obscenities and all. I found the violence perpetrated upon my country and its innocent citizens more obscene than the words were.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

So as you attack Shaunti, Who Really Cares, why aren’t you similarly criticizing Diane who tries to claim that “shameful words” should be eliminated altogether by continually “raising the bar” in tearing down established Taboos.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

Or like Lozen, are you just a mouthpiece for the Hezbollah?

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Lozen, sorry again for “calling you out”. I pulled a Felix Unger and A$$/U/MED you were a guy due to the “gender-neutral name” and lack of femininity in your posts.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

Because, Who Really Cares, Taboo is a funny thing. As hard as you may try, you can’t make it disappear entirely because of human nature. All you can do is keep raising the bar higher and higher as to what is “shocking”. (think rap lyrics)

By Brian Curtis

September 21, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Thanks for making the same point I was about to, Lozen.

Chavez and his supporters don’t hate the U.S.—they hate Bush and the government’s policies. That’s very different.

Sorry for wasting more space responding to Bruno’s silliness, folks, but since he wouldn’t go over to the T-blog for a proper debate….

“The bottom line, BC, is that the series of “chemical reactions” in plants which we call photosynthesis (the “union” of the “body” with “GOD’S LIGHT”) is simply outside the scope of the FLOT and the SLOT. These Laws were never designed to describe Living Systems, and to make that stretch is simply WRONG.”

And again you’re wrong, Bruno. The first and second laws of thermo absolutely DO apply to livinig systems as well… there’s no special magic about living vs. nonliving structures that renders them immune to the laws of physics. As noted in the T-blog (if you’d bothered to check), living things do indeed take in external energy, process it in less than 100% efficiency to increase their localized order, and expel waste energy, eventually decaying and dying.

None of that violates the laws of thermodynamics even slightly. Indeed, if it did, that would be reason to re-examine those laws and update them—-because the laws apply to LIVING and NONLIVING things alike.

“SCIENCE IS INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH MOST OF ACTUAL REALITY. As your own website, talkorigins.org explains, these Scientific Theories are only “true” in artificially created mathematical worlds which rarely coincide with reality.“

Incorrect. As with all laws, they’re approximations that assume ideal (and simplified) conditions for a first approximation of describing reality. As other factors are added in, the calculations get more complex… but not less accurate. Can we answer all questions about reality? Nope—but science is the best method we have for coming up with even half-way reliable answers for ANY of them.

Of course, if you define “reality” as the realm of ideas, opinions, and phillsophy.. then yes, science does not apply to those areas. Nor has it ever claimed to.

“Your own “theology” is TOTALLY SCREWED, DUDE, BUT YOU’RE TOO STUPID TO EVEN REALIZE IT.”

Right back atcha, blowhard. And the ALL CAPS SHOUTING doesn’t make you any more convincing.

“So that’s it for now, kids.”

If only we could believe that….

Again, my apologies everyone. But seeing how he responded to people ignoring his babbling (“I won! They conceded defeat and recognized that I beat them! I shut them up!”), I didn’t feel like feeding his ego in that direction. So I wound up paying attention to his ravings, which is what he wanted all along. Petty of me, I know. I’m sorry.

By Lozen

September 21, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

It is a beautiful day people. Don’t ya just love this weather? My moonflowers are blooming like crazy. There were six on one vine last night. It’s like they’re trying to get it done before it’s too late.

By Renee

September 21, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

lozen - I don’t know, Bush has his own “devilish” ways, without them.

By TramadoL60800

September 21, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

I just don’t have anything to say , but shrug. So it goes. Not much on my mind recently. I can’t be bothered with anything recently.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Randy - I wondered why many other countries hate us. I think there are many reasons, however the main one is how we portray ourselves

of course it’s all the fault of the librul media. After all, why in the world would people object to the US government meddling in their politics? After all, what difference does it make to them if the American government supports the very regimes that torture and imprison them? Why, oh why, would they ever think our government didn’t have their best interests at heart when they dangle the carrot of health care in front of the desparately poor than yank it away because they perhaps don’t like the politics of the pro-choice NGO’s who provide that care? Why don’t they just believe us when we say we just wanna help? Gee…I dunno. It must be that dang librul media badmouthing the good people of ‘Murika, cuz they hate ‘Murika, and apple pie…and yer momma. But just maybe, maybe, they have some reason to feel distrustful of our government…

here’s some interesting things for you to google -

Italy - 1960s-1980s - the Gladio network is established by the CIA. Gladio operatives were involved in a series of “false flag” terrorist actions in Italy that were blamed on the “Red Brigades” and other Left groups in an attempt to discredit the Italian Left. But of course, the Italians shouldn’t have a problem with us, cuz Hey! we’re nice people!

Guatamala - Operation PBSUCCESS - overthrew democratically elected Presiden Jacobo Guzman

Iran - Operation Ajax (overthrew democratically elected President and installed the dictatatorial Shah, who couldn’t love that?)

Iraq - 1963 & 1968 - aided the rise and subsequent empowerment of a new, young firebrand named…Saddam Hussein. Until, of course, we didn’t need him anymore.

Upheld and supported the repressive regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and countries in South America…ever heard of Pinochet? Yeah, he was one of ours, too.

Chile - Project FUBELT - the overthrow of Salvadore Allende and the installation of America-friendly Pinochet which ultimately led to the murder of thousands…but that doesn’t mean the chilean people should have a bad opinion of us…or our motives, does it?

By Jack

September 21, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this

That guy is too insane.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Again, BC, you’re “mixing your metaphors” with your IMPRECISE, SLOPPY USE OF THE PHRASE “TAKES IN ENERGY”. Yes, D-Wad, both rocks and plants “absorb energy” in the most general way. However, when you get more specific, you see that rocks absorb the suns radiation in a totally passive way, just as they release that energy. In that case, statistical approximations of the heat dissipation are rather accurate.

To compare this with the ultra-complex way, miraculous way that Living Beings process energy is purely ludicrous. Living Beings process that same “meaningless” energy that rocks absorb, but end up doing something INCREDIBLY MEANINGFUL WITH THAT ENERGY, THAT IS CONTINUE DEFYING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS BY LIVING EVEN LONGER.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this

You Libs are some of the stupidest fools in the world to believe that we have enemies for any other reason than HUMAN NATURE. Those other guys are jealous of our success, pure and simple. The ordinary folks from every despotic nation in the world risk dying to leave there and to come here. Answer that, Libs. Your “paper Political Opinions” are as weak as BC’s “paper Science” and chucks “paper theology”. Case closed.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

But Libs, in their fantasy world, want to believe, like chuck, that they themselves are sinless. Could be that old “guilt” thing at work, you think? If the Libs ever embraced the GODLY Concepts of Grace and Repentance, they would be more at peace and able to form rational political opinions instead of the mush they spit out.

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 12:29 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Mara. We made good money didn’t we, as a result of all that? LOL

But we get upset when some local locos raise the price of what we consider our God-given right to that cheap commodity. Look at United Fruit and Brand in Central America, resulting in the high standards of living in Guatamala and Hondorus.

By dfgdgaw

September 21, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

http://www.bloggen.be/rosarybracelets rosary bracelets rosary bracelets

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this

But the greatest truth, BC, is that you can’t leave my challenges alone because at some level, you know I’m right. A “logically constructed” world as you wish for doesn’t exist. Your attempts to continue to make this irrational world bend to your human rationality suggests to me that you are a control freak like chuck, and perhaps a little psychotic as well. Any truth to that? Please, BC, try to get a little more color into your life, it sounds rather dull.

By Jack

September 21, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

Let’s all go to Rio.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

You might notice Chilao, as in your example of the United Fruit Brand that there is power in numbers. One of the biggest reasons the US is on top is that we have, for the most part, spoken with one voice to the world. Both South America and Europe screwed themselves up with “multi-culturalism”, which eventually leads to civil war and “balkanization”. Getting any clues why we need to stick together right now and quit bashing Bush?

