Woman to Woman

By RightBlog?

November 13, 2006 07:12 AM | Link to this

(is this the blog where these kinds of convos occur?)

We often hear the challenge: “show me an example in living memory when Christians have run amok in every major city, looting, burning and murdering in the name of Jesus. Then I will agree that Christian fundamentalists are just as scary and dangerous as their Muslim countreparts”.

Christian fundamentalists do not have to do that. By means of polite violence, they have condemned milions of AIDS sufferers to death and forced millions of women to deliver unwanted babies. They are wiling to expose millions of young people to sexually transmitted diseases without the benefit of new vaccines. They are passing laws to impose their morality on those of us who do not share their views. Due to the insistence of fundamentalist Christians that the war on drugs be punitive rather than corrective, that “war” has forced more misery on the U.S. and its citizens than the drugs themselves ever could have done. And the results of fundamentalist interference in the U.S. educational systems have set our citizens behind third world countries in the ability to think clearly. Christians current political influence lets them practice tyranny via legal methods, but a fundamentalist is still a fundamentalist.

Paul Alter, Pittsburgh PA a letter to the editor

By RightBlog?

November 13, 2006 07:18 AM | Link to this

Wasn’t this the blog where someone was whining last week that the GOP lost Congress because the GOP did not kiss enough fundamentalist posteriors?

By 2D

November 13, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

Nancy’s biggest challenge has nothing to do with her gender but in her ability to present a vision, convince people it is the right course to take and then lead the country there. If she doesn’t do any of one those things, then she’ll be seen as a failure. If she succeeds, then her political views will become the driving force of American policy for the next decade.

IMO, the first step will be the toughest for her to do. Right now, I don’t think she or the Democratic party have a vision for America, or at least one that a vast majority of the population could support. They have some compelling initiatives, like the ones unveiled for passing in the first 100 hours on the next Congress. Those however, do not constitute a vision or a direction to take a nation.

By Brian Curtis

November 13, 2006 08:48 AM | Link to this

I’d say the big PR challenge is not “hiding her liberalism,” but demonstrating that liberal isn’t a dirty word… that liberal policies can be very effective and good for the country. Compared to that, her gender is practically irrelevant.

Of course, the hardcore Republicans and other bigots will never accept any evidence in favor of liberal successes, so in one sense it’s a lost cause. Better to just focus on doing what’s best for the country and let “image” take care of itself.

By Brian Curtis

November 13, 2006 08:50 AM | Link to this

RightBlog: Yes, this is at least one such forum. The fundie’s name is Chuck (occasionally supported by Randy and Zack), and he’ll no doubt be along shortly.

But be aware, there’s also a pathetic attention-w******* named Bruno/Dog/Name of the Day who likes to babble to himself whenever he’s not getting enough strokes and praise for how “briliant” he is. He’ll also be along shortly.

By 2D

November 13, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Brian… You are exactly right. Speaker Pelosi will need to demonstrate that “liberal” isn’t a dirty word. I hope she can succeed.

The hard core on the left and right will never accept successes from the other side and will magnify the failures whether they are great or small. Such is life in a Replublic. Most people, however, probably find themselves on varying sides of issues. For example, my parents are very much social conservatives, fiscal conservatives when it comes to keeping the deficit low, but raging liberals because they think the “rich” people should pay for everything. I personally am a social moderate, and a solid fiscal conservative. Others fall along different lines.

Quite frankly, I believe vast majority of people don’t really care about “liberal” or “conservative” politics. They only care about “effective” politics.

By kimberly

November 13, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

Once again, Brian Curtis nails it! (8:48) The He-man woman-hater’s club on the far right will reject any and all of Pelosi’s efforts because their desire to be “right” far outweighs any alleged loyalites they have for the American people. Fortunately, not everyone is fooled by their pretense.

We’ve seen once again that the independent voters turn the tide one way or the other. Pelosi’s mission should be to work hard employing common sense to foreign and domestic issues, to help turn the ship back away from the edge of the earth and into calmer, more fertile waters. Sensible Americans will agree; those who thrive on discord will holler, protest, subvert, and lie to keep us in turmoil.

By Randy

November 13, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Liberal may not be a dirty word, however, it’s not very healthy for innocent unborn babies and normal hetersexual families. It’s not what has made this country STRONG!!!

By Randy

November 13, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis = Mr. Know Nothing, but we love you Brian.

By Randy

November 13, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Note for anyone who is new to this site, most of us from the South don’t think the way many here think(we’re mainly normal here in the south). However, this site seems to attract many homosexuals and ultra-liberals for some reason. Don’t judge us good southern people by this site. Thanks. We are really mainly OK, here in Georgia.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Well, I’m very happy to have a rainbow-colored-liberal in her position. Rainbow-colored-liberals tend to want what’s best for this country and the common people instead of taking care of their wealthy friends and selves first! I don’t think she has a chance of pleasing the conservatives and shouldn’t waste any time even trying. Hopefully she is a true liberal and will do what she thinks is best without even trying to curry favor with “The He-man woman-hater’s club” as Kimberly puts it so well.

By Monica

November 13, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, you hit the nail on the head. Liberals and conservatives alike can agree that we need “fixin’.” Perhaps Pelosi can help!

By Jack

November 13, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Hi Hon. :)

Her challenge is to get something, anything done. These days it doesn’t matter Republican or Democrat, if they don’t stop voting “the party line” nothing will get done. Good ideas will get shelved in committee because it was “their” idea.

By Tim

November 13, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

I love a good laugh in the morning… good southern people… hahahaha… don’t worry about what people in other areas of the country think… because most of them think you’re an ignorant hick

as for Speaker Pelosi… GO LIBRUL GO!!! it was amusing when Shaunti was describing Madame Speaker it sounded like she could have been describing Tom Delay at the exact same time… I doubt she had any problem with his governing style… what’s good for the gander is good for the goose

By kimberly

November 13, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

Note for anyone reading Randy’s disclaimer: I am from the South, as is a long line of ancestors before me. MY family embraced the winds of change in the 60s and 70s, and knew that mandating equality and righting the wrongs of our fathers what the right thing to do. Because my family (comprised of many educated, successful Southerners) does not fall in line with religious superstitions and antiquated ideals of class structure and conquest, we are labeled “ultra-liberals” by hold-outs like Randy who refuse to move forward into enlightenment and common sense. So yes, many of us here in Georgia really ARE “OK,” thanks.

By Tim

November 13, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this

kimberly… I think our families would get along great :)

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 10:40 AM | Link to this

Anybody hear the commentary from a female journalist on NPR this weekend? Seems a Baltimore newspaper had a few pieces on Pelosi the day after Pelosi’s meeting with Bush. One side of page had bio-stats, a ‘just the facts, ma’am’ piece. The other side of the page had a full article on Pelosi’s fashion sense in meeting with the President. (apparently it was an Armani suit, etc). Commentator ended with something along the lines of “Well, we sure have come a long ways, now, haven’t we”.

and remarked no such article would have happened over a new MALE Speaker-of-the-House’s meeting with the President.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Lozen - hilarious Blair/Rice joke last Friday, I was outta town.

By Tim

November 13, 2006 10:44 AM | Link to this

Kim… my grandmother’s best friend in high school (50s… she will shoot me for aging her lol) was black… unfotunately the obviously did not go to the same school

By lozen

November 13, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

And I’d like to warn anyone new to this site, Randy, that you’re a perfect example of the educational system in Georgia - next to the bottom. You’re also a shining example of the Southern Baptist Convention way of religion: unthinking acceptance of what mommy and daddy taught you, closed minded black and white thinking, judging other people, thinking you are normal! Nothing but idiots can be produced by that combination.

By Jack

November 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

You can’t beat a Georgia peach.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this

She made her party a cohesive block through the sort of family discipline that would do a mob boss proud: ‘you vote with us or you get iced from your plum committee assignments.’

Is Shaunti so disconnected from reality that she doesn’t realize that it is exactly hard-line tactics like this that allowed the Republicans to vote in such cohesive blocks for the past 12 years? Snide mafia references aside, Pelosi is just learning from her adversaries.

Brian is exactly right - we need to prove that “liberal” is not the dirty word that the right wing radio demagogues have tried to hard to convince the average American that it is. They might be pleasantly surprised.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

Liberal may not be a dirty word, however, it’s not very healthy for innocent unborn babies and normal hetersexual families. It’s not what has made this country STRONG!!!

Just curious, Randy…but what does this actual mean? How is liberalism not good for “heterosexual families”? Spell check is your friend, by the way. What about Liberal politics - real Liberal politics, not the colossal strawman version created by talk radio and Ann Coulter - is detrimental to heterosexual families? Can you give a specific example?

It might also interest you to know that South Dakota, which is a decidedly RED state, voted DOWN a proposed ban on abortion. That means that ordinary folk who are “OK” by your rather simplistic definition - Conservatives, mostly - overturned a state law that would have banned abortion.

Hmm…maybe abortion ISN’T the “liberal” issue you and your church brethren decided it was while handling snakes last weekend?

By lozen

November 13, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry I worded my response to Randy like that. There are many people who grew up in Georgia who aren’t idiots - Kimberly is a fine example of that.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

Yeah, the people of South Dakota gave me a pleasant surprise! Abortion is a private decision and should not even be a political issue.

By Jack

November 13, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Snake handlin proves your faith. If you wave that hungry snake in front of your big ole nose and have faith in God that it won’t bite you, it won’t bite you. If it bites you no worry, you’ll be dead.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

Chileo, I’m glad you read the jokes. I was feeling like they were wasted since nobody much was around on Friday.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

Snake handlin proves your faith. If you wave that hungry snake in front of your big ole nose and have faith in God that it won’t bite you, it won’t bite you. If it bites you no worry, you’ll be dead.

I lived in West Virginia for a couple of years after college - I was amazed to discover how many serpent-handling churches there are in that state, and was disgusted by the catch-22 nature of their beliefs…handle the snake and live, God loves you and you are a good person. Get bitten and die - the church doesn’t mourn you because your death means you are inherently evil.

Really nice bunch of people.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

Interesting about the snakes, since locally copperheads and rattlesnakes are used. A copperhead bite is not even worthy of a trip to the doctor, you will get inflammation/discomfort but that is all. Now if a rattlesnake bit your nose, single bite, you may end up with a disfigured nose, but it would require several rattlesnake bites, to the face, to actually kill you. Assuming a normal healthy person on both.

So there is not really any death-threats with snake handling. here in Appalachia at least. Never heard of water moccasins being used, that a whole other ballgame. LOL (they are generally a little too rambunctious/defiant to even want to keep around for worship-service use).

Kind of a win-win though, handle/don’t get bit, must have good faith. Handle and get bit, must have lacked faith. Win/Win.

Oh, my parents were not that kind of fundamentalist, it being considered a little primitive.(ya think?)

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

but water moccasins(cottonmouths) ARE used in snake handling. but the least dangerous, copperheads, are used the most.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this

Personally, I’m in favor of anyone who wants to handle snakes handling snakes. I say - handle ‘em every day! Handle ‘em in your sleep, at work…

Kind of built-in gene pool protection.

By Jack

November 13, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this

Being a damn yankee we never handled snakes, we burned witches instead. Much colder up there.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

Even scarier than the “tests of faith” which snake-handlers voluntarily subject themselves to (an extreme form of Calvinism) were the “tests of guilt” administered by medieval courts. To determine your guilt or innocence, you were required to plunge your hand into boiling oil. Formation of blisters was taken as proof of being guilty. If you were innocent, no blisters formed because “God was on your side”.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

I think handling a rattler would be preferable to handling Nancy Pelosi, however, Chilao.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this

Kind of built-in gene pool protection.

unfortunately, the culture who handles snakes has about 15 kids per household.

By Jack

November 13, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Somebody has to help with the crops.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

unfortunately, the culture who handles snakes has about 15 kids per household.

Think we could convince them that God REALLY likes people who handle Coral snakes?

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

yeah, I wonder if they use them in south Florida(coral snakes) ‘cause that is GONER one bite. Wonder if converted Africans use mambas? LOL (doubt it, would go the way of the Shakers)

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this

PBS had a four-part reptile thing awhile back, Snakes, Crocs(etc), Turtles and Lizards.

I learned 50-THOUSAND!(50,000) people die annually world-wide from snake-bite.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Even then, guys, a coral snake hath no fury like a woman scorned.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this

yeah, I wonder if they use them in south Florida(coral snakes) ‘cause that is GONER one bite. Wonder if converted Africans use mambas? LOL (doubt it, would go the way of the Shakers)

Actually, now that I think about it, coral snake venom is a neurotoxin, so it probably wouldn’t hurt the snake handlers.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 12:46 PM | Link to this

I think Bush is merely paying lip-service to bi-partisan cooperation, something he did not need the past six years so it is funny he is clamoring for it now. Any new legislation will get vetoed. So while Pelosi and the new group can INITIATE things they could not before, it will get vetoed, and Bush can conveniently blame the Democrats for, forget the lame-duck Congress of the next 2 months, he can have a LameDuck Presidency for the next two years.

But I was wrong about Diebold INC(maybe..thank you, Mara) so…..

By 2D

November 13, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Does anyone have the text of the South Dakota ban voted down last week? I tried a couple of Googles and only got links to the law passed in March.

By Randy

November 13, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

This is in response to Kimberly post of 10:34. The way I see it, I can believe one of two things. One, that in the beginning, whenever that was(billions of years ago)that everything just appeared out of thin air, somehow came together and the universe was created by some weird coincidence. Or, I can believe the universe was created by a supernatural being, who is eternal and made everything so it works together(intelligent). Since, I have yet to experience things just apprearing out of thin air in my life so far, my common sense and being enlightened tells me an actual “CREATOR” does exist. My beliefs are validated daily and if you do a study believers outnumber non believers greatly(what 96% of Americans believe, varies in some studies, but not much). What I do believe, the only people who don’t believe in a Creator are the ones who’s are so arrogant, that they think they are above the other ones of us(96%), ones who don’t want it to effect their lifestyle, or some who have just not thought it through. Hopefully, you are in the latter category.