By In Search of The Lost Chord

September 21, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

And to hear the sun, what a thing to believe. But it’s all around, if we could but perceive.

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

The CIA’s overthrow of the democratically elected government of The Congo, in the early 1960s, deserves mention as well.

And our current good friend dictator in Equatorial Guinea, (they have lots of oil).

By TramaDol 6969

September 21, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramaDol 6969

September 21, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramaDol 6969

September 21, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramaDol 6969

September 21, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Chilao - are you getting any clues on why we need to stick together right now and quit bashing liberals? LOL!!

By TramaDol 6969

September 21, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Kind of humorous how BC accuses DOG of being “slippery” and avoiding answering challenges, huh? DOG has asked him regarding his qualifications and motivations many, many times now. BC has time to keep adding to his calybos site, but can’t answer a simple question. Sounds MIGHTY SUSPICIOUS TO ME.

By TramaDol 6969

September 21, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

So I can spam ALL DAY, ALL WEEK, ALL YEAR until BC comes clean.

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

You might notice Chilao, as in your example of the United Fruit Brand that there is power in numbers.

Gotta love the logic there, cause here come, drum roll please, The Chinese.

so all you liberals, get off that birth control and start pumping out AMERICAN babies. We gonna need cannon fodder.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

In case you didn’t notice, Mara, the Libs aren’t in control right now. Or maybe you have noticed, which explains all the emotional wailing I keep seeing on boards like this one. You guys had your chances, and that’s why we’re in the mess we’re in. But, I know, your boy Clinton had MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS ON HIS MIND TO WORRY ABOUT THAN SILLY OLD TERRORISTS.

By Lozen

September 21, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

Brian, believe me, we know who won the debate! There is not one reason for you to pay any attention to dumb s$$. He will not hear what you say but will continue to spout off his BS and then claim he won. Nothing you say is going to change that. Please, just ignore him.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

In fact, I’m starting to think that maybe chuck and BC are really the same person. Their M.O.s are so similar! What do you guys think?

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

So how do you all like “multi-culturalism” now, Libs? If I had a nickel for every time someone tried to force me off this board, I could have retired at age 44 instead of 45. And that was starting out with no financial assistance of any type other than government loans which I paid back with PLENTY of interest thanks to Jimmy Carter.

You see, Libs, alomost every Lib I know is either poor, or received their money via the “Silver Spoon Express”. Everyone I know who earned their money in the real world of small business and not in something fake like education, is a hard core conservative who loves this great country. All the whiners are pieces of shlt.

By Brian Curtis

September 21, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Fair enough, Lozen. I’ve answered all his absurd claims and knocked down all his arguments… but you can’t reason with a troll.

I’ll shift over to ignoring him now. Good advice!

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this

Actually, Chilao, I just had a revelation straight from GOD with your post about Libs and Birth Control. All these years I was arrogant and couldn’t see the truth that GOD INTENDED FOR LIBS TO ABORT THEIR BABIES. Okay, now I’m actually at greater peace than ever about Lib views. Thank you for that clarification.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this

Lozen, glad you think BC won our “debate”. That only further confirms that I am the true winner, since nothing but Lies comes out of your filthy mouth. Of course, if BC ever got someone who actually understood Science to evaluate our comments, he’d be in for a rude awakening.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

So BC, you gonna come clean about your education and career path or what??? Why won’t you answer this very, very simple question?? Just what are you trying to hide?? You questioned my credentials and I came clean in a heartbeat—Harvey Mudd College. Retired doctor.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this

Chilao - it always makes me chuckle when people say “why do they hate us?! We’re such nice and generous people…” Poll after poll has shown the trend as being a fairly positive opinion of the American people who are, generally, viewed in a good light. Unfortunately the distrusts for the American government by citizens of other countries tends to overwhelm the other stat quite significantly. It wasn’t until Bush was installed the 2nd time that views regarding ordinary Americans began to sour. I suppose they figured that once could be a fluke, but twice indicated support for his policies. Nevermind that he squeeked through by the smallest factor in history. He got elected and now we’re all tainted.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 01:17 PM | Link to this

So until you answer, BC, I’m going to spam this board until the Second Coming. I jumped through every ridiculous hoop you erected, but you NEVER ONCE ANSWERED ANY OF MY CHALLENGES.

By Joisey Boy

September 21, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this

So Chilao, kimberly, Jack, Mara, Billy, et. al. if you want your board back, you better get your “boy genius” BC to come clean about his sorry excuse FOR an education (More kisses to you John), and EXACTLY WHY HE IS SO MOTIVATED TO KEEP DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:22 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

Everyone having fun now?

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

What a shame to keep ruining such a nice board.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

Once again the Bible has the answer, BC.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

You see, after Cain killed Abel, BC, he thought he could avoid answering to GOD by hiding.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Hey, Brian. You’ve finally seen the light! Ignore, ignore, ignore.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So it’s your choice, A*******WIPE.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

You see, DOG IS original. Just when you think you beat him one way, and he comes at you at a brand new dimension which he just created on the spot. Very hard to defend against in a debate.

By Renee

September 21, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

And the word for today is LUNATIC.

Definition, use in a sentence, and appropriate pronunciation.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

I really hope one day Mara reads the Bible. If she TRULY UNDERSTOOD fictional stories like Cain and Abel, she wouldn’t advise BC to keep hiding.

By Renee

September 21, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

And the word for today is LUNATIC.

Definition, use in a sentence, and appropriate pronunciation.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So, is that really the meaning of “seeing the light, Mara? Hiding?

By What the heck

September 21, 2006 01:35 PM | Link to this

Yeah!!!!! Lets hear it for BC. He won the debate fair and square. Congratulations!

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

You see, Mara, I keep trying to tell you that GOD is WAY SMARTER than any human. It is yuor own arrogance that keeps telling you how smart you and BC are.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

You see, Mara, DOG is so smart, he figured out how to beat the anti-spamming feature of the AJC “bot” monitor without even working up a sweat.

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

Mara - Bush’s reelection merely confirmed to the rest of the world that “Wow, most Americans really DO think they own the world”

Gonna be a real rude awakening when they learn they do not.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

Isn’t retirement great, you get to sit around and puncture holes in overinflated egos of self-proclaimed geniuses like BC.

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:40 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

And all his idiot Lib friends.

By What the heck

September 21, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Yeah!!!!! Lets hear it for BC. He won the debate fair and square. Congratulations!

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So keep crowing about your “victory” BC. Lozen believed you.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

And you get to show evil, cowardly Libs just how full of it they really are.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

And don’t accuse DOG that he is being unfair today. He has asked BC this very question repeatedly, only to be deafened by the silence.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

You would have thought he would have listened when DOG told him he grew up near Camden, New Jersey.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

And while you’re trying to find your boy BC down in the sewer to come up for air and come clean, think about these questions as well:

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(2) Why do Libs keep insisting that Bush is “dumber” than both Gore and Kerry, when the actual facts, their college transcripts, show otherwise.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(3) Why do idiots like Jimmy Carter, evil organizations like the Nobel Peace Prize committee, and totally corrupt organizations like the UN shower despotic criminals like Yassar Arafat with CASH and Prizes? He let his people live in squalor while he siphoned off over a billion dollars of the intended aid money so that his young, beautiful wife could spend a million a month in Gay Paree.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(4) Why do Libs keep thinking that if only Bush would play nice, the Muslims would love us? Anyone been studying their World History? Well you better, because these turkeys have, and they’re out for “revenge” for things that happened more than a thousand years ago in some cases.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:20 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(5) Why do Libs keep trying to force Universal Health Coverage down our throats when it has been a failure every where it has been tried? Why do Libs keep holding up Canada as a great model of universal Health Coverage when the folks with enough money COME TO THE US FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

did anyone see the item about archeologists finding an amazingly intact fossil of (supposedly)an early hominid? The bones are from a member of Australopithecus afarensis, which lived in Africa between about 4 million and 3 million years ago. The most famous afarensis is Lucy, discovered in Ethiopia in 1974, which lived about 100,000 years after the newfound specimen. Naturally I’ll wait with interests while all the studies are done and the being is properly placed in the family tree, but it’s very interesting, at least to me.

anyway, if you want to read the rest of the story - http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/20/human.ancestor.ap/index.html

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(6) Did anyone remember Billary’s Helath Care Plan for America? In it, to get people to go to the doctor selected by the government for them instead of who the person wanted to actually see (like maybe the most qualified doctor), doctors were threatened with fines of $250,000 if they so dared to SEE A PATIENT THAT THE GOVERNMENT DIDN’T ASSIGN TO THEM. REAL COMPASSION AT WORK HERE, FOLKS.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(8) Since you know I can go on forever, why did you all let BC slide yesterday after DOG repeatedly warned that the DOG DOO DOO was going to hit the fan unless BC fessed up.

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

Thanks Mara, you just inspired (9) Why do idiot Libs keep believing these windbag anthropologists who literally try to use two boxes of fragmented bones to “explain” millions of years of prehuman history?

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(10) Didn’t anyone take DOG seriously when he said the DOO DOO was going to hit the fan if BC kept hiding? Does anyone take DOG seriously when he says the Muslims are coming to slit your throats?

By Child of The 60s Flashback II

September 21, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Brian Curtis

September 21, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

That IS an interesting find, Mara. I wonder if there’s any indication of what she died of, at age 3.

Still no defenders of Shaunti’s “government should censor networks” argument, I see.

By Child of The 60s Flashback II

September 21, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Child of The 60s Flashback III

September 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Child of The 60s Flashback IV

September 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Child of The 60s Flashback V

September 21, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Child of The 60s Flashback VI

September 21, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

By TramadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

You see, Mara, DOG is so smart, he figured out how to beat the anti-spamming feature of the AJC “bot” monitor without even working up a sweat.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

Renee -

Definition:

lu·na·tic (loon-uh-tik) adj.

[Middle English lunatik, from Old French lunatique, from Latin lunaticus, from luna, moon. See leuk- in Indo-European Roots.]

Pronunciation: Loo-nuh-tik

Sentence: Only a lunatic would believe that anyone is actually reading these endless spam-like posts.

how’s that?

By A Real Friend

September 21, 2006 02:39 PM | Link to this

BC, DOG has only asked you to be honest. Your insolence is sure causing all your friends a lot of pain today.

By A Real Friend

September 21, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

You see, BC, you showed your A$$ a few weeks ago when you tried to question Bruno’s grasp of Science, when the fact is you still don’t know your butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to real Science.

By A Real Friend

September 21, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Very humorous that now Libs are supporting (1) Hiding (2) Lying as the best course of action for BC today, instead of simply coming clean like DOG has over and over again.

By A holdem player

September 21, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

So, Renee, how would you like to sit acros from DOG at a poker table? Let’s just say I’m hard to beat.

By Think it Over

September 21, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

So I’ll let you Libs lick your wounds a little while I take care of Sweetie’s leg. So think hard about what the “right” thing for BC would be to do. DOG answered his every challenge, went to every crackpot website suggested, and in return can’t get a straight answer to a simple question.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 02:50 PM | Link to this

Brian - not surprising that there’re few who’d support her view. After all, we Americans do love to bloviate…

to paraphrase (or actually bastardize) -

First they supressed expletives on TV

and I did not speak out because I don’t curse.

Then they supressed political dissent

and I did not speak out because I was not interested in politics.

Then they supressed the technocrats & experts

and I still did not speak out because I was neither.

Then they came to tell me to shut up

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

be afraid…oooWAHooooooo)

By What the heck

September 21, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this

Some unnamed person on this blog has no life and should be pitied. It’s so hard not to hate said person though.

By randy

September 21, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Response to Mara’s post at 2:22 today. I was watching a special on the revolutionary war a few weeks ago, the scientists thought but couldn’t totally confirm some bones of dead English officers. Now if scientists can’t even tell if something from as recent as 200 years is factual, how can they know something 3 or 4 million years ago as being fact. But this is what you want to here! Believing this lets you stay in your comfort zone, where you don’t have to get right with the creator.

By Charlie Chan

September 21, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Ah yes, ah-so, the Mystery of The Carpet and Rug may now be layed to rest: They’re both dyed.

By Brian Curtis

September 21, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Mara: Yep—a lesson that it seems we have to keep relearning, over and over again.

By Charlie Chan

September 21, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

HAHAROTFLMAO [loud thud].

By Renee

September 21, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this

Mara - excellent.

~AHEM~ MWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Brian - I read the article yesterday and they seem to think she died from a flood.

By Lozen

September 21, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this

Okay, I reported this to the AJC yesterday; don’t know if they can do anything. So far they haven’t. Maybe we just have to ignore all the lunatics’ postings for the rest of our lives. BrianCurtis won each and every debate with this idiot. He won it all. He’s got more brains in his little finger than the troll has in his fried brain. Amazing to see though what one idiot can do to a blog!

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

and a GoldStar for Mara’s dictionary and bastardization as well. LOL

I was reminded of the ONE time I EVER heard my mother say ANYTHING that could be considered verbally ‘naughty’: She was upset with one of my brothers, we were all low teens, and she said(not to him) “I really cannot stand him sometimes, he think’s he is the King’s sh!t tied up in a little blue ribbon”. The rest of us kids just roared(and jumped on her “mom, you said….”).

Converse that to my sister, referring to her 10-year-old son, as (not to him) “That little turd”.

By Whaaaaa!

September 21, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

I reported this to the AJC. Whaaaaa!

By Whaaaaa!

September 21, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this

The evil, despotic Lib soul layed bare is a real site to see.

By Brian Curtis

September 21, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis, BS, MT(ASCP)SBB S The Blood Center of Southeastern Wisconsin Milwaukee, Wisconsin “Role of ABO Blood Group Incompatibility in the Pathogenesis of Neonatal Alloimmune Thrombocytopenic Purpura”

I work in a laboratory. I am not a teacher. Okay?

By Mara

September 21, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Umm, Brian, just out of curiosity, where did you go to college?

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Now wasn’t that a little easier, Brian? Now I can see that you would have NO MOTIVATION at all to be DOG-matic regarding Science. No, none at all. No CASH involved here at all!

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

Well folks, I rest my case. BC works in a Laboratory which receives public funding to carry out what he believes are critically important experiments. And hey, with the kind of CASH he’s carrying home with his published study and all, I’m sure he’s as convinced as any human on Earth regarding the usefulness and veracity of his good work.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

I do take back all my insults about you being stupid, however, BC. With the type of cracker scam you’ve helped perpetuate, you guys are rolling in the dough on my dime every year. My hat is off. Vizzini would be proud.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 03:49 PM | Link to this

Folks, the answer to health isn’t more chemicals from Laboratories. It’s all about rediscovering GOD. (Hint, GOD is the TOTALITY, not just a teeny, teeny, teeny little piece of something.) GOD has given us the answers to health, and it’s not by eating Frankenfoods and taking chemicals for every ache and pain in your body. In fact, do you ever wonder why so many people in Atlanta have allergies? It’s not the pollen folks. The pollen has been here forever. More people are reacting because of the INCREASED AIR POLLUTION.

By What the heck

September 21, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Hey Dog Sh!t, I thought you said if BC answered, your were going away. OK, he answered, now be a man of your word.