By Jack

November 13, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

I didn’t think Bush knew what a veto is.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

John - Good point, on who neuro-toxins might NOT affect. LOL

By Mara

November 13, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Hey everyone! Didn’t some woman Kentucky die a few days ago from being bitten while fondling a snake in church? (boy, didn’t that sound dirty! LOL) I guess she just wasn’t strong enough in her faith.

72John - She made her party a cohesive block through the sort of family discipline that would do a mob boss proud: ‘you vote with us or you get iced from your plum committee assignments

Is Shaunti so disconnected from reality that she doesn’t realize that it is exactly hard-line tactics like this that allowed the Republicans to vote in such cohesive blocks for the past 12 years?

yeah, when was the last time that the Dems held floor votes open for hours on end so they could coerce, intimidate, or bribe reps from their own party into toeing the party line? When was the last time the Dems decided to change long-standing Congressional rules because they couldn’t get their agenda passed any other way? Shaunti seems to be getting her political parties confused…

Brian - I’ll agree with everyone else that your 8:48 was a very good post.

By Kevin

November 13, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

So only liberals that went to school in Georgia are smart? I assume you mean that all conservative Southern Baptists are ignorant as well?

I attend a small Southern Baptist church with less than 50 active members. Three of our regular attendees are degreed engineers (two from GT, one from Auburn). No one that I know of in the church blindly accepts anything “mommy and daddy” taught them, and they certainly don’t automatically believe everything spoken from the pulpit. Like most intelligent people, we listen to different sides of issues and form our own opinions. Our opinions simply differ from yours.

BTW - I used to be a liberal in my early adult life (I voted for Dukakis and I was pro-choice!). My life experiences led me to change certain fundamental beliefs that were deeply ingrained. I didn’t become a bible-believing conservative over night, but I eventually came to the conclusion that a more conservative path was better for our country.

I know you want to believe in your heart that all conservative, religious people are stupid rednecks, but that type of stereotypical thinking is just as bad as any of the hatred spewed by Rush and Ann Coulter.

While we are on the subject of religion, let’s review Elton John’s comments this weekend. Since he has been exposed to such hatred from religious people because of his sexuality, he is ready to ban religion. I understand that he has every right to be upset at people that hate him because of a lifestyle choice that he has made. But let’s be frank, this type of statement is dangerous. Many people on this blog have made fun of conservatives’ claims of potential future persecution if hard-core liberal idealists take over this country. We need to look no further than this statement to confirm our beliefs.

I will get down off of my soap box now. Have a good rest of the day folks, uh - I mean comrades!

By 2D

November 13, 2006 12:58 PM | Link to this

Chilao… Don’t be so sure about that quick veto. If the Dems pass good legislation and the President vetos it, then they’ll have serious ammo for the next election. The election was very tight and the President does not want to eliminate the possibility of recapturing the House in two years.

As long as they don’t pass unreasonable items (i.e. raising the minimum wage to $10 or $12) then they will get most of their stuff through. Persoanlly, I think they could even get some of their tax increases through if done in the appropriate manner.

By Randy

November 13, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

Again let me say we here in Georgia are not like the majority of “nuts” you will find on this site. We are good church going, loyal Americans, who have enough will power to keep our FAITH in place. Have we questioned things our parents taught us, absolutely, however common sense has brought most of us back to the basic values that made this country great(faith and character). Please excuse these other people, they are just weak.

By Jack

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

My grmmar is almost as bad as my splling today. Sorry. On Sir Elton; My sun rises and sets on what he says.

What are you thinking. Everyone on this blog is normal.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

While we are on the subject of religion, let’s review Elton John’s comments this weekend. Since he has been exposed to such hatred from religious people because of his sexuality, he is ready to ban religion. I understand that he has every right to be upset at people that hate him because of a lifestyle choice that he has made. But let’s be frank, this type of statement is dangerous. Many people on this blog have made fun of conservatives’ claims of potential future persecution if hard-core liberal idealists take over this country. We need to look no further than this statement to confirm our beliefs.

Well, the first correction that needs to be made here is the “because of a lifestyle choice that he has made.” As many people have put to other people who can’t seem to get it through their head that sexuality isn’t a choice - do you remember the day that you sat down and said “Hmm…taco or sausage…taco or sausage…I think I’ll pick…taco!” No…you don’t…because you didn’t and neither did Elton or any other gay person.

Second - Elton said that from his point of view ORGANIZED religion should be banned because it encourages hatred. He isn’t a politician saying that religion WILL be banned or that legislation is in the works to ban religion. He’s an entertainer who has endured a great deal of persecution throughout his life because of religion and he is expressing that.

On the other hand, there are plenty of Conservative fundamentalist politicians every day working to introduce legislation that would either elevate Christianty to a level of primacy above other religions in this country, or to lower those who don’t fall within the narrow scope of its dogma to a second class status. So, frankly Kevin, I think you ought to remove the collosal Redwood tree that is currently jutting out of your eyesocket before you start making specious and rather laughable claims such as the one you are attempting to make here.

You probably gasped with horror when the Repubs in West Virginia sent out the postcards telling voters there that Democrats wanted to ban the Bible, didn’t you…

Again let me say we here in Georgia are not like the majority of “nuts” you will find on this site. We are good church going, loyal Americans, who have enough will power to keep our FAITH in place. Have we questioned things our parents taught us, absolutely, however common sense has brought most of us back to the basic values that made this country great(faith and character). Please excuse these other people, they are just weak.

Ah, Randy - the laughs just keep on coming.

By Randy

November 13, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this

Kevin, I glad you brought the Elton John comments up. He calls religion “hateful”? Let me tell you my experience with Elton John, a few years ago me and my wife, being big tennis fans, went to a tennis event to help raise money for “aids”. Agassi and Sampras as well as Mr. John were there, they were playing around and someone said something to Mr. John that he didn’t like and some other people in the audience chuckled. Elton John stuck his middle finger up at everyone and said “F”everybody. But religion is hateful?? My opinion, religion is not hateful, just the opposite is true, I don’t hate anyone, I do however recognize opponents and confront them strongly. I do think some people use religion as a springboard, manipulate others with it, to help them gain their ambitious objectives(Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein etc.) So these people need to be watched closely. No common sense person(religious or not) handles snakes, that is pure stupidity.

By Mara

November 13, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

2D - Many people on this blog have made fun of conservatives’ claims of potential future persecution if hard-core liberal idealists take over this country

um…hate to break it to you but there is quite a percentage of “hard-core liberal idealists” who are liberal because of their faith. These are the ones who really believe in helping the poor, the sick, the down-trodden and that a camel could pass through the eye of a needle before a rich man could pass into the kingdom of heaven. That ALL people are Gods children and deserve to be treated like brothers. They believe that God created the world and gave man dominion over it, which means that environmental degradation is an offense against God himself. That rendering unto God that which is Gods (faith) and unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s (law) is merely following the teachings of Jesus. They are “idealists” because they believe…

and you can say, with a straight face, that they’d outlaw religion?

It seems to be a prevailing stereo-type that being a strong liberal is tantamount to being anti-religious. For some reason conservative ideologues just can’t understand that believing in a wall of seperation doesn’t make you an anti-God stormtrooper intent on kicking down the doors of the churches and forcing the faithful into the streets to marry gay people and get abortions.

By Mara

November 13, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this

OOOPS!

Sorry 2D. That last post was for KEVIN, not you.

I am so sorry to have put words in your mouth..

By kimberly

November 13, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this

To Randy at 12:54: If you are referring to whether or not we acknowledge science in science class, I have to wonder about you. If the Creator of the universe is great enough to create the universe, then He also created all the processes within the universe. Acknowledging and studying such processes, in my opinion, does not negate the existence of the Creator. To suggest that the existence of one negates the possibility of the existence of the other is, in my opinion, a pointless exercise in division, the purpose of which is to turn enlightenment backward, not forward.

Contrary to popular Southern right-wing propaganda, to be “left of far-right” is not necessarily to be athiestic. And to acknowledge the rights of others to make their own determinations of belief does not equate to a lack of belief in one’s own heart. To insist that it is, however, is indicative of both intolerance and arrogance.

Arrogance, you say? Why yes, I do. If the Creator of the Universe is SO GREAT that He created the whole universe, then I posit that He is far too great, vast, huge, and of such high intelligence, that the understanding of said Creator, or explanation by a mere mortal such as yourself is most likely not even remotely possible. In other words, it IS possible to believe in God without believing that men quoting books have any clue whatso-freaking-ever as to who or what HE really is. Thank you.

By Kevin

November 13, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this

72John,

I don’t have much time to respond - I have a busy day today. However, I believe that conservatives and liberals alike need to remove the specs from their eyes. I am no more closed-minded than you or Lozen.

Elton John has a tremendous political impact because he IS a public figure. Why do you think politicians get entertainers to stump for them? The claim is not laughable, but your refusal to take the issue seriously is.

To end on an agreeable note - I was wrong with the “lifestyle choice” comment.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

For some reason conservative ideologues just can’t understand that believing in a wall of seperation doesn’t make you an anti-God stormtrooper intent on kicking down the doors of the churches and forcing the faithful into the streets to marry gay people and get abortions.

Dangit, does this mean I have to take my Stormtrooper outfit back? Come to think of it, I AM a little short for a Stormtrooper…

By Jack

November 13, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Does anyone else think it’s getting warm in here?

By 2D

November 13, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this

John… Kevin never said that Elton John chose his sexuality, he said that Elton John chose his lifestyle. Those are two entirely different things. Sexuality does not determine a lifestyle. Individuals do.

Gay people choose a heterosexual lifestyle. Gay and straight people choose a celebate lifestyle. Shoot, I know a straight person who chose a gay lifestyle after she got out of a bad divorce (again I state that I believe this to be true).

By Jack

November 13, 2006 01:57 PM | Link to this

If God had not intended for Man to eat p—-y, he would not have made it look like a taco. LOL

By GOB

November 13, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Again let me say we here in Georgia are not like the majority of “nuts” you will find on this site. We are good church going, loyal Americans, who have enough will power to keep our FAITH in place. Have we questioned things our parents taught us, absolutely, however common sense has brought most of us back to the basic values that made this country great(faith and character). Please excuse these other people, they are just weak.

Isnt Randy the person who admitted to having to ask his pastor if inter-racial dating wasnt a sin?? Or was that one of the other “good church going, loyal Americans, who have enough will power to keep our FAITH in place.”

By The72John

November 13, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

John… Kevin never said that Elton John chose his sexuality, he said that Elton John chose his lifestyle. Those are two entirely different things. Sexuality does not determine a lifestyle. Individuals do.

Sorry, but that is BS semantics used by religious conservatives when their “it’s a choice” argument fails. The only “lifestyle” choice that Sir Elton made was to be true to himself and be happy. It’s a “choice” that billions of heterosexuals “make” every day without having to justify it to anyone.

Funny how it’s only a “lifestyle” when it involves gay people. I don’t see people walking around blabbering about the “heterosexual lifestyle”.

Elton John has a tremendous political impact because he IS a public figure. Why do you think politicians get entertainers to stump for them? The claim is not laughable, but your refusal to take the issue seriously is.

I just have to shake my head at this…answer Mara’s question…do you honestly think that any mainstream liberal is going to try to outlaw religion? What’s laughable is that you think that the irritation of someone who has suffered life-long persecution at the hands of people much like you is in any way equatable to very real discriminatory laws being pushed right now by religious conservatives.

Let’s have a reality check, shall we?

By Mara

November 13, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

kimberly - it IS possible to believe in God without believing that men quoting books have any clue whatso-freaking-ever as to who or what HE really is

nice post. well said.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this

If God had not intended for Man to eat p—-y, he would not have made it look like a taco. LOL

and since we are from the ocean, made it taste like tuna.

That sounds like a good Halloween costume for next year, StormTrooper or German U-Boat Commander(for that one, I would only need the leather cap)

By Monica

November 13, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

Okay, we can all agree to disagree on homosexuality, abortion, and religion? Can we please for one week discuss other issues without “die”-gressing into the three topics on which we will never agree? Let’s look at other issues plaguing the nation - there are other issues right? Gas prices, immigration, education, taxes… As a teacher, I suggest that Pelosi introduce legislation that overtuns NCLB - the program whose hidden agenda is to eliminate public schools and make private school vouchers available to all.

By 2D

November 13, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

John… I’m sorry if you don’t agree, but it’s not semantics. To believe that humans do not have the ability to choose their own actions implies that humans are controlled by their base instincts and unable to make decisions that may contradict them.

For example. We know that many people, based on genetics, have a greater propensity for addiction. An individual can then choose to refrain from addictive behaviors (i.e. drinking, smoking, etc.) or attempt to partake and become addicted.

Another example is the chocie that many people make to remain in committed, monogamous relationships. While tempted (and if anyone says they aren’t they are liars) many folks refrain. That is a choice.

One other thing… I never said anything one way or the other about whether I agreed or disagreed with Elton John or any other gay person. I made the statement there is a difference. Nothing more. Nothing less.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

As a teacher, I suggest that Pelosi introduce legislation that overtuns NCLB

I think Pelosi’s concerns are going to have to be broader than this - she’s going to need to create a cohesive platform that people can get excited about and buy into. While education IS a very important issue, just abolishing NCLB rather than trying to seriously address education issues just falls into the “anything but Bush” trap of no ideas that the Republicans WANT her to.

By Kevin

November 13, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this

72John,

Mainsteam liberals - no. Hardcore leftwigers that I refered to in my earlier post - yes.

Monica - sorry, this mess was my fault. I promise no more posts on this subject today from me!

By Jack

November 13, 2006 02:43 PM | Link to this

Ditto what Mara said about Kim’s post.

We won’t know until we die. Faith is good but we still won’t really know until it’s too late. I saw the bright light and was yanked back. I saw no relatives or Angels or Devils. It may just be the process all living things go through before it is over. I want to be here on terra firma as long as I can for my wife and sons but I no longer fear death. When it’s your time, it’s your time.

By Monica

November 13, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Point taken, John. I was just steering in another direction. You navigated the point nicely!

By The72John

November 13, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this

Mainsteam liberals - no. Hardcore leftwigers that I refered to in my earlier post - yes.

Can you identify actual “hardcore leftwingers” currently in politics or even remotely on the FRINGE of politics who want to legislatively eliminate religion?

By Scalia

November 13, 2006 03:07 PM | Link to this

I’m confused. what is a gay lifestyle? Does that mean that you love dance music, love fashion, and screeching divas? Because that doesn’t apply to every gay person. You can look at Billy Bean and Esera Tuolo as two examples. Tuolo was a good linebacker when he played football, and Billy Bean was a very good baseball player. And 72John can hold his own with any straight guy when it comes to sports. So once again, what is a gay lifestyle?

By lozen

November 13, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Yes, Kimberly. But you don’t really think Randy can understand that do you? Randy is one of the weak minded who needs to have someone tell him what to think, believe, and do. Thank you GOB for mentioning Randy having to ask his minister if interracial dating/marriage was a sin! There are a lot of people who just can’t think for themselves due to lack of education and being brainwashed by simple-minded religion all their lives. And Kevin, I did retract my statement right after I made it. Kimberly is very intelligent and had intelligent parents who taught her to think for herself. I still believe, however, having been around southern baptists all my life, that 99.9% are ignorant and never get past “My daddy can beat up your daddy” in their immature religion.

By The72John

November 13, 2006 03:19 PM | Link to this

Billy Bean was a very good baseball player

Heh - I think it’s stretching it a little to call him a very good baseball player. He was a solid utility player with decent numbers for his role.

Of course, anyone who makes it to the Show would qualify as “very good” when compared to all us rubes, huh :-)

By lozen

November 13, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this

Why it’s so simple Scalia. Gay life-style means a man having - ugh - sex - yuk- with “it’s a big old sin” another man. It jest ain’t natural, it jest ain’t natural. The good lord made women with tacos and men with weinies and that’s because they go together and that’s what everbody needs to do with their tacos and weinies. If they do anything else with them that is a sin and it makes me sick to think about it and it’s bad, yukky, sin, unnatural! So that there’s the answer to what they mean by gay lifestyle. John… I’m sorry if you don’t agree, but it’s not semantics. To believe that humans do not have the ability to choose their own actions implies that humans are controlled by their “base instincts” and unable to make decisions that may contradict them. And you have sex with your wife/girlfriend I suppose. No different from 72John or Tim having sex with their husbands/boyfriends. What is base about that? Sex is a basic drive in humans, yes. Gay people do not choose to feel sexual toward someone of the same sex. They just feel that way! You didn’t choose to feel sexual toward females did you? No, you just do. You are one of those people who believes a gay person should deny themselves a loving, sexual relationship all their lives?

By Troglodyke

November 13, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

I’d like to weigh in on the 72John vs. 2D debate about homosexuality being a choice or not.

I acknowledged my lesbianism 22 years ago, but I remember being about 13 when I first realized I didn’t really find boys all that interesting or special. Most of my peers had come out of the pre-pubescent “awkward” stage and started thinking about boys, and here I was, as pubescent as they, and not feeling the connection. (This was despite the fact that I attended a Catholic school, and I was told on a weekly basis what “not liking boys” was going to spell for me.)

After spending my high school years trying to make myself “feel something” with various boys, I fell in love with a woman, and my whole world turned inside out. When we finally became intimate, it was as if I’d been thirsting in the desert and finally found a mountain stream. The chemistry—emotional and physical—was amazing, and instant. I knew.

Did I make a choice? You bet I did. I chose to follow my heart, instead of choosing to keep trying to fit into a mold.

I chose a lesbian lifestyle because it was my path, plain and simple. I did NOT choose to have feelings for women that overshadowed feelings for men. I chose to follow a path that would mean I could not always be open about my feelings—a path that sometimes caused my pain because of societal expectations.

I chose to act upon what I knew to be my true self. THAT’S where the choice lies. Yes, 2D, the homosexual lifestyle IS a choice. However, the fact that some people are drawn sexually and emotionally to the same sex, over and over, despite all the attempts of their families and their misguided church leaders, is completely biological.

I could have ignored my inner self, and chosen to become a wife, and have kids, and “be straight.” I absolutely could have chosen a hetero lifestyle. But I would have been miserable, and the choice would not have been for any of the right reasons.

Unfortunately, many gays consider to hold forth that gayness involves NO choice. I know why they do it; I did it for a long time. They do it because the religionists cannot understand the line between biology and making one’s path in the world. To a fundamentalist, gays choose their biology as well as their lifestyle—it’s one and the same. (Religionists like to pretend biology doesn’t exist.)

In their perverted and narrow worldview, it’s ALL a choice, because then “god hasn’t messed up” and they can continue to demonize us as sinners. As long as it’s all a choice, the fundies have the power.

Only part of it is really a choice—but they cannot wrap their religion-addled brains around this concept. Not only that, but if it’s not a choice, then who else is left to demonize?

Here’s what I say to them:

My choice to follow my heart does not affect you, your church, your family, or the community in any measurably negative way. If you are offended, that’s YOUR choice, and you can choose differently. Life is made up of millions of choices. I choose to live authentically, to refrain from harming others, and to be a productive citizen, among other things. You choose to be judgmental and to believe that an unprovable fairy-god exists in the sky who is really obsessed with my sex life.

Whose choices are more normal? Yours or mine?

Living authentically IS a choice. I choose to live my life as a lesbian. SO WHAT? If you honestly think your made-up sky fairy cares, then you have way too much time on your hands.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Back on that tuna thing, guys, is that why GOD made sperm look like tartar sauce?

By lozen

November 13, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Troglodyke! You deserve the tiara today? Where is that damn thing anyway?

By The72John

November 13, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

If you honestly think your made-up sky fairy cares, then you have way too much time on your hands

I LOLd. Made-up sky fairy FTW!

By Kevin

November 13, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

72John,

You must be a lawyer at heart, because you have asked a question that you already know the answer to. No, I can’t name anyone because it would be political suicide for any politician to take that stance publicly. You also know that there are a FEW Federal and state lawmakers that would support banning religion if they had public support.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

P.S. to GOB: What are your favorite Teaching Company courses? I’m almost finished with one of their new offerings, “Superstring Theory: The DNA of Reality”. Very well done, the professor is a black man to boot.

Jack, now I know why you like sushi so much! I saw “Ray” this weekend, and agree that it was moving. My only complaint was tht they could have shortened it by 20 minutes and not lost any punch.

By onceuponatime

November 13, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Tartar sauce? I think it looks like that stuff you cough up when you have the flu!

By 2D

November 13, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Lozen… You assume I am a man. Who ever said that I was. I’m sure I never did.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

Banning religion would be the necessary first step in helping human beings grow up and become spiritual adults fer shur!

By 2D

November 13, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Lozen… I never said that any gay person should deny themselves a sexual relationship. I never said that people choose to be attracted to people of the same sex. I said people choose the sexual relationships in which they engage.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

onceuponatime: I hope you haven’t been coughing any up lately.

2D—If you’re not a man, then I’m not Freewheelin’ Franklin!

By GOB

November 13, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this

Bruno - The courses I have enjoyed the most were the ones on Ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, all of the Bart Erhman lecture series, the History of the US, etc. So mostly the historical and religious ones.

By 2D

November 13, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Trog… Your last line is correct. Noone should care if you live your life in a lesbian relationship. I know I certainly don’t.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

But then, I’m not a politician. I’m not even an entertainer. I’m just one person who listens to ppl like Randy and Zack and Chuck and thinks, “Why would anybody with an IQ over 85 want to associate themselves with something like that?” This heterosexual life style, BTW, is pretty sickening to me. My son was telling me about a sex club off Monroe Drive where heterosexuals go to have anonymous group sex. It costs a lot of money to get in the place, you take your own liquor, and them heterosexuals have sex with different people on mattresses on the floor using no protection. Those heterosexuals need to be banned from gettin’ married I tell you!

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

GOB—You’re my man!!!!! The Ancient Egypt and Rome series were great. I also enjoyed the History of the US. Professor Allitt was especially impressive in the US History course, as well as in another course called the American Identity, in which he profiles influential Americans, from Louisa May Alcott to Rockefeller.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

FF, Very well done, the professor is a black man to boot. Whoooooooo, hoooooooo! A well done course by a black man! Well, whoopee FF. You expose yourself so well!

By Kevin

November 13, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

Monica,

My deepest apologies - I broke my word.

72John - no more responses from me - you get the last word since I have already broken my promise to Monica once. Oh, since I am a teacher and should know better, you can count off 5 pts. for ending a sentence with a preposition in my 3:53 post! BTW - are you a writer? I am impressed with the quality of your posts, even though I may disagree with the content!

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this

In the religion courses, GOB, it’s hard to argue with Bart Erhman’s knowledge of the facts. However, I think Luke Timothy Johnson does a much better job of presenting the material in a way that leaves the door open for faith.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

So people are so stupid as to think religion can be banned? (and get all alarmed over Elton John’s comments) Look at the Puritans vs TheChurch of England, Mormonism vs. the Protestants of the era, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I am sure many can find a basement to secretly meet in.

Wait, what’s that I hear, the King’s Horsemen? In Black Suburbans? Ssshh, put the books away.

By GOB

November 13, 2006 04:14 PM | Link to this

GOB—You’re my man!!!!!

Oh no…

By 2D

November 13, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Franklin… then perhaps you’re not freewheelin’?

If you knew the nature of my screenname, you’d know more about me, but then that would give practically give away my gender and race, which I purposely keep off the board. The only thing I have given up is that I am GenX which gives a relative age range.

You see, I know how these people are. If people like John and Lozen and Randy and Chuck know those persoanl details, they will immediately color your statements based on that information. I don’t want that. I want my opinions taken at face value with as few slanted thoughts as humanly possible. I know that is a grand task, but oh well. It is worth the try.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

But I will encourage you strongly, GOB, to order the Physics courses from The Teaching Company ASAP. The courses by Richard Wolfson are the best. IMO, to form a coherent vision of GOD, you must understand Einstein’s observations first. Otherwise, you are stuck with the false dichotomy of NO GOD or The-Big-Man-In-The-Sky vision pushed in churches. There is another vision possible, but it takes more imagination than most people can muster.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

lozen, I mentioned that one of the top superstring physicist is black, because it is so rare to find “people of color” in the world of Science. This is always explained away by racism, but I think it is due more to genetic makeup. If we can accept that being homosexual is due to DNA, why is it wrong to believe that racial differences are genetic as well?

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Lozen - I have heard of disgusting places like that as well. You know how them heteroes are, giving in to their most base bodily/sexual needs, picking up playmates in bars, getting married to a member of the opposite sex, having babies, (and evryting, sounding like Vern).

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

I don’t think 2D has ever announced her gender…LOL

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

2D—I always imagined your blog name to mean “2 Dimensional”, due to your humility and knowledge of Science. That would be a humble way to say “I know just a little….”. I claim at least 8D, myself.

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

STOP THE PRESSES: the head of Symantec, the anti-computer-virus company, is a Black Man, John W. Thompson. Gasp.

j/k(but he is)

By Chilao

November 13, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

The Puritans were actually known as The Separatists in both England and Holland, before coming to the new world.

By Troglodyke

November 13, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

There is another vision possible, but it takes more imagination than most people can muster.

If I was going to believe in a god, I’d be most inclined to believe in the god contained in the Conversations With God book series by Neale Donald Walsch. That concept of god makes the most sense of any concept of god to me. When I read those books, I think, “Gee, I don’t really believe that god spoke to this guy as an “outside source,” but how awesome would it be if even a small portion of current Xtians would read these books and believe in this concept of god?”

The god in those books is a fairytale I could see the benefit of mankind knowing. It’s still a fairytale, but abandoning the outdated religious concepts that currently bog down our world and threaten to destroy our very existence could not be a bad thing.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

I champion black achievement, Chilao. However, call me crazy, but I only honor those who have earned their positions through merit, not through racism. That’s why I have little time for most black politicians, like Bill Campbell, who talk out of both sides of their mouths on the way into office, but eventually make it clear who they are there to serve.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

Because noone has found any scientific difference between the brains of people of color and the brains of people of no color, you idiot. Although plenty of people have tried, haven’t they?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Puritanism is another extreme form of Calvinism, Chilao. When I read about John Calvin’s life and beliefs, it is hard for me to see why he was so popular. You didn’t want to get on the bad side of the Puritans, trust me. Thank GOD most of the influential men like Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, etc. were NOT Puritans when our original government was set up, or else we likely wouldn’t have religious freedom.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

Oh, and 2D. Please change my “boyfriend/husband” to “significant other.” Like it makes a big, huge difference whether you are male or female.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

Troglodyke, I haven’t read any of those books although they have been recommended by friends. What is the god of *Conversations With God” all about?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this

Trog, at the risk of being redundant (and you know how much I HATE to repeat myself, right, Chilao?), the vision of GOD which makes the most sense to me comes from the world of theoretical Physics, not from fairy tale books like the Bible.

Although, I still maintain that the Physics version of Immanuel is consistent with both Science and the Bible, as far as my studies have revealed. Immanuel = GOD Within. This is very different from an “external God”, and does away with the need for a supernatural being.

By lozen

November 13, 2006 04:50 PM | Link to this

I only honor those who have earned their positions through merit, not through racism. Then why do you bring up Jefferson, Washington, Adams and Franklin in your next post? All white men who earned their positions through racism (people of color and women could not vote to elect them/or not remember?)