By What the heck

September 21, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

Hey Dog Sh!t, I thought you said if BC answered, your were going away. OK, he answered, now be a man of your word.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

But, BC, before you get too old bending over the old microscope, try to go outside and get some fresh air every so often. Notice the amazing swirls and patterns of the plants, and try to see GOD. GOD isn’t a corporal being out in space. GOD is the intrinsic intelligence of Living things. If it puts more CASH in your pocket to deny that, then GOD bless you, friend. Eternity is going to be lonely without you.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

But since you ARE a sharpie, BC, please get a copy of Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind by Shunryu Suzuki. If you will provide an address I will have Amazon.com ship you a copy. Fair enough?

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Last lesson of Life for you, BC. Wouldn’t our country have been better off if Clinton had come clean about Monica? Try to straighten out your weak morals. Lying and hiding don’t work. GOD knows.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Randy - in geological terms, 200 years ago was yesterday. None of the dating techniques that are usually used to date such finds would in any way be helpful in identifying the “recently” deceased. While they could determine that a specimen was around 25,000 years old, you’d never hear anyone say that it’s 25,264 years old. The difference between 25,000 and 25,264 would not register.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

I apologize for my extremely rude, erratic behavior. I find that with each and every post, I increasingly undermine the domestic animals endearing human faith.

Brian - you did win the fight.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

I really won’t be back on here. My words are of no use to anyone here, and nobody cares.

If only I would have known that from the beginning.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this

I want to give my real name.

It’s Paul Reubens. I know I have been typing incessantly on here, but my hand also gets tired from other things.

Basically, I am a disgrace to society.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

For confirmation of what kind of crap passes for Science these days, I googled Brian’s Research paper and was directed to this redcross website:

http://www.redcross.org/pubs/immuno/19_4.pdf

Please go there and scroll down to see the studies that YOUR money is funding. The best one involved an entire study performed because ONE 17 YEAR OLD GIRL SUSTAINED A DISLOCATED PATELLA WHILE GETTING ONTO THE TABLE AT THE RED CROSS. At the end of the “study”, the idiot mentions that the girl was fine after bedrest. Folks, this cat likely carted home $100,000 or more to reveal this great wisdom to us.

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

nobody cares.

wow, Claremont boy ain’t that dumb after all.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

Can you believe it folks, “fake DOG FECES” already! Is that a true oxymoron? Well have at it, fake DOG FECES, you’re not even the real thing like me!!!!!

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

I am a nobody. A dimwit. I once was smart, now I wallow in my lunacy and continue to be banned from a civilized society. So I blog, hoping to find internet friends, but instead my real characteristics cannot be supressed.

I thought on the computer the facade would work.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

So congratulate BC all you want on his “victory”. He’s laughing all the way to the bank every week on your dime.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

I apologize for the CRAP I posted at 4:18. It’s my split personality coming back out. I know I’m not sh!t, and I don’t know sh!t. Why do I continue pretending????

By Jack

September 21, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

don’t you eat that yellow snow.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Temper, temper, Mara. It’s not becoming of a lady to step in DOG FECES anyway, is it? You’re not sore about the Carpet jokes, are you?

By Chilao

September 21, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

and if he had only taken the time to go up the east fork of the San Gabriel River, up to Iron Fork and Fish Fork, we might have been lucky enough to have a bighorn ram butt him off a ledge. Pity.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Just be careful not to tip your hand by using “sychophantic obseqiousness” or everyone will know who the poor speller is, Mara.

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

OMG, I am really going crazy. I think my split personality is a “fake person”.

Please help me!!

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

How did you know that I was the fake DOG FECES, DOG FECES? Really, that’s pretty smart.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:33 PM | Link to this

Hey, I kind of like this handle. Ok, Mara, oops, I meant DOG FECES, let’s just trade places.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Chilao, have you been following DOG? You seem to know a lot of his old hangouts. Were you shlt-faced at 5 AM at Olga’s too?

By DOG FECES

September 21, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this

And to top all craziness, I now think the “fake person” is Mara. I apologize Mara, you’ve known my problems since I graced the blog with my presence. Tonight, I’m getting help, I promise. OMG, I’m losing it even more.

Or maybe not, maybe I am just a complete jackass.

Is there a difference between crazy and jackass?

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this

Sorry I stole your name one time earlier, Mara. BC just wouldn’t come clean, so I decided to stoop to the lowest trick I could possibly think of, BE A HOTTIE! I knew a lab rat like BC couldn’t resist!

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

You know, I’m kind of liking being a hottie. Wow! I’m feeling the P power coming on! Let me see if I can get a few doors opened with just a smile today!

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

If only I had listened to more ODB, I would have known that you “can’t F#ck with a DOG”

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this

Yes, (John) I now see that you really take your chances when you F#ck with a DOG. He might hurt you in ways you never expected, like getting your innocent friends involoved.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

So now each of you can now send your contributions to the charity of your choice for the free education DOG gave everyone here the past few weeks. Hopefully when Osama comes knocking, you will use your new-found toughness to defend this great country, instead of wasting all your time and energy sniping at Bush from the sidelines. I know BC has a legitimate gripe with Dubya because he cut the NSF money, but that’s life in the big city, BC. Would you rather be working for Osama?

By Elane

September 21, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

If a loved one of mine died in a tragedy such as 9/11, and his or her last words were captured, I would want want EVERY word available to be heard, even if it was a “naughty” one. It would bother me a great deal if some group of uptight fuddy-duddies pressured a TV network to bleep out even a microsecond’s worth of that memory.

By Mara

September 21, 2006 05:29 PM | Link to this

And DOG always gets the last word.

Feel Like I’m Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door……

And keep thinking about that placebo effect, BC. If you could get some real data on that, you would win a Nobel Prize without blinking. Seriously. I used in practice for many years with tremendous success. Take care, your former fellow lab rat, DOG.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 07:29 AM | Link to this

Wow, I got pretty chatty after I left. And stupid. And I really didn’t know that my self esteem was so low, and my friends so few, that I have to toot my own horn so very loudly…probably should get help for that, eh?

Can’t wait to read what I have to say after quittin’ time today!

By Brian Curtis

September 22, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

So! Any jokes for Joke Friday? Anyone got a topic?

By Chilao

September 22, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Driving in, I had to slam on the brakes when a vehicle cut in front of me, just to keep my Civic from licking the tail pipe of some manly diesel Dodge Ram.

I started to let out a “GD, MF” but between the Lord’s Name in Vain and the incestous carnal knowlegde, I was SHAMED, SHAMED and I merely let out a meek “Well, Good Golly, Miss Molly, you Royal Imbecile”.

it’s joke day, right?

By DOG FECES

September 22, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

LOL Mara!!

By DOG FECES

September 22, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

A couple made a deal that whomever died first would come back and inform the other of the afterlife. Their biggest fear was that there was no afterlife. After a long life, the husband was the first to go, and true to his word, he made contact.

“Judy..Judy ”

“Is that you, Raymond?”

“Yes,

I’ve come back like we agreed.”

“What’s it like?”

“Well, I get up in the morning, I have sex. I have breakfast, off to the golf course, I have sex. I bathe in the sun, then I have sex twice. I have lunch, another romp around the golf course, then sex pretty much all afternoon. After supper, golf course again. Then have sex until late at night. The next day it starts again.”

“Oh, Raymond you surely must be in heaven.”

“Not exactly, I’m a rabbit on a golf course in Arizona.

By Renee

September 22, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

oops MWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

nice try, Renee….but eeeee-ville is not your strong point :^)

now for my joke -

The Jackass Story

This Story is true!!! For all of you who occasionally have a really bad day when you just need to take it out on someone: Don’t take that bad day out on someone you know, take it out on someone you don’t know! Now get this. I was sitting at my desk, when I remembered a phone call I had to make. I found the number and dialed it.