By Tim

November 13, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

When we finally became intimate, it was as if I’d been thirsting in the desert and finally found a mountain stream

yeah I found that stream my first time too

and now with my second breath… let me state… it’s about more than sex people… it’s not just the fact of being sexually attracted to someone… actually being in love with the person plays just a small role too… I cannot love a woman that way… sorry… something in my soul gives that love to another man

ok ok… I admit… the sex ain’t bad either

oh yeah and I really don’t care for tacos or hotdogs

p.s. thanks mah… you speak for me anytime… you and Kimberly do a great job ;-)

By The72John

November 13, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

people like John and Lozen and Randy and Chuck know those persoanl details, they will immediately color your statements based on that information

I don’t think I have ever let gender or race color my impressions of anyone on this board…

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

lozen, Science question for you? If homosexuality, which is primarily a behavior is believed to be genetic in origin, then how could you believe that racial differences, including measured differences in intelligence, are NOT genetic?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 13, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Trog, without the sex, why else put up with all the crap that goes along with a relationship?

By Troglodyke

November 13, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this

I haven’t read any of those books although they have been recommended by friends. What is the god of *Conversations With God” all about?

Think heavily philosophical, Lozen. Think the antithesis of Xtian dogma. Think..reasonable, and even believeable on many levels.

Here is a Wikipedia entry I found that explains it a bit:

**Containing over 720 pages of material in total, the trilogy presents a vast number of ideas. However, “God” in Book 3 presents three concepts which are central to the entire dialogue:

The first statement is understood to mean that all things in the universe are essentially one thing: God. The second statement, following from the first, means that we, being one with God, lack nothing and therefore always have enough of whatever we need (or the means to create it) within us. The final statement combines the first two to conclude that God, being all there is and always sufficient unto Itself, has no need of anything and therefore has no requirements of humanity.**

There’s more there in Wikipedia, but as I abhor Chuck and Randy’s constant biblical quoting on this board, I won’t post it. You can read the rest of the entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConversationswithGod

There is a CwG website, www.conversationswithgod.org, but it doesn’t offer much explanation of the concepts, and isn’t much help to folks who haven’t read the books. It used to have a lot of the core concepts on it, but it doesn’t anymore.

It didn’t turn me away from atheism, but all of the books were interesting to read, for sure. There is now a movie out about the author’s life and the CwG phenomenon. I have no idea if it is any good.

By 2D

November 14, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Trog… Interesting Wikipedia post. I had not heard of that book series either, but would offer some parallels from a very famous Christian theologian. If a person read some of the writings of Martin Luther, I gather you’d recognize similar concepts.

Point 1. While Luther may not say that we are all one, he would say that God created everything and subsequently everything is loved by God.

Point 2. Luther agrees that God provides everything we need for a healthy and happy life. He would probably toss in that we simply need to accept it. Not EARN it, but accept it.

Point 3. He would absolutely agree that we are not obligated to complete any works for God’s approval. It was his abhorrance of this idea that caused him to challenge the Roman Catholic church. He believe that God’s grace provided our salvation, not any work we completed, or money we gave.

Of course, a short post does not do Luther justice, but it at least gives a glimpse.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

A short HISTORY lesson.

The Protestant population of England during the latter half of the sixteenth century (1550-1600) had divided into three sects—the Conformists, the Puritans, and the Separatists or Brownists. The Conformists claimed for their church more than human authority and for its earthly head supreme power in the State as well as in the Church.

The Puritans were in and of the established church but objected to many of the ceremonies, such as the ring in marriage, the sign of the cross in baptisms, showy vestments, receiving evil livers to the communion. They believed in reform within the church and opposed separation from the church as a deadly sin. Their ministers were oppressed and ruined by excessive fines. The sharp measures against the Puritan clergy called together in defense of liberty and law a great political party which during the reign of James I. (1602-1623) formed the majority in the House of Commons. The settlers of Massachusetts Bay were Puritans—Non-Conformists who at the outset had apparently no intention of separating from the Church of England.

The Separatists, however, did not recognize the established church, and some of them, at least, doubted that the Church of England was scriptual or that its administrations were valid. They held that any convenient number of believers might form a church and make or unmake their officers as they saw fit; that over the spiritual affairs of the church no bishop, council, synod, court, or sovereign had authority. Other churches of the same faith might no, unasked, even offer advice. Their pastors had no standing outside the parish. They were Separatists, Independents, or Congregationalists. The first independent church in England, however, was opened in Long in 1616 by the Rev. John Lothrop, afterwards the famous pioneer preacher of Barnstable, Mass., who had been won from Puritanism to Separatism by Robinson in Holland.

The Separatists, though few in number, were cruelly persecuted under Mary (1553-1558). In 1567-1569, under Elizabeth, a London congregation was thrown into prison. The men and women died of the horrors of their prisons. They were allowed while in prison neither clothing or food, and subsisted upon donations that came through their jailers. The few Puritans who were thrown into prison were mostly clergymen, whose prison life was comparatively mild. The Separatists, however, suffered not only from the persecutions of the established church, but encountered also, says Bradford, the sharp invective of the Puritans, who stirred up not only hostility at home, but even prejudiced the reformed clergy of other countries against the Separatist refugees. From 1660 to 1688 sixty thousand non-conformists and dissenters were cast into English prisons.

In 1580, Robert Brown (born in 1549), educated at Cambridge, afterwards schoolmaster at Southwark, and lecturer at Islington, made a furious Separatist crusade, but the next year fled to Holland. Returning in 1586 he renewed his work, but soon re-entered the established church. Brown’s efforts greatly embittered the controversy.

For distributing Brown’s books John Copping and Elias Thatcher were hanged after trial before Judge Popham. The same year a preacher, William Dennis, was hanged. In 1593 three Cambridge scholars, John Perry, John Greenwood and Henry Barrow were hanged for teaching Separatism. Soon after, banishment, under penalty of death in case of return, was established as the punishment of Separatism. The oppression of the Separatists was successfully continued until in 1603 upon the accession of James I. In the whole kingdom there appears to have been but one Separatist church, that at Gainsborough, in charge of a pastor, John Smyth. In 1605 the Gainsborough flock fled to Amsterdam, leaving behind a few scattered friends at Scrooby, twelve miles to the west of Gainsborough in the Hundred of Basset Lawe, in Nottinghamshire, England.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 08:55 AM | Link to this

In other words, the PURITANS were not separatists. They wanted to reform the church from within and do away with the corruption and “ritual” that had basically reverted the Anglican Church back to being a sort of “Catholic Light”.

The PILGRIMS on the other hand WERE SEPARATISTS. They believed that the church was too far gone and was beyond any reform. They left and went to Holland where they were persecuted as well. They finally ended up in America in 1620 and established Plymouth Colony. Unfortunately for them they were pretty much absorbed by the Puritans who established Massachusetts Bay Colony and expanded from there after 1630.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

The rest of the Conformist/Puritan/Separatist discussion go to:

http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/colonial/religion/history.html

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Thanks Chuck, for reminding us the horrors that men commit against each other in the name of religion. That’s why, for the most part, religion sucks. It has little, if anything, to do with God, and much to do with power, money, and control. It’s a bunch of men thinking THEY know what’s what, when in reality, the small mind of a man cannot truly grasp the greatness of his Creator. I think it’s easier for women to accept that there are things we simply cannot know, as we’ve always been taught that our own perceptions are far less valid than what men (or men quoting ancient text) tell us about the world, God, and ourselves. How many women do you see leading great flocks of believers, only to “shame” them with “sins” that are contrary to everything they’ve preached (and amassed fortunes for preaching) for years? Heh. Glad you’re starting to see the light, Chuck! Perhaps by Christmas you’ll see that you’ve been inhibiting, not promoting, peace on earth. The epiphany will be great, and I shall rejoice with you, brother. It’s never too late!

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Correct, Chuck, my bad, was going from a recent Smithsonian article about the Pilgrims, which we use the same as Puritans, in spite of being completely different(not the time to use the word ‘separate’, is it?….LOL)

By chuck

November 14, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Kimmie, I fully acknowledge that the,

mind of a man cannot truly grasp the greatness of his Creator

That does not however mean that we cannot comprehend what He has TOLD us through His word.

By Kevin

November 14, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

2-D

Great post @ 8:31

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Go to Plimouth Plantation(Plymouth, MA), highly recommended. They (when I was there) spend alot of time preaching and worshipping(24/7) with strong words about how RIGHT they are.

They also support the Rare Breeds Conservatory so they have alot of interesting livestock you do not usually see nowadays. I asked one of the guys, a teenager, if the cows were Dexter-Kerrys. He replied(in costume, heavy accent) “They’re just heifers, just heifers”, which they were AT THE TIME(1627) to them. Just “heifers”.

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this

Well, Chuck, we only have YOUR word for that, don’t we? Certainly the behavior of men who claim to act according to “the word” does more to contradict this word than to confirm it. But that’s just my perception… you know, based on the eyes, ears, and mind endowed upon me by my actual Creator. (BTW, my Creator also instilled within me a b-llsh-t detector. Beep beep beep beep! Nope, not sending my money to the good Rev. Haggard, Robertson, or Falwell! But you go right ahead, Dear.)

By lozen

November 14, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Kimberly, I am so glad you post on this blog! Your response to Chuck this morning is brilliant.

Troglodyke, thanks for the lesson. I’m familiar with those concepts of course; I used to live in San Francisco ;-)! I flirted with new age ideas for a while but met some pretty crazy ppl and some very closed minded ppl there too. One of my roommates told me all about how the angels are flying around in space ships waiting to rescue those of us with pure hearts when the end comes. Archangel Michael (?) is the head of the unit! If your heart isn’t pure you can’t be taken up on some kind of beam because you’ll be too heavy!

2D, had no idea Martin Luther thought along those lines. I saw the movie about him too ;->. The more advanced religious ideas, of the few thinkers in every religion , always seem to get buried under mediocrity unfortunately.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Historians went back and analyzed both birth dates and marriage dates of Puritans, late 1600s. They were able to conclude that 30 percent of Puritan brides were pregnant at the time of marriage. Unknown, of course, is did the pregnancy CAUSE the need to marry, or did fertilization occur AFTER engagement/commitment.

But it puts a new slant on how Pure(using the commonly understood venacular for that kind of activity) the Puritans actually were.

If you were to apply the logic of SOME nowadays, some right here on this blog, that might make 30 percent of the Puritan women basically sluts and Hos. I jest, of course. LOL

By Renee

November 14, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Troglodyke…excellent posts yesterday!!

By lozen

November 14, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

Funny how easy it is for some to just accept that a book of folk lore written by the hebrews thousands of years ago is the one and only version of the one true god’s teachings. (My daddy is better than your daddy!) That’s where the rules come from for everything. Never mind that we live in a totally different time and world and everything has changed since then! The rules Moses handed down (supposedly from his one true god) are the rules we should follow now. The old testament says a man who lies with a man is an abomination. So that’s the truth!!! Ignore the fact that Yeshua, founder of your religion, never said a word about it one way or the other. Ignore the fact that he said “love your neighbor as yourself,” ignore the fact that he said, “The kingdom of heaven is within you,” and “judge not.” And still call yourself a xtian! Why not admit that you’re a follower of barbaric desert nomads who lived 2,000 years ago?

By chuck

November 14, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Yep Lozen, everybody is crazy EXCEPT YOU (admittedly, those people WERE crazy also). Everybody is close-minded but you. The hubris you exude on this blog is unbelieveable.

I could understand your positions if they were based on some authority, but you just say, “This is what makes sense to me, so it must be right.” If you start out with the wrong PREMISE, guess what? Your conclusions will be wrong also.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

The recent Luther, which I saw, got more into the Church’s reaction to him posting on the church door.(VERBOTEN!) Apparently there was one(movie) back in the 1940s, black and white, that got into the CONTENT of what he posted on the church door, item by item. I told my Mom about seeing Luther and she made mention of seeing the earlier one.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Chilao, it would make 30 percent of the Puritan woman “sluts and hos” and 30 percent of the Puritan men “studs and real men,” right? Just can’t resist pointing out the double standard females still live with every day no matter where it comes from, y’all. I learned those facts about the Puritans pre-marriage pregnancy rates in an American History course in college. Weren’t they also the ones who “bundled”? They could sleep together once they were engaged with a board between them? I guess a few managed to slip over/under/through that board!

By The72John

November 14, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

Historians went back and analyzed both birth dates and marriage dates of Puritans, late 1600s. They were able to conclude that 30 percent of Puritan brides were pregnant at the time of marriage. Unknown, of course, is did the pregnancy CAUSE the need to marry, or did fertilization occur AFTER engagement/commitment.

In a small population with short life expectancy it would be very important to maximize your potential population growth. Infertile couples would not be of benefit to the society, so potential mates engaged in premarital sex in order to determine if they were capable of producing children.

By blablabla

November 14, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

All white men who earned their positions through racism (people of color and women could not vote to elect them/or not remember?)

umm, am i the only one who took a history course around here where the history of voting was discussed?

By The72John

November 14, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

If you start out with the wrong PREMISE, guess what? Your conclusions will be wrong also.

Yes, much like the PREMISE “The Bible is the word of God”.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

No Chuckie not everybody is crazy except me. Not everybody is closed-minded but me. (Isn’t it funny how Chuck tosses insults at others that describe him perfectly?) Kimberly, 72John, BrianCurtis, Renee, Chilao, Lyrazel, RF, Tim, Jack, (I know I’m forgetting somebody, forgive me) are all perfectly sane and open minded. On this blog it’s just you, Randy and Zack that are crazy and have closed minds.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

I could understand your positions if they were based on some authority. Whose authority? Some old dead white man? The kingdom of god is within me and the only authority I will ever answer to is also within me.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Lozen - but of course; studs and real men are able to pass on their genes and there is only one way to prove that. LOL. Actually, there is a term used in some circles nowadays, ManHo, I use/prefer the word Lizard instead.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this

The name “Puritans” came form the movement to PURIFY the CHURCH. They were very legalistic in their practices. There are some groups like that today, but most of us are not LEGALISTIC. Contrary to what many of you believe, I am not legalistic. There are some issues that I have spoken on on the blog that might lead you to believe that. There is a difference between talking about what is and isn’t a sin and advocating what some of you have accused me of such as having gays killed or beaten up, etc. I have said many times that I do not advocate that.