A man answered nicely saying, ”Hello?’ ‘

I politely said, ”This is Bob Larson and could I please speak to Robin Carter?”

Suddenly the phone was slammed down on me! I couldn’t believe that anyone could be that rude. I tracked down Robin’s correct number and called her. She had transposed the last two digits incorrectly. After I hung up with Robin, I spotted the wrong number still lying there on my desk. I decided to call it again.

When the same person once more answered, I yelled, ”You’re a jackass!” and hung up.

Next to his phone number I wrote the word ”jackass,” and put it in my desk drawer.

Every couple of weeks, when I was paying bills, or had a really bad day, I’d call him up.

He’d answer, and I’d yell, ”You’re a jackass!”

It would always cheer me up.

Later in the year the Phone Company introduced caller ID. This was a real disappointment for me, I would have to stop calling the jackass. Then one day I had an idea.

I dialed his number, then heard his voice say, ”Hello.” I made up a name. ”Hi. This is the sales office of the Telephone Company and I’m just calling to see if you’re familiar with our caller ID program?”

He went, ”No!” and slammed the phone down.

I quickly called him back and said, ”That’s because you’re a jackass!”

The reason I took the time to tell you this story, is to show you how if there’s ever anything really bothering you, you can do something about it. Just dial 823-4863.

The old lady at the mall really took her time pulling out of the parking space. I didn’t think she was ever going to leave. Finally, her car began to move and she started to very slowly back out of the slot. I backed up a little more to give her plenty of room to pull out. ” Great,” I thought, she’s finally leaving. All of a sudden this black Camaro comes flying up the parking isle in the wrong direction and pulls into her space.

I started honking my horn and yelling, ”You can’t just do that, Buddy. I was here first!” The guy climbed out of his Camaro completely ignoring me. He walked toward the mall as if he didn’t even hear me. I thought to myself, “This guy’s a jackass. There sure a lot of jackasses in this world.”

I noticed he had a ”For Sale” sign in the back window of his car. I wrote down the number. Then I hunted for another place to park.

A couple of days later, I’m at home sitting at my desk. I had just gotten off the phone after calling 823-4863 and yelling, ”You’re a jackass!” (It’s really easy to call him now since I have his number on speed dial.) I noticed the phone number of the guy with the black Camaro lying on my desk and thought I’d better call this guy, too.

After a couple rings someone answered the phone and said, ”Hello.”

I said, ”Is this the man with the black Camaro for sale?” ”Yes, it is.”

”Can you tell me where I can see it?”

”Yes, I live at 1802 West 34th street. It’s a yellow house and the car’s parked right out front.”

I said, ”What’s your name?”

”My name is Don Hansen.”

”When’s a good time to catch you, Don?”

”I’m home in the evenings.”

”Listen Don, can I tell you something?”

”Yes.”

”Don, you’re a jackass!” And I slammed the phone down.

After I hung up I added Don Hansen’s number to my speed dialer. For a while things seemed to be going better for me. Now when I had a problem I had two jackasses to call. Then, after several months of calling the jackasses and hanging up on them, it just wasn’t as enjoyable as it used to be. I gave the problem some serious thought and came up with a solution:

First, I had my phone dial Jackass #1. A man answered nicely saying, ”Hello.”

I yelled ”You’re a jackass!” but I didn’t hang up.

The jackass said, ”Are you still there?”

I said, ”Yeah.”

He said, ”Stop calling me.”

I said, ”No.”

He said, ”What’s you name, pal?”

I said, ”Don Hansen.”

He said, ”Where do you live?”

”1802 West 34th Street. It’s a yellow house and my black Camaro’s parked out front.”

”I’m coming over right now, Don. You’d better start saying your prayers.”

”Yeah, like I’m really scared, Jackass!” and I hung up.

Then I called Jackass #2. He answered, ”Hello.”

I said, ”Hello, Jackass!”

He said, ”If I ever find out who you are…”

”You’ll what?”

”I’ll kick your butt.”

”Well, here’s your chance. I’m coming over right now Jackass!” And I hung up.

Then I picked up the phone and called the police. I told them I was at 1802 West 34th Street and that I was going to kill my gay lover as soon as he got home.

Another quick call to Channel 13 about the gang war going on down W. 34th Street.

After that, I climbed into my car and headed over to 34th Street to watch the whole thing. Glorious watching two Jackasses kicking the crap out of each other in front of six squad cars and a police helicopter was one of the greatest experiences of my life!

Name withheld to protect the guilty.

By Renee

September 22, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

OMG Mara ROFLMAO!!!! Mara, I was having a really crappy day…thank you soooo much…hahahahaha!!! tooooo funny!!

By Chilao

September 22, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Oh Hilarious, yea one or more Jackasses can put a dampener on a good day, (or a good blog - that’s for Claremont Boy)

By Jackass

September 22, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this

Q. Why did the pervert cross the road?

A. He was still stuck to the chicken.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this

You guys are getting smarter each day! Now you realize just how much damage even ONE idiot like me can make. Also, after reading Mara’s Jackass Story, I think Mara might better appreciate the Great One, Ronald Reagan, for getting Iran and Iraq to fight EACH OTHER during the 1980s. In Mara’s words:

Glorious watching two Jackasses kicking the crap out of each other in front of six squad cars and a police helicopter was one of the greatest experiences of my life!

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Also, Mara, be sure to warn Lozen about stealing DOG’s monikers. It might backfire, like last night.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Renee - bad day? Remember…823-4863 LOL!!! (glad to have brightened your day a little)

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Because as much as you might like Osama to go away, I’m not going anywhere until you Libs answer for your sorry selves. BC finally came clean last night about HIS motivations. He sold his soul for some CASH, and now has a guilty conscience. His incredulous view that the folks in the media COULD’T POSSIBLE be biased is just his own GUILTY CONSCIENCE SPEAKING OUT ABOUT HIS OWN BIASES WHEN HE DOES HIS “RESEARCH”.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

So just how many animals have YOU tortured, BC, while you were filling your pockets with MY CASH?? So do you work at the “compassionate” Laboratories over at Emory, where they torture primates in order to keep the CASH flowing in, or over at the Mother of All-Time Crap, the CDC? I believe the CDC sadists prefer small rodents in order to do their “much needed work”.

By Lozen

September 22, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

A plane is flying from Europe to the U.S. when it begins to have engine problems. The pilot tells the passengers the plane is going down, grabs his parachute and jumps out. The passengers start looking for their parachutes and realize there are only four parachutes for five people. “I’m a famous football star and I can’t let my team down; they need me,” says one passenger as he puts on the chute and jumps. “I can’t let this country go down the tubes without my guidance,” says the politician. He puts on a parachute and jumps. “I am the smartest president ever and my country needs me,” says George W. Bush as he puts on his parachute and jumps. That leaves the pope and a young boy. The pope says, “I’m an old man and I know I’ll be in heaven. You are young and have your whole life ahead of you. You take the last parachute.” “Oh, there’s one for you and for me,” says the boy. “The world’s smartest president took my backpack.”

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this

And just like chuck, Lozen, and even Kevin, once again, BC has to somehow shoehorn “two realities” into just one brain in order to “account for” all the disparate observations we make as we go through life. Way deep in BC’s heart he knows that his “work” is all a cracker money scheme. But in order to keep showing up for “work” everyday, he has to pretend that he’s doing GOD’s WORK, which requires an incredible amount of rationalization.

By DogFeces

September 22, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this

This is my bumper sticker: The Schizophrenic: An Unauthorized Autobiography

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

So keep that phone number on hand, Mara. I got a funny feeling that there’s going to be a LOT OF BAD DAYS TO COME here on W2W until some of you Libs stop spouting your Lies. And please, keep aborting your babies. I didn’t realize until a few days ago how this is actually one more way GOD “thins the herd”.