The Puritans are NOT the model for the Christian church, but neither was the Anglican church of that day. There is a huge difference between PROCLAIMING the Word of God and being legalistic. The biggest problem today is that the church has lost its message. Too many churches are preaching a “SOCIAL” gospel rather than THE Gospel. It is a matter of degree. If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God as I do, then we are required by that Word to proclaim it. Anybody can “keep” rules they make up themselves. Hey, I don’t like that rule so I’m going to change it. It doesn’t work that way. God is the same Yesterday today and forever.

It is people that pervert the Gospel by deciding for themselves what is right. We can no more dictate terms to God than we can a court of law if we stand accused of a crime. God is the judge and that judgement is based on His word.

By The72John

November 14, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this

There are some groups like that today, but most of us are not LEGALISTIC. Contrary to what many of you believe, I am not legalistic

Do they not have lightning where you live, Chuck? I’d be very, very careful abot making such blatantly false statments.

By 2D

November 14, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

Lozen… And I thought we were going to be buds today.

Please don’t lambaste the Bible based on the actions and teachings that humans put forth based on those writings. Men like Luther took their teachings from the Bible the same as men like Jerry Fallwell albeit with very different outcomes. IMO, human and their (mis)understandings are the problem, not the text itself.

The movie about Luther was good, although, Joseph Fiennes does not resemble him in the least. I really began to read about him when I read an article that named him as the second most influencial man of the last half century (behind Guttenberg). If you are interested in that wavelength of Christianity, you may also want to read about Bonhoeffer. He was a Lutheran theologian who lived in Germany during WWII and subsequently sent to a concentration camp and executed for his part in a plot to kill Hitler (not all church leaders were complicit).

His main claim to fame was that assasination attempt and refuting the idea of “cheap grace”. Much too difficult to explain in a few sentences, so I will leave it to you for your own review.

i know it took a while, but the point was this… Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to people of faith. Like any group of people, there are constructive and destructive forces found within. Rather than give the destructive ones credence, I want to point the constructive ones, the ones that would provide a better light and face of the faith. Ones that the world cannot bring down with venomous rhetoric.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Lozen, in those history courses you took, how were you graded? Did the professor give you a syllabus? Was the grade based on your performance in relationship to that syllabus?

You see, Lozen, you didn’t choose how you would be graded. There was a STANDARD. We don’t get to choose how we are judged either. God is SOVEREIGN. You made an interesting statement:

The kingdom of god is within me and the only authority I will ever answer to is also within me.

On what do you base this claim? I’m just curious as to how you arrived at that conclusion.

By 2D

November 14, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this

Chuck… If that last post you made about the standard against which we will be judged is not legalistic, then I must need some guidance on what legalistic means.

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Oh man… Chuckie…. you’re so close! Bear with me now: How can YOU prove that the “authority” lies in some book? Just because men reproduced it zillions of times? That was MAN, not the Creator. The Creator made the trees to change color against the bright blue Autumn sky, no matter what men did to each other throughout the Spring and Summer. I believe in the Creator. Why should we belive in YOU, Chuckie? You cannot sprout forth a mustard seed from a mountain, can you? If the Creator can speak to the trees and tell them to turn bright red and orange and yellow, day by day, until we gasp in awe, and He can speak to the salmon, that they migrate hundreds of miles and swim upstream nearly to death to spawn, and speak to the butterflies or the sandhill cranes to migrate to just the right place to not only survive the winter, but find just the right paradise for their needs, then why can’t the Creator speak to us individually? Does he not love us as much as the salmon and the butterflies? What is that voice within us that says, “See that lonely person there? Go comfort.” And we do. Or the voice that says, “What you’re thinking of doing is the easy thing, but not the right thing” and we nod and we know what to do. Or the voice that says, “Save yourself NOW!” when we are in danger… How did we know?

Your assertion that the only authority comes from a book that a bunch of power grabbers reproduced and shoved at us in the name of “authority” to take our money and pledge our obedience is beyond arrogant! Think, man! Your Creator gave you this ability, did He not?

By lozen

November 14, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this

As much as you may doubt this Chuck, I have a conscience and intelligence and experience of 59+ years on this planet. I have standards, morals, and beliefs that guide my behavior. They are not based on the bible. I bet my behavior is just as good as yours if we were judged by a fair and unbiased judge! My college courses and grading are inventions of men just as the bible is man’s invention. I have read the bible and gone to church. I’ve read Greek philosophy and gone to school. I’ve studied Buddhism and meditated. My spiritual life is important to me. I’ve been reading about religion and philosophy for years and years. I’ve also observed the behavior of xtians, buddhists, muslims, atheists and agnostics. I do not say there is no truth in the bible. There is some wisdom and truth in the bible. “The kingdom of heaven is within you,” lines up with my direct experience.

By The72John

November 14, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

2D - it’s all well and good, and perfectly legitimate, to recognize those constructive forces you mention. However, one can not simply dismiss the destructive forces for fear of giving credence to them. To do so is naive and akin to the proverbial burying of one’s head in the sand.

History seems to support that the destructive forces of religion - most of them, at least - are far stronger and more influential to the constructive ones. For every Bonhoeffer there are 10 Pius XIIs. For every Luther there are 100 Cotton Mathers.

Even if the average rank-and-file member of an organization is basically good, when the power structure is fundamentally corrupt, how can good ultimately come from the organization? Every day we are exposed to examples of corruption and ethical misconduct at the highest levels of religious establishments. How do you simply “discount” that?

If the bathwater is poisonous, then the baby doesn’t do much good. It drowns in the poison and never has a chance to make up for the sins of the water.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

Legalism is the strict, literal adherence to the law. For the legalist the laws and rites of Christianity are the letter of the law and fundamentalist conformity to the traditions of men in the denominational interpretation of the Bible. Religious acts are the ultimate norms of life.

2D, the LEGALISTS, makes a list of rules that they decide best suits themselves and then force everyone to follow them. For instance, I know of churches that you cannot continue to be a member of if you don’t tithe. There are churches that teach that if you are not baptized that you cannot go to heaven. These things are made up. The churches that put EXTRA requirements that are not scriptual onto adherents and demand that they meet this EXTRA requirement, are legalistic.

You have said, I believe, that you are a Christian. If not, I apologize but I thought I remembered you saying that. As Christians, we live under GRACE, but it does not give us liberty to sin. The Bible is very clear on that. The standard on which God judges us is the blood of Christ. If you are a Christian, then you know that NOBODY is, in and of themselves, good enough to go to heaven. Jesus said, “I am the Door. No man cometh to the Father but by Me”. That is the standard that I am talking about.

By The72John

November 14, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this

2D, the LEGALISTS, makes a list of rules that they decide best suits themselves and then force everyone to follow them

BAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAA.

Whew…

Funny stuff. Funny, funny, funny stuff.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Kimmie, I have NEVER asked you to believe in me. NEVER. Let me answer your other questions with a question of my own. This creator of which you speak so eloquently…is He so powerful to do all that you outlined, yet so weak that He could not even see to it that the Word put forth by HIS CHURCH contained all that He wanted it to contain? Could He not control His own MESSAGE?

By lozen

November 14, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, beautiful prose! Yes, nature is the great teacher is she not? All we have to look is look around us. You are a wise woman!

By chuck

November 14, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

As for you Lozen, basically what you said is that you are trusting in YOUR OWN GOODNESS to get you to heaven, whatever that is in your estimation of things. You are a lot braver than I am. I know that I am not good enough. I HAVE to rely on the Goodness of Jesus Christ. In effect, you don’t BELIEVE in GOD. You ARE YOUR GOD.

By 2D

November 14, 2006 12:03 PM | Link to this

John… I agree with you that there are very destructive forces within any group of people, the Christian church included. However, you and I differ on how best to battle those destructive forces.

You are correct that we cannot be naive and bury our heads in the sand, however, there are multiple ways that we can battle the destructive forces.

I choose to focus on the good, to spread a positive message and to make that the light by which I live my life. You choose to focus on the negative and spend your energies contradicting those with whom you disagree. I believe that by highlighting and and bringing emphasis to the good I can overcome the bad.

Quite frankly, I’m not sure which one works better. I guess we’ll know at the end of the age. However, I do know, that at least on this BLOG, you appear to be much more angry and bitter than I, even though we detest many of the same things on a philosphical level when it comes to faith communities.

By Jack

November 14, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

:)

By Troglodyke

November 14, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I have to say that I appreciate your attempts at reasoned debate on this topic. Thanks for putting forth your ideas, rather than quoting scripture ad nauseum.

I disagree with your assertions, but I read them. Cut-and-paste scripture? I never read it. So, thanks.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

2D, I thought you might gain some insight from this blurb from a website that I found recently. It speaks to the idea I mentioned earlier. In the effort to avoid the APPEARANCE of being “legalistic”, they begin to preach a “social gospel”. This is not what the Bible teaches. Here is how that author put it:

The Legalistic and Individualistic Fallacies are flip sides of the same error, and are always found together. The error underlying both fallacies is the presumption that God’s demands on our lives can be satisfied by our own efforts. The Legalistic Fallacy holds that there is some set of rules of behavior which we can keep to earn our own way into God’s favor. The Individualistic Fallacy then goes the next step by insisting that, as long as we keep God’s rules and, thus, please Him, we are free in all other things to live our lives in our own way, entirely for our own benefit, without further considering Him.

Unfortunately, the Legalistic and Individualistic Fallacies describe the state of all traditional non-Christian religions and most of the Christian church. We all look for ways to please God and avoid eternal punishment by simply keeping rules, with minimal actual contact with God and without ever giving ourselves to Him. But it doesn’t work that way, and the result of pursuing religion in this way is usually revolting — like the scribes and Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked for being careful to tithe everything and keep all of the required religious observances while simultaneously robbing widows’ houses, Matthew 23, or the lives of those people from OTHER denominations which our own church accuses of legalism.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

Could He not control His own MESSAGE?

could He not also control all the translations and mistranslations(or so I have been told) over the centuries?

but I am just a laymen, and I hear the more scholarly types state “But that is not what is REALLY said in the original” everbody is always yapping about going back to the orignal, so must mean SOMETHING did not translate correctly.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

kimberly—Your theology is solid! A little Physics might round out your concept of GOD by “keeping it real”.

chuck—Your theology is crap! In one breath you agree with kimberly that GOD is unknowable, then, in the next breath claim that some old book which was based on oral traditions which were stolen from other religions and then mistranslated into other religions is somehow the unadulterated word of God.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

chuck, I understand your desire to find something solid to believe in this life. Your visions are childish, however. I personally don’t care what you believe, but you seem to spend a lot of time condemning others, which is proof all by itself that your theology is whack.

By The72John

November 14, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

However, I do know, that at least on this BLOG, you appear to be much more angry and bitter than I, even though we detest many of the same things on a philosphical level when it comes to faith communities

No doubt our circumstances differ. Without making too many assumptions about you, since you seem to want that, I would guess that my feelings are far more personal than your own. It’s easy to be analytical and detached in one’s detesting when those things you dislike exist only on a theoretical level.

By Troglodyke

November 14, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

I have been reading and very much enjoying Sam Harris’ The End of Faith. He advises the reader to understand that there are religious extremists and religious moderates, and their “various passions and projects” should not be confused.

But before one thinks Harris gives religious moderates a free pass, s/he reads this: “Religious moderates are themselves the bearers of a terrible dogma: they imagine that the path to peace will be paved once each of us has learned to respect the unjustified beliefs of others.”

He attempts to prove “that the very ideal of religious tolerance—born of the notion that every human being should be free to believe whatever he wants about God—is one of the principal forces driving us towards the abyss.”

I am only 61 pages in, so his whole argument may fall apart, but it’s a compelling argument—and a good read—so far. If anyone has studied it, I’d love to discuss those premises.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Once again, chuck, the Bible states many times that GOD is a spirit. A spirit, by definition, has no corporal body, and therefore no “boundary”. For you to attribute human motivations and abilites to this spirit is pure idiocy and reveals bad intent on your part, IMHO.

By The72John

November 14, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this

Chuck, I have to say that I appreciate your attempts at reasoned debate on this topic. Thanks for putting forth your ideas, rather than quoting scripture ad nauseum.

Have you met Chuck before? He doesn’t actually have ideas - he cuts-and-pastes almost everything he posts, including his earlier treatise on Puritanism. And he inevitably devolves into long, long posts of nothing BUT bible verses.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 12:30 PM | Link to this

So Frankie, I am rather supposed to listen to you…A SELF-PROFESSED LIAR. Or did you not say:

By Knowledge Is Power; Power Corrupts; ergo Knowledge Corrupts

November 9, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

Ok, Chilao, last time I took a few weeks off, everyone was happy. So, I will sacrifice for the group and sign off for two weeks. An-yung-hee-gay-sao! (Goodbye in Korean).

If you could read, you would have seen that I agreed to nothing of the sort. What I said was:

Kimmie, I fully acknowledge that the,

mind of a man cannot truly grasp the greatness of his Creator Being unable to FULLY GRASP THE GREATNESS OF, is not the same thing as being UNKNOWABLE.

You are welcome Troggy, though I make no promises for the future. The best defense of scripture is scripture itself.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:31 PM | Link to this

What is especially laughable to me are folks like chuck who say in one breath that there is nothing we can do to earn GRACE, then in the next breath smugly tell you that their own salvation is assured simply because they attend church on Sunday and parrot the right set of words.

It’s doubly laughable to me how “childish chuck” is so certain of his beliefs, when the Bible itself says something totally different from the manure he preaches.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

The kingdom of heaven is within you How do you get somewhere you already are Chuck? You also are your own god although you like to pretend you aren’t; you like to pretend your big daddy in the sky is THE authority and that your daddy is the only one that’s RIGHT. You interpret the words as you understand them and that’s all. Each of us creates our own god. You create a mean, judging daddy while others create a loving, forgiving daddy. You don’t believe in Zeus or Shiva. I don’t believe in Yahweh, Zeus or Shiva. I don’t believe in a heaven out there somewhere or a hell out there somewhere either. You are too afraid to trust your inner truth as Kimberly does - as many ppl do. That’s too bad IMO.

By Renee

November 14, 2006 12:36 PM | Link to this

Chuck, do you think because someone is not a believer or go to church, that they somehow believe in anarchy. That murder would be okay, rape would be okay, child abuse etc… Can you not fathom that people can be good and not believe.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

I do urge all of you to study both Martin Luther and John Calvin in more detail, however, since most of Protestant theology comes from these two. The facts may surprise some of you, such as the fact that Martin Luther was extremely anti-semetic. And we better not get started on Calvin, an evil man in my book.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:43 PM | Link to this

Absloutely, chuck, I am a liar. I have tried to prove it many times on the blog, so that you don’t take anything I say too seriously.

On the other hand, my guess is that you actually believe that your DOG-DOO-DOO doesn’t stink. To me, avowed liars like myself are far less dangerous than people like you who can’t admit any faults.

By 2D

November 14, 2006 12:44 PM | Link to this

John… Of course our circumstances differ. But, differing circumstances doesn’t mean that we both couldn’t have been made to feel immense guilt or pain about something we’ve done or who we are.

For the record, nothing about my faith comes from a purely theoretical level. It all comes from individual study, work with other theologians, then highlighted with personal experience.

It bothers me to see the pain you exhibit on this BLOG. So, rather than call you names, I want to show you a positive force, that I believe is available to anyone willing to accept it.

By Jack

November 14, 2006 12:45 PM | Link to this

Going against Kim & Lozen. Silly man. Gluttony is a sin. Are you not being a glutton for punishment?

By The72John

November 14, 2006 12:48 PM | Link to this

The best defense of scripture is scripture itself.

I believe you mean the “only” defense of scripture, don’t you? After all, there is nothing to defend, verify, justify or confirm scripture other than a belief in scripture itself. For it to have inherent meaning, one has to first accept it as valid, else it is meaningless.

Scripture can no more defend itself THROUGH itself than a defendent in a modern-day courtroom can emerge victorious by simply stating “Trust me, I’m innocent”. It is the self-referential, circular nature of scripturally-based arguments that renders then unassailable to the believers.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this

Keep up the good work, 2D! But don’t fall for the trap I did for the past 25 years—in the end, our ability to impact others is limited. So no matter how much you try to “help” someone, we have to accept in advance that such “help” is wasted. Ultimately, everyone is captain of their own boat. If that person wants to wreck on the rocks, it is their prerogative to do so without outside interference, as painful as it may be to watch.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 12:52 PM | Link to this

Yet we owe our whole economic successfulness, here in America, directly to Calvinism. Look at Latin America, same resources and potential, with a whole different outcome. Certainly religion the biggest factor/difference between the two.

Granted, economic success not necessarily true success, but why squabble? LOL (It’s just the popular benchmark)

By Troglodyke

November 14, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Have you met Chuck before? He doesn’t actually have ideas - he cuts-and-pastes almost everything he posts, including his earlier treatise on Puritanism. And he inevitably devolves into long, long posts of nothing BUT bible verses.

Yeah, I know…I’ve been reading this blog for a while. I said what I did because it’s the longest I’ve seen him go in a day without pasting scripture.

So maybe I shouldn’t have said “your ideas.” LOL

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this

72John—an even deeper reading of the Bible reveals that chuck’s certainty about Salvation is false. The Bible itself doesn’t assert what chuck keeps trying to “defend”.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

So once again, chuck. GRACE is the UNMERITED LOVE OF GOD. It cannot be earned, not even through professions of faith, as you foolishly believe.

By 2D

November 14, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this

Franklin… Thanks for the words of encouragement. You are correct that ultimately each person makes their own choices, but I will never stop trying to help nor believe that my impact is limited.

Who knows the chain reaction of things that could happen so long that I keep on keepin’ on? What I do know is that if stop, then nothing will happen.

By Jack

November 14, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

2D is cool.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this

Chilao, the main difference between Latin America and the USA is simply the German influence. Germans are smarter and more honest. Latins are corrupt to the core.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this

Ok, 2D, keep up the “good work”. Be careful, however, because it is true that “no good deed goes unpunished”. It took me many years to understand that saying, at great cost. It is related to another saying, “The path to hell is paved with good intentions”.

In a nutshell, we have to question our own motives at every turn if we are going to claim some high moral ground based on “helping others”.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this

72John, you smarty pants! I believe you mean the “only” defense of scripture, don’t you?

These two are Chuck’s:

This one is Randy’s:

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this

I probably should have mentioned the climates, temperate vs. tropics as well, but…

By chuck

November 14, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this

Brainless frankie, show me ONE TIME where I ever said anything even remotely resembling this:

…then in the next breath smugly tell you that their own salvation is assured simply because they attend church on Sunday and parrot the right set of words.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

FF, oh yes, the Germans! The smart and honest people! The group that slaughtered the jews! The group that doesn’t know how to have any fun, show any warmth, dance, relax, or eat good, hot food. The ultimate jerk-step obeyers of authority? The pure influence, right? The ones that made lampshades out of human flesh? You are crazier than I even thought.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:26 PM | Link to this

Chilao, seriously, Argentina was a great economic power around 1900. Unfortunately, they didn’t embrace anti-trust legislation and inheritance taxes like the US did at that time, and allowed all the wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few families who have intermarried ever since.

As far as natural resources being critically important, explain why Africa and South America, the two richest continents in terms of natural resources, are at the bottom of the economic pile, while Japan, which has almost no natural resources is at the top.

By Monica

November 14, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

Keep the faith, 2D! You never know the impact that you have on people. That’s the cool part about teaching… students that I never knew even cared have come back and told me that I had a positive influence on them. Don’t let the words of others discourage you. :)

There is a difference in religion and faith. Faith is a simple concept; either you believe in the trinity of God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and you believe in the Bible as the word inspired by God, or you don’t. Either you submit to Christ, or you don’t. You try to live as the Bible instructs, knowing that you will sin and still be saved by God’s grace, or you don’t. Faith cannot be explained by physics (sorry DOG) or nature or science. It’s a personal decision to believe or not to believe.

Religion has been corrupted by people who try to be perfect and don’t understand that they are saved by grace and not perfection. People of “Religion” scorn others that they deem to be sinners, all the while not grasping the concept that they are sinners themselves, and just as guilty as the parties they condemn. I echo Chuck’s words that grace does not give liberty to sin; we just have forgiveness as we strive to live a godly life but fail in those endeavors.

I’m sorry if this is confusing. I will probably think of a better way to share my sentiments after I hit “post.”

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

chuck, that’s EXACTLY what you are saying, that you KNOW that your personal salvation is guaranteed. You’ve said it many times in many different ways. Perhaps you can’t see that, because there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

Other defenses of Scripture: (for more deatails go to: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html)

Fulfilled Prophecies

Unique Historical Accuracy

Scientific Accuracy

Unique Structure

Bible’s Unique Effect

By chuck

November 14, 2006 01:36 PM | Link to this

My personal salvation IS INDEED GARAUNTEED, but not by what YOU said garauntees it.

It is garaunteed by the Blood of Christ. Period. End of Sentence.

For by Grace are ye saved through FAITH. Not by works, lest any man may boast.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Monica, since “faith” is contained in our own little pea-brains, by what standard do you verify or measure such faith? Ultimately, faith is a tautology that depends totally on self-assessment. Pardon my cynicism, but I have found in Life that people’s own self-assessments are extremely UNRELIABLE as an arbiter of TRUTH.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

The final proof, chuck, that what you are saying about the Bible is lies can be found in your own argumentativeness. Truth should be self-evident once it is explained. Obviously, you are not at peace with your beliefs or you wouldn’t spend so much time trying to “convince” others. Kind of like the Theory of Evolution, another total lie pushed in school.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this

chuck, I’m getting bored already, but please explain how the “blood of Christ” is your ticket into a mythical Heaven. Why should YOU be chosen for such a blissful eternity, while others are condemned to suffer, strictly based on your professions of faith which depend solely on self-assessment??

Also, as far as “works” not being important to Salvation, you need to reread both the Book of James (faith without works is dead), and the WORDS OF THE CHRIST HIMSELF, WHO REFERENCES GOOD WORKS AS BEING THE BASIS FOR JUDGEMENT.

By Jack

November 14, 2006 01:48 PM | Link to this

Alas, my days on the blog are numbered. The new Big Brother is more strict with the internet usage and I fear they will soon block all non-company related sites. Damn. I will miss my friends. Big SMOOCH to all the fine ladies who grace the blog. I may stop in from home to say hey. :):):)

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:49 PM | Link to this

And as I keep saying, chuck, your views are not only childish, but dangerous to boot due to your CERTAINTY. Much of human suffering has been meted out by folks like you who arrogantly believe in their own self-assessments of their own goodness and righteousness.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 01:50 PM | Link to this

As far as natural resources being critically important, explain why Africa and South America, the two richest continents in terms of natural resources, are at the bottom of the economic pile, while Japan, which has almost no natural resources is at the top.

to quote Prof Khan, in my International Management class, as he said, first lecture, The differences in management styles found round the world can best be explained in one word, Culture”.

I think 1/2 the class, all ethnic backgrounds, had to hold in a laugh as we went No, Sh!d, Sherlock.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this

And chuck, the word is “guarantee”, not “garauntee” (sic) as you wrote three times above. You might be more convincing if you knew how to spell the words you keep beating people over the head with.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

Frankenstein: Your 1:41 is about the dumbest thing that you have said amongst many.

First, nothing I have said or will say changes anything about the Bible.

If truth was “self-evident” once it is explained, there would be little need for teachers or schools beyond about 5th grade. We could teach everything ONCE and never revisit it and the students would embrace it, learn it, and never need anything more.

I am totally at peace with my beliefs. I post with the hope of saying something that will be used by the Holy Spirit to toch someone’s life. I do admit that I do like to argue a bit, but that too is scriptural, though I probably take it too far sometimes. In Timothy it says to “be ready to defend the faith.”

I do know that ever time I get into one of these discussions, I learn something about the Word of God. So it is profitable to me even if itmay or may not be to someone else.

Bottom line: Wouldn’t your statement apply even moreso to YOU? How many times did you try to “convince” us a couple of weeks ago of your views on uncertainty principle? You are the blog booger. You end up in a wadded up tissue every week having accomplished little but being an irritant. Grow UP!!!

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this

<lower lip trembling> Jack……?

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this

dang JACK, that could happen here as well. We were acquired a year ago, and eventually ALL web access will go through Corporate. which means things COULD change here as well.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

No spell check on the blog dufus. You might be more convincing if YOU BEAT YOURSELF OVER THE HEAD. wHY NOT TRY IT? Just kidding booger. Maybe one day you’ll get “picked” so you can feel better about yourself.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

“There is a difference in religion and faith. Faith is a simple concept; either you believe in the trinity of God the father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, and you believe in the Bible as the word inspired by God, or you don’t. Either you submit to Christ, or you don’t.”
Monica don’t forget: hindu’s have faith but not in the xtian thing. Jews have faith but do not believe in the trinity thing or the godhood of Yeshua. You are talking about one religion of many different religions. It is possible to have faith and not even know about the trinity. I have faith that everything will be fine and I don’t need to fear any hell or look forward to a heaven. That will take care of itself when the time comes. What I need to take care of now is now.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 02:06 PM | Link to this

yep REDEMPTION(whateva that is) BY FAITH. sounds familiar.

certainly HERESY in SOME circles.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 02:07 PM | Link to this

I’ll hate to see you go Jack. You are the blog version of John Wayne.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Another good source of information concerning the veracity of scripture is found at:

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

I think even those of you who are believers would learn some things from it.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

chuck, believe what you want about me, I really don’t care. But, as I’ve said many times, I will gladly stack my life accomplishments against yours any day.

As far as academic achievement, you don’t even want to go there, chuck. You’re too stupid to understand that Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem is nothing more than a mathematical assertion of what the Christ said. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle proves scientifically that your certainty about your faith is foolish. But, I know that your mind isn’t open to the TRUTH, because you would have to leave your little world of CERTAINTY that you have constructed for yourself. Might be too scary for you.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

I don’t need to fear any hell or look forward to a heaven. That will take care of itself when the time comes. What I need to take care of now is now.

Can we hear an AMEN for Sister Lozen. LOL

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Well, guys, you can laugh at DOG, but at least I had the courage to be my own business owner these past 20+ years. No corporate schmuck ever told me what to do.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I hope you are happy with HOW it takes care of itself…when the time comes. I really do.

By Monica

November 14, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

Freewheelin’,

I base my faith partly on what I was taught as a child, and partly from what I have experienced. I did grow up in church, but I wasn’t brainwashed. I had the opportunity to explore other philosophies (I did go to UGA), but I still chose Christianity. My belief system (and Chuck’s for that matter) might sound childish, but according to the Bible, that’s exactly how we are supposed to approach Christ (like little children).

Dear Shaunti and Diane, Please allow the W2W blog to have extended hours so that those who are restricted from posting at work can still play. We will miss our dear friend Jack.

And now, let us have a moment of silence…

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

lozen, I perceive you to be more of a Christian than chuck, Randy, and Zack rolled together in your recognition that we exist only in the present moment. Heaven and hell are states of mind—thus, of being—, and not physical places we go to after we die. The Bible itself supports this conclusion.

By Monica

November 14, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Lozen, you are correct. I meant to say faith in Christianity and the Bible. Sorry!

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:34 PM | Link to this

Monica, Corinthians also states “When I was a child, I spoke as a child….Now that I am grown, I have put aside childish ways”.