By lozen

September 22, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this

A golfer hooked his tee shot over a hill and onto the next fairway. Walking toward his ball, he saw a man lying on the ground, groaning with pain.

“I’m an attorney,” the wincing man said, “and this is going to cost you $5000.”

“I’m sorry, I’m really sorry,” the concerned golfer replied. “But I did yell ‘fore’.”

“I’ll take it,” the attorney said.

By The Princess Bride (Mara)

September 22, 2006 11:28 AM | Link to this

DOG: [voiceover] Nothing gave Mara as much pleasure as ordering GOD around.

Mara: Farm boy, polish my horse’s saddle. I want to see my face shining in it by morning.

GOD: As you wish.

DOG: [voiceover] “As you wish” was all he ever said to her.

Mara: Farm boy, fill these with water - please.

GOD: As you wish.

DOG: [voiceover] That day, she was amazed to discover that when GOD was saying “As you wish”, what he meant was, “I love you.” And even more amazing was the day she realized she truly loved Him back.

Mara: Farm boy… fetch me that pitcher. [It’s right over her head, so He has to stand next to her]

GOD: As you wish. [Cut to them kissing]

Billy: [interrupting] Hold it, hold it. What is this? Are you trying to trick me? Where’s the Science? [suspiciously] Is this a kissing BIBLIOS?

DOG: Wait, just wait.

Kevin: Well, when does it get good?

DOG: Keep your shirt on, and let me read.

By lozen

September 22, 2006 11:31 AM | Link to this

The National Institute of Health (NIH) announced last week that they were going to start using lawyers instead of rats in their experiments. Naturally, the American Bar Association was outraged and filed suit. Yet, the NIH presented some very good reasons for the switch. 1. The lab assistants were becoming very attached to their little rats. This emotional involvement was interfering with the research being conducted. No such attachment could form for a lawyer. 2. Lawyers breed faster and are in much greater supply. 3. Lawyers are much cheaper to care for and the humanitarian societies won’t jump all over you no matter what you’re studying. 4. There are some things even a rat won’t do.

By The Princess Bride (Mara)

September 22, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

GOD: I told you I would always come for you. Why didn’t you wait for me?

Mara: Well… you were dead.

GOD: Death cannot stop true love. All it can do is delay it for a while.

Mara: I will never doubt again.

GOD: There will never be a need.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

So while I go tend to business today, why don’t you Libs start out with TramadoL’s first question yesterday:

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

And if any of you get the foolish notion that you can simply ignore me, just remember what happened to “your board” yesterday when BC tried to run like a scared little girl. I’m here for some answers, Libs. Just keep remembering, you can’t “F#ck with a DOG”.

By lozen

September 22, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this

A rather well built woman, Joan, spent almost all of her vacation time sunbathing on the roof of her hotel. The first day she sunbathed, she wore a red bathing suit. However on the second day, she felt a little more adventurous. She slipped out of it in order to get an overall tan figuring that no one could see her way up there. She’d hardly began when she heard someone running up the stairs. She was lying on her stomach, so she just pulled a towel over her rear. “Excuse me, miss,” said a flustered little (out of breath) assistant manager of the hotel. “The Hilton doesn’t mind you sunbathing on the roof, but we would very much appreciate you wearing a bathing suit as you did yesterday!” “What difference does it make”, Joan asked rather calmly. “No one can see me up here on the roof and besides, I’m covered with a towel.” “With all due respect, not exactly ma’am,” said the embarrassed little man. “You are lying on the dining room skylight.”

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

By Mara

September 21, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Hey, Brian. You’ve finally seen the light! Ignore, ignore, ignore.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

By Brian Curtis July 31, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this John: It’s unrelated to this week’s topic, but I HAVE heard a non-religious argument against abortion. It consists of a philosophical perspective that all life, in its various forms, has value… and that therefore, the ending any such life (human, protohuman, or guinea pig) should be contemplated with great concern and a bias for saving it if at all possible. This is a respectable, non-religious, perspective in my view. A bit impractical in many obvious ways, but respectable. So, naturally, the Religious Reich never makes such an argument.

By lozen

September 22, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this

A young couple left the church and arrived at the hotel where they were spending the first night of their honeymoon. They opened the champagne and began undressing. When the bridegroom removed his socks, his new wife asked, “Ewww-what’s wrong with your feet? Your toes look all mangled and weird. Why are your feet so gross?” “I had tolio as a child,” he answered. “You mean polio?” she asked. “No, tolio. The disease only affected my toes.” The bride was satisfied with this explanation, and they continued undressing. When the groom took off his pants, his bride once again wrinkled up her nose. “What’s wrong with your knees?” she asked. “They’re all lumpy and deformed!” “As a child, I also had kneasles,” he explained. “You mean measles?” she asked. “No, kneasles. It was a strange illness that only affected my knees.” The new bride had to be satisfied with this answer. As the undressing continued, her husband at last removed his underwear. “Don’t tell me,” she said. “Let me guess… Small Cox?”

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

By Mara August 1, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this the last post made me think…what exactly do we mean by “liberal” and “conservative”? What comes to mind for “conservative” is - authoritarian every man for himself holier than thou obedient anything to win the end justifies the means majority rules always my country - right or wrong disent is unpatriotic only christians are moral that’s the short list. Anyone want to add to it or attempt to define liberal?

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:43 AM | Link to this

By Kyle August 1, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this I gotta say, you guys are looking pretty hypocritical. many of you complain week after week about how the term “liberal” is associated with a negative meaning in some social circles - then you turn around and do the same thing for “conservative.” didn’t your parents ever teach ya that two wrongs don’t make a right? here, mara, let’s see if i can throw out some counterpoints for “liberal” for each of your original points on conservatives. authoritarian - rules are always bad, even if it protects the public good every man for himself - everybody gets a piece of the pie, even if they don’t work for it holier than thou - smarter than thou obedient - hmmm, can’t get anything on this one? anything to win - anything to not confront the enemy the end justifies the means - there is no end, just perpetuate the problem so you remain needed majority rules always - minority is always right, always my country, right or wrong - not my country, right or wrong disent is unpatriotic - to agree is not really thinking only christians are moral - all christians are evil well, it seems as though we were both able to further negative stereotypes about the other group - but what does that really prove/do?.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

By Jackie August 2, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this It’s been very plain to see that “Mara” is the biggest Christian hater of them all…even more so than the 72 John fellow. You can’t play the “I haven’t bashed anyone” card with me lady. You guys are the most narrow-minded bunch of all because you don’t want to even allow anyone with an opposing viewpoint to post here. And when someone DOES dare post in opposition you become extremely nasty and distasteful. This is America…and for the time being we still have the right to free speech.

By lozen

September 22, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

A father and his son go into the drug store when they happen upon the condom aisle. The son asks his father why there are so many different boxes of condoms. The father replies, “Well, you see that 3 pack? Thats for when youre in high school. You have 2 for Friday night and 1 for Saturday night.” Nodding agreement, the son asks his father, “Then whats the 6 pack for?" "Thats for when youre in college," the father says. "You have 2 for Friday night, 2 for Saturday night, and 2 for Sunday morning." Following this line of logic, the son enthusiastically asks what the 12 pack is for. "Thats for when you`re married, son. You have one for January, one for February, one for March…”

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

By Tom August 2, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this You silly git, if you’d bother to read the posts rather than working yourself up into a reactionary “ARGH LIBERALS” tirade, you would have noticed that there are plenty of times we disagree about things. And yep - we sometimes throw down with each other, because this is, in fact, a DISCUSSION blog and sometimes DISCUSSIONS get heated. Mr. 72john I just gotta respond to this staement of yours knowing what kind of diappointing trash drivel that you will throw my way, but fortunately, I have enough slef-confidence to not take anything you say seriously. People can and will disagree about any number of things, however it’s how you handle it that defines who you are as a person. It can be handled your way, by releasing a barrage of unnecssary attacks whic, qquite honestly is extremley immature, or it can be handled with dignity and respsect for the one opposig your own opinions. I rarely, if ever see any respect given on your part. But I’ll give you one thing you have a good grasp of knowledge and words. That is your strength. I just wish you would use them to build people up, rather than tear them down because that’s not what this post or a DISCUSSION is for.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

By lozen August 2, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this Tom is Randy. He uses the same wording and has the same huge ego without any intelligence to back it up. I totally agree with you that there are some on this blog that shouldn’t really be here. Who in the world do you think you are to decide who shouldn’t be here on this blog? Your ego is amazing; aren’t christians supposed to be humble?