Ultimately, the Bible requires interpretation, just like The Canterbury tales or Shakespeare. Don’t you expect your English Lit students to read CRITICALLY????

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:41 PM | Link to this

Chilao and Jack—what’s more important, eating or the W2W blog? Grow a set of balls and tell those corporate stiffs to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this

kimmy—out of curiosity, I have a hypothetical question for you: If you were FORCED to spend an evening with either DOG or chuck, who would you pick? Let’s assume for this discussion that a last-minute suicide wasn’t an option….. ; > }

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

And where does a chiropractor even go to get a corporate job.

HILARIOUS

By lozen

November 14, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

If there is any justice, Chuck, in your next life you’ll be a flaming homosexual born into a very fundamental church with parents who bring in an exorcist to remove your evil spirits! Better be careful!

By Monica

November 14, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Of course I expect them to read critically. I agree that one has to read the Bible critically. I didn’t say that we should speak as children and act as children, just that we should come to Christ as children. I’m intrigued by something that you said…How does the Bible support the conclusion that Heaven and Hell are states of being and not actual places?

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

My brother is a self-employed carpenter,(make canoes, cabinets, fancy desks, all custom/to-order) and is always working some angle for his next paycheck/job-project. But he’s his own boss.

Conversely, a buddy from high school has his own machine shop in Florida, growing by leaps and bounds, does a lot of government stuff, military-grade, highly-automated equipment. And works 90plus hours a week. something his wife and kid are always complaining about. But he’s his own boss.

I have been quite content with GOOD PAY and walking out the door at 5p. Set your watch to it. And the weekends are mine.

Did I mention great retirement packages over the years AND great health insurance? something my brother has never had, of either.

Life is GOOD! Love my standard of living.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Brundogfrankenstein. Go to the website link from my 2:17 post and read the evidence. The Bible has been read ansd studied critically mor than ANY OTHER BOOK OR DOCUMENT in HISTORY. If you were a true Scholar you would actually SAY SOMETHING instructive in your posts. Instead, to quote MacBeth, your posts are nothing more than…full of sound and fury; signifying nothing.

By lozen

November 14, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this

Jack, tell me it ain’t true. You’re joking. You know you are.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

For proof of my smarts, just go back last week when I recommended three stocks to you all: Parker Drilling (PKD), Dreams Incorporated (DRMS), and Delta Airlines (DALRQ) as hot stocks to buy. Since my recommendations to you all, all of them have gone through the roof, especially Delta and Dreams, Inc. Delta was $1.03 when I recommended it to you, now it is $1.47. Dreams Inc. went from $0.25 when I recommended it to you to $0.40 today. So, call me what you want, I know how to make money.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

and now spends his days as a Day Trader, getting scammed out of thou$$$sands to boot.

By chuck

November 14, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

that wuz a goodun chilao..uhun uhun

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Even better, Chilao, is the fact that I was a cash practitioner, no insurance money involved in my office. That means I had to EARN my money, visit-by-visit. Makes you humble really quickly.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

Hwere are the stock recommendations I made to you all last week:

November 8, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Well guys, based on how well my stocks did today, I’m switching parties. Seriously, if any of you are looking for a great stock, take a good look at Parker Drilling, sticker symbol PKD. I bought in for $7 per share, it’s almost $9 per share after today, and I expect it to go to $12 before it’s over with. They are an oil drilling company who works in higher risk areas like Nigeria and Mexico. I almost mentioned it to you all yesterday, and wish I had, because it went up 68 cents today alone. The P/E is around 7, so it’s solid as a rock.

By The Newest Democrat

November 8, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

Another big winner for me has been Dreams Inc., a sports memorabilia company (Field of Dreams stores are part of their growing empire). Some rich guy bought out 14.7 % of the outstanding stock the other day, and it went from $0.15 per share to $0.40 per share in less than two hours. I wasn’t home, and missed the big sell-off, although it is back to nearly $0.27 today. It might be a long-term winner for any of you still. Sticker symbol DRMS.

By The Newest Democrat

November 8, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this

For any risk takers, you could still consider Delta Airlines. It is trading for a little more than $1 per share, and has a lot of upside. However, it is expected for them to file bankruptcy eventually, so you have to make a quick profit and run. If Airtran falls to $7 per share, it will be a great buy also.

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, that’s a tough one. (A) Man with superiority complex feigns Christian love while pretending he never called me a “depraved little miscreant” among other cruel things, tries to wow me with his righteous example before launching into a “sluts have consequences” tirade, all while forgetting that my eyes are not in my blouse, or (B) Self-promoting semi-intellectual brags about his conquests, acquisitions, stock predictions, and sexual strengths while prying non-subtly for inappropriate personal information to use against me later (for extortion or simple humiliation perhaps), ignoring my growing discomfort, and speaking directly to my blouse.

Is there a third option?

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this

Even better, Chilao, is the fact that I was a cash practitioner, no insurance money involved in my office.

wow, what a relief to hear, as I was just earlier today reading about some software available to monitor trends in insurance billing(fraud), seems some chiropractor in Pittsburgh probably going to get SEVEN years in the joint.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 03:20 PM | Link to this

Monica, the evidence that Heaven and Hell are states of being as described in the Bible is supported in many ways. First, and most importantly, is the fact that the Bible was written allegorically, often in vague language. In the Old Testatment, it clearly states that we go to sheol, or the grave, when our bodies expire. The Resurrection which the Christ speaks of is very mysterious, and has been interpreted many different ways by many sects. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists believe that we lie still in our graves in anticipation of a Second Coming. The idea that our soul immediately goes to Heaven or Hell following our earthly dath is no where in the Bible. Remember also, that our soul is like a spirit in that it has no corporal body, hence no physical qualities to it. All of this cotradicts a vision in which we meet again with our loved ones in some supernatural place once we die.

By Brian Curtis

November 14, 2006 03:29 PM | Link to this

Hey, Kimberly!

Nice blouse.

Sorry to hear about the crackdown, Jack. I disagree with a lot of your stuff, but at least you’re sane.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

kimberly, you are a smart cookie, no doubt about it. Please forgive my self-promotion, however. It has been my only key to survival all these years.

As far as trolling for info to use AGAINST you, I will disagree there. A good chirp needs to FIND the affected nerves before being able to render treatment. Yes, some will use this info against you, but that is not my history, my M.O.

I do sincerely apologize if I made you uncomfortable, because you are a good person, a hard worker, one who lives up to her responsibilities in Life. A lot to admire.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Is there a third option

well, now that you mention it…j/k

I had actually refrained from that comment until I saw BC’s “Nice blouse”.

I’d only ask you to dig real deep in the barrel ice-chest, for that last soda, anyway(a la Madea Family Reunion).LMAO

By 2D

November 14, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Franklin… Ah, but while the Hebrews speak of Sheol in the Old Testament, there is text where Christ speaks of a place after death.

John 14:1-3 Don’t let your heart be troubled. Believe in God. Believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many homes. If it weren’t so, I would have told you. I am going to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and will receive you to myself; that where I am, you may be there also.

Now, I would agree with you on whether or not the spirit goes directly to heaven/hell, purgatory, sits in the grave, etc. is completely unknown. My faith, however, leads me to believe that there is something after leaving this Earth. What that is, I don’t know, and am not really concerned about it. Faith leads me to a state where I believe that God will care for me regardless of that state.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 03:40 PM | Link to this

And, kimberly, as far as the source of my angst and unhappiness these days, it is due to the fact that I lost the love of my Life last summer, and have been unable to win her back. So, what is a poor slob supposed to do? I’ve tried dating other women, but my heart isn’t receptive.

By Jack

November 14, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this

Thanks for all the kind words folks. If my withdraws are too severe I may have to take drastic action and break down and get that personal laptop for the “office”

Nice Blouse, I’ll bet it is!

By chuck

November 14, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

Quit it BRUDOG. You know less about the Bible than you do proper applications of Uncertainty Principle.

The idea that our soul immediately goes to Heaven or Hell following our earthly dath is no where in the Bible. .

2 Corinthians 5:7-9 (King James Version)

7(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)

8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

Remember also, that our soul is like a spirit in that it has no corporal body, hence no physical qualities to it. All of this cotradicts a vision in which we meet again with our loved ones in some supernatural place once we die.

Philippians 3:21 Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this

and back when IT jobs were a dime-a-dozen, before outsourcing, I have terminated three employers, two with the method of packing up at lunch and going home. (So I know how to be unemployed and looking for work).

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this

2D, the real complications begin when you try to decide which explanations in the Bible are meant to be LITERAL and which are intended to be ALLEGORICAL. It says many times in the Bible that we are mortal, that we have a limited lifetime in the corporal sense. As for the spirit, I once again fall back on the fact that the spirit is undescribable, because it has no physicality about it.

Personally, I view spirits in the sense of Gestalt—the interrelationships which exist between atoms can create a higher level order, one which isn’t contained in any of the individual atoms. Think again about the difference between a cell in our pancreas and one in our liver. What makes them behave differently, even though their respective atomic makeup is very similar?

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this

Ah, poor Mongrel. I’m sorry. Perhaps I can help. What precipitated her departure?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

My last lady had it all—great heart, good attitude, willing to try anything (at least once). Very athletic, sexy, fun to be with. A good mother, a responsible citizen.

I know, I know, what was she doing with me in the first place? I didn’t deserve her, no doubt. At least she didn’t walk away empty-handed. As we were breaking up, I bought her some very expensive diamond earrings to say thanks for our time together, and to give her something to remember me by.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

Why did she leave? My stress level my last few years in business was through the roof, and I spent a good bit of time being angry. That’s why I quit my practice, even though I lost a lot of money by retiring early. Fortunately, I’m not a materialistic person, and don’t mind driving a 15 year-old Toyota Paseo.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:10 PM | Link to this

chuck, If you are going to insist that the Bible stories are meant to be taken literally, you better start providing some Physics explanations about Heaven and Hell. I’ve looked through many powerful telescopes, and never saw Heaven.

To me, the real power of the Bible is revealed more by reading it in an allegorical way, then applying it to situations which occur in our daily lives, than by arguing about things which can’t be proven one way or the other.

By Kevin

November 14, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

2D and Monica -

You posts are fantastic examples of how to share your faith. Keep of the good work.

Bruno, since you mentioned it earlier, I would like to ask a favor of you. If you will, please research the shed blood of Christ. Every biblical topic argued on this blog pales in comparison to the blood.

I will understand if you never agree with my literal interpretation of the Bible. I promise I will not pull out my 97 lb. Scofield Reference Bible and knock you over the head to try and “convert” you to my way of thinking. LOL!

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:13 PM | Link to this

So sorry again for DOGGING you, kimberly. You remind me of her in many ways, especially by your obvious intelligence. The redhead thing intrigues me as well.

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 04:19 PM | Link to this

Oh Dear. AS you were breaking up, you bought EXPENSIVE diamonds? This leads me to believe she’d had it with the manipulative stunts you pull in leiu of true understanding. Diamonds without love don’t mean much (not to me anyway), and contrary to Marilyn’s song, they don’t help with expenses, because you can never sell them for anywhere close to the purchase price. You wanted her to feel something specific when you gave her those earrings. Tell us, and yourself, what exactly was it?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this

Kevin, trying to make literal sense of the Bible is impossible, due in large part to the many contradictions which exist between the stories. Just compare the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and you will end up with conttradictory accounts of where Jesus was born, his family’s movements before and after his birth, Jesus’s movements in his lifetime, etc. How do you deal with such obvious factual contradictions?

Plus, not to mention the fact that these Gospels were all written 50-90 years after Jesus passed away. Paul’s letters are much more contemporary, and often disagree with the 4 Gospels, let alone the Coptic Gospels which didn’t make the final cut.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

Heaven is only visible once going thru a black hole, it being in a parallel universe. So you would not see it in a telescope.

Or so my deceased/religious engineer uncle, with quite a few buddies at the JPL, thought.

By FF's Ex

November 14, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, Darling…need you ask? The REAL question, dear, is what ever posessed me to seek his company in the first place. There are already five or SIX people bouncing around in his head and obviously NO room for a refined lady such as myself. One can only coddle so many male egos before one wears out, don’t you think?

And then, to top it all off, the cad treated me like his cast-off w******* with those vulgar earrings. Diamonds…diamonds my foot! Have YOU ever heard of a jeweler setting diamonds in studs that turn your ears green before? I think not.

No De Beers De-lites for me, darling…I’m wasting away in Cubic Zirconiaville. Ah well, off to find a man with taste who DOESN’T think that a scintilating evening is one in which we talk about HIM.

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Scofield Reference Bible? is that like a 303 Enfield? LOL

Everybody know that the Red Baron, of WWI German Ace fame, got taken out by an Enfield from the ground?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, the diamonds were simply a memory keepsake. Before I bought them, I bought her a dishwasher, stereo, etc, even helped get an extra wheelchair for her disabled daughter. My gifts are always practical in nature. If she wanted to resell the earrings, she could get a lot for them (color G, VSII grade).

As for love, I gave her my heart all along. I’m not very materialistic, and show my love in other ways.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:34 PM | Link to this

Perhaps you see evil motivations in my gifts and kindnesses toward my last lady, kimberly, that I can’t see. As such, I can’t disagree with you. But don’t get hung up on the material, that is the least important thing to me in this lifetime. Why else would I live in a 1000 square foot house and drive an old car?

By NetBanker

November 14, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Hey kids! Well I see that religion popped in here right quick to take over.

Lozen…I think you have a wrong impression of Germans. I’m 95% German on my mother’s side and that family is definitely a group that knows “how to have any fun, show any armth, dance, relax, or eat good, hot food.”

I think that people assume WAAAAYYY too much about Nancy Pelosi simple because she lives in San Francisco. Most people don’t know (and the radio shock jocks NEVER tell you) that she was raised in Baltimore in Little Italy which is a very blue collar area. (I know this personally because my family is from Baltimore). Her father is a former mayor of Baltimore as is her brother so she was raised in a political family that is in a Blue State, but Maryland is more conservatively liberal than California. IMO, the ‘uber liberal with San Francisco values’ characterization of Nancy Pelosi is over blown to scare people and doesn’t very accurately describe her record. In addition Neil Boortz reviewed 12 of her votes on important issues and only disagreed with 3. Back to my regularly scheduled overworked, understaffed, stressed out life of late!