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

By Kyle August 2, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this well, looks like there are some newcomers to the blog today. looks like the week’s topic/debate has been lost to, you guessed it, abortion/religion - who knew? to the newbies i will concede one thing: the majority of people on this blog lean, if they lean at all, to the left. but they won’t attack you automatically just because you sway to the right a little (most of the time, at least). try a thoughtful post with facts, logic, and/or reason and see where that gets ya.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

By Jackie August 2, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this Billy: Don’t call me your friend, Captain D????? Captain D???? Whatever buddy. That “child” is, scientifically speaking, a parasite My, how far we’ve come as a society that unborn children are called “parasites” like an infestation of worms. What a warped mind someone must have had to come up with this terminology. The irony of this is that the idiots like yourself who so insist that women carry the baby to term are the same jackasses that call them whores for having sex in the first place. Nice try amigo-but no dice. I’d never call anyone a whore nor do I think sex is bad. But if you have sex you must be able to deal with the possible consequences-just like everything else in life there are consequences to your actions.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

By The72John August 3, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this He falsified data and you believe the lies he told, but I’m the moron? Does anyone have the slightest idea what Brucie means here? Because this sentence makes even less sense than his usual ramblings.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this

By Jackie August 3, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

You people are seriously sick in the head. Making comments about eating “baby wraps” and the slice and dice of children. Just for making those comments (even as a “joke”)makes you demented and in need of help. If more people thought like you what a psychotic world it would be…wait a minute, it is a psychotic world now isn’t it? (Thanks to people like you sick folks.) Do you ever just listen to yourselves spew this garbage that belittles life and human beings? You take something beautiful like motherhood and turn it into something ugly and gross. You should be ashamed of yourselves but you’re too busy patting yourselves on the back for being so disgusting. Go ahead and eat your “stew” and your “wraps” you sick twisted demented psychotic people. You should be forced to wear bells around your necks so people could hear you coming and run the other way! What a bunch of sick m.f.’s! Keep your sick blog you bunch of bozos. Especially the 72 fellow and the mara atheist. Lozen, I hope you NEVER have any children seeing how heartless you are. Billy, somewhere your boyfriend is waiting for you. Renee, maybe you should marry Mara since you’re both lacking in a respect for human life. I bid you farewell…let the devilish insults fly…I’m sure you’ll enjoy it. Time to troll off to another blog…hee hee hee. You guys were tooooo easy!!! (grin)

By Renee

September 22, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

The word for today is Jackass! Definition, pronunciation and use in a sentence.

Second word for today — Idiot. Definition, pronunciation and use in a sentence.

By Lozen

September 22, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

By lozen August 3, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Without a definition for the word “God”, it is impossible to discuss the concept in any concrete way. Moyers aught to interview someone with a good definition of “God”. My definition of “God” is evolved from Buckminster Fuller in his essay “Guinnea Pig B”. Before I read that essay, I was a “born again Atheist”. Since then, I’ve been “saved”: God is the loving, superhuman, nonanthropomorphic, intellectual integrity operative in Universe. Loving refers to the interattractive and interaccommodative nature of God’s integrity. Superhuman means beyond any one human’s capabilities. Nonanthropomorphic means not having human form or qualities. Intellectual refers to the faculty of perceiving experiences and the relationships among them (such as the facts of life). Integrity refers to the unity of the mutually interaccommodative components in a system. Operative means participating in the operation of a system. Is this definition of God scientifically verifiable? I think it is —- I’m overwhelmed by the phenomenon described by this definition of God. Is it inspiring? I think it is. Is it mysterious (a la mystical)? I think it is (since there is so much we cannot know about the Great Integrity). Integration between the Sciences and the Humanities is possible. And definitions like this go a long way to showing how the gap can be bridged.

By ifitapplies...

September 22, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

The doggies held a conference. A special poem for Dog Feces:

They came from near and far, some of them by aeroplane and some by motor car. They gathered in the hallway to sign the visitors book. Then each dog took his a*******hole off and hung it on a hook. When they were assembled, each pure breed dame and sire, some dirty rotten ba$tard came in and shouted “FIRE”. The dogs were in a panic, they had no time to look, so each dog grabbed an a*******hole, off the nearest hook. The dogs were very angry, it really made them sore, to wear anothers a*******hole, they’d never worn before, so that is why you’ll always see, a dog will leave a bone, to sniff anothers a*******hole, to see if it’s his own.

Now sniff boy, sniff!

By Osama

September 22, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this

So keep running and hiding Libs. Keep believing your Lies. But you’re going to have to pay a price, and The Day of Judgement has Come.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 12:02 PM | Link to this

Here’s one of those “worst case scenario” things to think about before it happens so you can do the right thing in an emergency without having to think it out at the time.

Ready?

You are on a horse, galloping at a constant speed. On your right side is sharp drop-off, and on your left side is an elephant traveling at the same speed as you.

Wait: there’s more.

Directly in front of you is a galloping kangaroo and your horse is unable to overtake it. Behind you is a lion running at the same speed as you and the Kangaroo.

Whew!

Now: What must you do to safely get out of this highly dangerous situation?

No…really think about it before scrolling down to the answer!

What you should do: Get your drunk butt off the merry-go-round!

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

And keep the insults flying, it only makes my victory sweeter.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

So get ready for “All-TramadoL” “All-Daylong” until you ungrateful Libs explain your evil selves.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 12:07 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By ifitapplies...

September 22, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

Sniff Osama, sniff it. You know you want to. Go ahead sniff the other dog’s a$$. Nobody is listening to a word you say no matter what name you put on it. Your such an idiot, such a mental case that no matter what name you use we all know it’s you. Maybe somebody will get you back on your medication soon.

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 12:08 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

(1) Since the AP and the UPI spent millions of dollars recounting the votes in FLA after the 2000 election, and Bush won every time, regardless of the “chad standard” used (and you know they tried every possible “paper scheme”—pun intended), why do supposedly intelligent Libs like NetBanker keep claiming that Gore was somehow the “real winner”? Sounds kind of like BC’s “victory”, doesn’t it?

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Getting the picture, Libs? Answer up, or get the F#ck off this board, ok. You’ve ran off every reasonable conservative in the past, so now you have to answer to me.

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

By Jackie August 2, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Billy: Don’t call me your friend, Captain D????? Captain D???? Whatever buddy. That “child” is, scientifically speaking, a parasite My, how far we’ve come as a society that unborn children are called “parasites” like an infestation of worms. What a warped mind someone must have had to come up with this terminology. The irony of this is that the idiots like yourself who so insist that women carry the baby to term are the same jackasses that call them whores for having sex in the first place. Nice try amigo-but no dice. I’d never call anyone a whore nor do I think sex is bad. But if you have sex you must be able to deal with the possible consequences-just like everything else in life there are consequences to your actions.

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

By Jackie August 2, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Billy: Don’t call me your friend, Captain D????? Captain D???? Whatever buddy. That “child” is, scientifically speaking, a parasite My, how far we’ve come as a society that unborn children are called “parasites” like an infestation of worms. What a warped mind someone must have had to come up with this terminology. The irony of this is that the idiots like yourself who so insist that women carry the baby to term are the same jackasses that call them whores for having sex in the first place. Nice try amigo-but no dice. I’d never call anyone a whore nor do I think sex is bad. But if you have sex you must be able to deal with the possible consequences-just like everything else in life there are consequences to your actions.

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this

By Child of The 60s Flashback IV

September 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

By Child of The 60s Flashback IV

September 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:20 PM | Link to this

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this

By Child of the 60s Bad Acid Trip Flashback

September 22, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this

By Jackie August 2, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Billy: Don’t call me your friend, Captain D????? Captain D???? Whatever buddy. That “child” is, scientifically speaking, a parasite My, how far we’ve come as a society that unborn children are called “parasites” like an infestation of worms. What a warped mind someone must have had to come up with this terminology. The irony of this is that the idiots like yourself who so insist that women carry the baby to term are the same jackasses that call them whores for having sex in the first place. Nice try amigo-but no dice. I’d never call anyone a whore nor do I think sex is bad. But if you have sex you must be able to deal with the possible consequences-just like everything else in life there are consequences to your actions.

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Getting the picture, Libs? Answer up, or get the F#ck off this board, ok. You’ve ran off every reasonable conservative in the past, so now you have to answer to me.

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

Getting the picture, Libs? Answer up, or get the F#ck off this board, ok. You’ve ran off every reasonable conservative in the past, so now you have to answer to me.

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

By Child of The 60s Flashback IV

September 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

By Child of the 60s Flashbacks of Flashbacks

September 22, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

By Child of The 60s Flashback IV

September 21, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

By TraMadoL6969

September 21, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

So just where did BC go to college? And is he a teacher? Nothing much else to say today.

So you all have to make a serious decision today. Do you want your board back?

By Jack

September 22, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Get a life for Chrissakes.

By OsamasWhore

September 22, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Asians created their own religions, too many to mention, but Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confuciusism, come to mind.

Native Americans, north and south, created their own religions, until suppressed by Europeans.

Too much sand kills the imagination it seems.

Osama, who did you rip-off your religion from?

By GOD

September 22, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

I’ll get a life when your Lib buddies answer for all their Lies, Jack. You know the Muslims are coming and it has nothing to do with Bush not playing nice.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

My religion, Islam is obviously a straight recreation of the Bile, with a new story line invented involving Ismael. By doing this, I have incorporated elements of permanent victimhood into my theology, thereby guaranteeing a never ending series of martyrs.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Also, if you study the Quran, it is a RULES BASED RELIGION JUST LIKE ORTHODOX JEWRY. And as hopefully my friend, DOG, enlightened you, RELIGIONS BASED ON STRICT RULES ARE A VIOLATION OF THE CHRIST WHO STATES THAT A GOOD SPIRIT MUST SUPERCEDE ANY STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE RULES.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:39 PM | Link to this

It’s too bad that your resident W2W “boy genius”, BC, keeps rejecting Kurt Godel’s findings that ultimately no set of rules can be “complete” or “internally consistent”. If he would open his mind a little, he would understand that this is the Mathematical Proof needed to Scientifically prove why any type of Fundamentalism is wrong.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

As I keep trying to explain to you all, you all seem to have a hodgepodge of strong opinions, but none of you know WHY you hold those opinions. If you tried a little harder, and were a little more honest with yourselves, you wouldn’t end up with all your laughable inconsistencies in your political opinions and theology of Life. E.G. If all Life is precious, Lozen, why do you cheer on more abortions when the answer is simply more responsible behavior on the front end.

By ifitapplies...

September 22, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Oh, if only your mother had had an abortion when you were just a parasite Osama, Dog, whatever your name is lunatic.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Mystery of The Buddha—Either/Or Logic is Incomplete and Misleading.

Mystery of the Christ—There is a higher “spirit” which limited, man-made rules can only partially capture.

By Osama

September 22, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

But, unfortunately, for BC to champion Godel in tearing down religious Fundamentalism, he would also have to examine his own Fundamentalistic beliefs in the God of Science. And you all know, he’s carting home way too much CASH to ever do that.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Joke Friday is kinda fizzling, so back to the topic: I found this item pretty interesting…

Television stations in Montana have been warned that an advertisement produced by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee containing statements made by Republican Senator Conrad Burns may be inappropriate for television. The warning came from the Montana Broadcaster’s Association, Congressional Quarterly is reporting.

One station, KTVQ, pulled the ad after one viewing. The station manager told Congressional Quarterly he was “absolutely appalled” that someone had found the ad to be appropriate for television.

The ad included statements made by Burns, including the phrase “p** poor” and the Senator’s claim that a firefighter hadn’t “done a God damned thing,” during a now-infamous July encounter at a Montana airport.

for the rest of the article -

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/StationspullDemadforusing0922.html

so now even quotes from our elected representatives are being censored. The station could have bleeped the “bad” words, much as they did Dick Cheney’s use of the “F” word and Bush’s quote about a “major league A-hole”, but NOOOOO! Instead they’ll pull the ad entirely.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

I’m not sure if I should be celebrating that the troll hasn’t posted in the last hour or mourning the fact that nobody else has either…

By Chilao

September 22, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

Mara - friend of mine use to supply high desert product(think a Cracker song) to those Claremont boys so they could study all night, and it is true what they say, it seems, heavy usage causes long term psychosis. LOL

By Renee

September 22, 2006 02:35 PM | Link to this

Mara - celebrating definitely!

By Jack

September 22, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Yes. I see it coming and it doesn’t look good.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

as well as enhancing natural obnoxiousness, evidently ;^)

By Renee

September 22, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

perhaps computer time is over at Georgia Regional.

By ifitapplies...

September 22, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this

Address to the United Nations Rise Up Against the Empire By HUGO CHAVEZ September 20, 2006

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to those who have not read this book, to read it. Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books, ‘Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States.’” [Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] “It’s an excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the world throughout the 20th century, and what’s happening now, and the greatest threat looming over our planet.
The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time,” [flips through the pages, which are numerous] “I will just leave it as a recommendation. It reads easily, it is a very good book, I’m sure Madame [President] you are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right in their own house. The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in the house. “And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here.” [crosses himself] “And it smells of sulfur still today. Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world. I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday’s statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

I wish I could do those little dancing emoticons….

ahhhhhhh. nice. peaceful.

In Duluth, Minnesota, a man named Jack Pettit was arrested on a charge that he stole a neighbor’s pig. His attourney maintained that he was innocent and filed that the case be dismissed through lack of evidence. The judge agreed and the case was dismissed. Jack Pettit then thanked the judge and asked, “But do I have to give back the pig?”

By ifitapplies...

September 22, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

Chavez continues: …the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated. The world parent’s statement — cynical, hypocritical, full of this imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything. They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that’s their democratic model. It’s the false democracy of elites, and, I would say, a very original democracy that’s imposed by weapons and bombs and firing weapons. What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who are at the root of democracy. What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs? The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here, in this room, and I’m quoting, “Anywhere you look, you hear extremists telling you you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through violence, terror and martyrdom.” Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother — he looks at your color, and he says, oh, there’s an extremist. Evo Morales, the worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him. The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It’s not that we are extremists. It’s that the world is waking up. It’s waking up all over. And people are standing up. I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up, all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

good one, Renee LOL!

By Jack

September 22, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this

I’d like to have him in my sights.

By Mara (the one and only)

September 22, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

crap. (sigh)

hope y’all have a joyous Autumnal Equinox tomorrow.

air kisses for everyone, it’s officially…

the WEEKEND!!! Wooo-Hooooo!! C-ya

By Jack

September 22, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

they’ve come to snuff the rooster…..