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Sorry, FF’s ex—you were with me at Solomon’s Brothers when we picked them out. As a matter of fact, we got a great price from Anthony Solomon because he was hot for you. Of course, you hopefully remember also that I spent a small fortune taking you to every great restaurant in Atlanta, not to mention the trips to the beach and casino.

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

Well, you know Mongrel, I feel your pain. She moved on and you cannot love another. Life is tragic that way. We all have regrets and all our efforts mean nothing in the end. Fortunately, life and its tragedies, as we know them, are finite.

By Kevin

November 14, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

Bruno,

Good questions. I tend to look at the overwhelming harmony of the gospels (with Paul’s writings as well). As far as the contradictions - I like to view them in this manner: Let’s say two men are talking with you describing a building they had recently seen. One man only saw the front, the other only saw the back. It appears to you that they are giving contradictory accounts of what the building looks like, but in reality they are accurately describing it from their viewpoint.

The gospel writers were much the same. Each told the same story from their viewpoint, their particular angle.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this

But, I would be curious what all of kimberly’s exes say about her? Care to share that, kimmy?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:44 PM | Link to this

Well, hope does spring eternal, kimberly. I will love again, one day, but am still in mourning. She was the best!!

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

So what do YOUR exes say about you, kimmy??

How about you, Chilao??

By Chilao

November 14, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

While Beethoven wrote some of the most beautiful music, he also wrote some of the most demented(for classical).

seems he was in love with a married woman he could not have. hence the dementia.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this

Sorry, Kevin—the Gospels do not agree with one another on very basic facts. I won’t give you a hard time for sweeping this under the rug, because your motivation is to believe no matter what the facts say.

By FF's Ex

November 14, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Ladies, have you EVER seen someone try to NAME DROP as much as our favorite little puggles-puppy? Nouveau riche, dear ones, nouveau riche. Those of us with taste and refinement KNOW that the proof is in the pudding, not the box in which the pudding comes.

Don’t believe him, sweeties, for someone who says he LOATHES the material, he certainly loves to tell everyone about what he’s bought and who he bought it from.

Lean in close ladies - I’m going to whisper something to you…you know what causes this behavior? small penis

Just another on a looooong list of reasons to listen to Ricky and Kick Him to the Curb, sisters!

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this

One last bit of trivia, FF’s ex (kimberly)—Solomon Bros. don’t buy their diamonds through DeBeers. They have independent contracts with the mines directly that stretch back many decades.

So, did any of your exes buy you expensive earrings?

By kimberly

November 14, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Care to share that, kimmy? Sure! My cooking is apparently akin to “Alpo,” I’m too freaky, and I just think I’m sooooooo smart, don’t I? Hahaha!

Don’t kid yourself, Mongrel. She WAS the best. You can’t replace that. Ever. Torturing other women, causing pain to people that don’t need anymore… that won’t bring her back and it won’t fill the empty hole in your heart. Get some fish, stare at them all night, and learn to live with it.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 05:00 PM | Link to this

I have a funny feeling that girls love to see men suffer after the breakups, however. They love it when we pine for them.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 14, 2006 05:11 PM | Link to this

Last comment about Martin Luther—The story about him nailing his thesis to the church door is pure whack—it never happened. Of course, I don’t want to ruin a good movie for you all………….

By NetBanker

November 14, 2006 05:43 PM | Link to this

For some reason conservative ideologues just can’t understand that believing in a wall of seperation doesn’t make you an anti-God stormtrooper intent on kicking down the doors of the churches and forcing the faithful into the streets to marry gay people and get abortions. Mara…can we do this to Fred Phelps’ church? Can we? PLEEEEEEAAASE?! I just want to watch them burst into flames when the gay wedding ring slips over their finger.

is He so powerful to do all that you outlined, yet so weak that He could not even see to it that the Word put forth by HIS CHURCH contained all that He wanted it to contain? Could He not control His own MESSAGE? Have we forgotten FREE WILL?

By TramadoL63015

November 15, 2006 06:16 AM | Link to this

I just don’t have much to say these days, but so it goes. Today was a total loss. I guess it doesn’t bother me.

By TramadoL90534

November 15, 2006 07:27 AM | Link to this

My mind is like a bunch of nothing, but I guess it doesn’t bother me. I haven’t been up to anything recently. I’ve pretty much been doing nothing to speak of.

By 2D

November 15, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this

Net… Good bio info about Nancy Pelosi, but I believe more people than you think know that much about her. At least anyone who reads Time Magazine would know that stuff about her.

I do agree with you that pundits assume far too much about anything this new Congress will do. I am much more conservative than most Dems but am still more than willing to see what happens over the next couple of years. Perhaps this is exactly what we need, opposite parties in the Executive and Legislative branches to get things done. It worked pretty daggum well from 1994-2000.

On the Boortz issues, I would be curious to see which issues were diagnosed. I would imagine that he and she would VOTE the same on a variety of things, especially if it meant more government restriction on personal freedoms. That doesn’t mean Boortz personally agrees with Ms. Pelosi on a particular issue, simply that the government shouldn’t be involved in controlling it.

By TramadoL73318

November 15, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

retty much nothing seems worth thinking about. My life’s been completely dull , not that it matters. I’ve just been staying at home waiting for something to happen.

By TramadoL44328

November 15, 2006 09:02 AM | 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 Monica

November 15, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

Am I the only one who was creeped out by “FF’s Ex” posts yesterday? Yikes!

I heard that Rudy is going through the paperwork process of running for President in 2008. Thoughts, anyone?

By SusieHomeMaker

November 15, 2006 09:16 AM | Link to this

Rudy for president? Has he held any other political position besides Mayor? If not, how can he seriously even think of running for president? EEeeewwwwwww

By Randy

November 15, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Off topic but, me and my wife went to Fernbank Museum yesterday. Things I have always taken for fact, the exhibits being real, I took a closer look at. The bones weren’t bones at all, they were metal, manufactured, other exhibits looked very fake also. It makes me wonder how much of accepted Science is real, I’m guessing 15% to 25%. My wife said it on the way home, we assume things we see in a museum or read in a science book are real and probably very little of it is. I think she is right. But lets give the scientists more “grant” money so they can speculate and waste time.

By The72John

November 15, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this

Off topic but, me and my wife went to Fernbank Museum yesterday. Things I have always taken for fact, the exhibits being real, I took a closer look at. The bones weren’t bones at all, they were metal, manufactured, other exhibits looked very fake also. It makes me wonder how much of accepted Science is real, I’m guessing 15% to 25%. My wife said it on the way home, we assume things we see in a museum or read in a science book are real and probably very little of it is. I think she is right. But lets give the scientists more “grant” money so they can speculate and waste time.

Oh my gosh, Randy, you’ve figured it out…all science is fake and just an excuse for scientists to waste “grant” money. You’re an f’ing GENIUS!

Why didn’t we see it all before…we’ve been duped by Fernbank and it’s “metal bones”…why…I bet ALL those fossils are just one big fat hoax sent here by Satan to test people.

All hail Randy, everyone - his quick wit and razor-sharp observation skills have freed us from the shackles of Satan’s Paleontologists! Let’s make him our new king!

By The72John

November 15, 2006 09:36 AM | Link to this

From Fernbank’s website:

After months of consultation with paleontologists, fabricators and paleo-artists, Fernbank was ready to begin construction. Because Giganotosaurus had already been cast, it was the first dinosaur mounted. A steel armature was placed within the casts so that the viewer would see only the dinosaur skeleton. In June 2000, the framework for the mount was completed and a team of fabricators from Prehistoric Animal Structures, Inc. worked with the Fernbank crew to uncrate and reconstruct the giant carnivore. The team began construction at midnight and worked until dawn so visitors could come face to face with this ferocious Cretaceous beast on the morning of June 25, 2000.

Argentinosaurus was much more involved because no one had ever attempted to mount this giant. An artist specializing in paleontological reconstructions created a 1:10 scale clay model of the dinosaur, working closely with scientists to ensure an accurate reproduction. All of the casting and molding was done in Argentina under the supervision of a sauropod expert.

They never CLAIM that the skeletons are actually real, pea-brain…they’re REPRODUCTIONS.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

hilarious commentary I heard last night, note the bottom where it mentions saddles on dinosaurs in museums and the original name of Mother’s Day(in humour).

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/11/14/PM200611148.html

Rudy G. hmmmm. I have always believed the most competent Presidents were ones who had previous international experience, in Washington.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

I guess some people have never heard of the concept of modeling and keeping the actual bones better protected, rather than letting little kids climb all over them.

on that thought, supposed to be a fun movie coming out soon, John Cusack as a night security guard at the Museum of Natural History(NYC), where everything comes ALIVE off-hours, including Teddy Roosevelt on horseback. Night at the Museum or something like that.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

Ben Stiller(not John Cusack) plays the guard in Night at the Museum

By The72John

November 15, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this

Chilao, as a kid, did you ever read “From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler”, about the brother and sister who run away form home and live in the Metropolitan Museum of Art?

By chuck

November 15, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Hey Monica…just somebody messing with dog. Probably posted it himself. He does have multiple personalities.

As for Rudy Giuliani(sp?). The last thing we need is a librul republican. I personally would not vote for him OR McCain. I’m hoping someone like Rick Santorum or John Kasich will run.

By The72John

November 15, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this

Yes, much better to have a hateful bigot like Santorum in office. That’s right up Chuck’s alley.

By lozen

November 15, 2006 10:04 AM | Link to this

Ahhhhh Randy, brilliant. Just brilliant. Are you the one who posted the thing about “How can they call it the America’s Cup if it’s in Mexico?” I bet that was you Randy.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

72John - I cannot remember, (I read so much as a kid), the concept sounds REAL FAMILIAR but not the book name.

By blablabla

November 15, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

susie, rudy was a federal prosecutor.

By 2D

November 15, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

John Kasich for President. Finally something that Chuck and I can agree upon.

As for Rudy… Is someone going to tell me that being the mayor of New York City does not qualify someone to run for President? The mayor of Kite, GA might not have the pedigree, but the mayor of New York? If you don’t like his politics, that is one thing, but being the mayor of one of, if not THE most important city in the world carries very substantial weight.

It would be at least as difficult a job to run NYC as, say, a tiny southern state like Arkansas.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

72John - just read the reviews at Amazon and sounds even more familiar but not something I remember vividly.

I am still trying to track down a series of young adult/teen books I read way back about wild mustangs in, say Utah, told from a specific stallion’s point of view.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

http://www.politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm

This website has pretty good analysis of the possible GOP candidates. I ilke about half of them. I don’t like Rudy, Pataki, McCain, Hagel, and a couple of others.

I do like Congressman Duncan L. Hunter (California), Santorum, Sam Brownback and a couple of others are intriguing but I don’t know a lot about them yet.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

john read that last week.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Randy, are you kidding me dude?

By The72John

November 15, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

Chuck wouldn’t be able to read it - it requires imagination.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

It isn’t this series is it Chiao?

The Black Stallion’s Sulky Colt by Walter Farley Black Stallion and Satan (Black Stallion) by Walter Farley The Island Stallion’s Fury (Black Stallion) by Walter Farley The Black Stallion’s Filly (Black Stallion) by Walter Farley The Black Stallion Mystery (Black Stallion) by Walter Farley

By The72John

November 15, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this

wait - Chuck’s entire life is built on fantasy..what am I saying.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this

No, Chuck, but thanks. I have read a few of those, way back. (just did a web search that listed all of those books, and some, he also did a book on Man-O-War, I have been to Calumet/Keeneland)

these books, the series, the horses were ALWAYS wild mustangs, (although sometimes were rounded up, the lead stallion sometimes leading the band out of the enclosure, if they even got that close) and may have only been 3-4 books.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this

No john, I read “Real Men” books when I was growing up. Stuff by Jim Kjelgaard, The Hardy Boys, Jack London and hundreds of others. My actual favorite book of all time is Swiss Family Robinson…not the abridged version but the real by Wyss.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

I also really enjoyed biographies on people like Kit Carson, Pontiac, any of the founding fathers, anything to do with the American evolution, the colonial period. I also read a ton of historical fiction like the Oklahoma Land Rush, Johnny Tremaine, stuff by Jean George and others.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this

That sort of sounds like the Flicka Series by Mary O’Hara. I think there was one called Thunderhead and of course My Friend Flicka

By The72John

November 15, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry, Chuck…did you just try to assert some kind of superior masculinity complex because you read the HARDY BOYS? Hmm…formulaic, predictable, lacking in depth…sounds like you, Chuck.

Too bad you didn’t branch out and read other books, too. Might have made you a…you know. Better person. But I doubt it.

By The72John

November 15, 2006 10:58 AM | Link to this

I also read a ton of historical fiction like the Oklahoma Land Rush, Johnny Tremaine, stuff by Jean George and others.

Not to mention the king of fiction, the Bible.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

naw, the author was male, and there was very little, if any, human dialog in them. They were just a bunch of horses, stallions stealing mares, fighting(stallions), and fighting off cougars and grizzlies, traveling for water, etc.

By Mara

November 15, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this

Chilao - try Marguerite Henry. She did the Misty books. One that I remember was a book about an appaloosa called “the Medicine Hat Stallion”. Maybe Glenn Balch’s “Tiger Roan” etc.

If you toss out some more info I might be able to suggest others. This was my childhood genre.

the Black stallion series? (snort) as IF…..

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

my oldest sister(the horsewoman) had most of the Henry series. let me check out the Glenn Balch guy, thanks Mara.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this

THANK YOU Mara, Glenn Balch sounds like the guy.

By Mara

November 15, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Chilao - glad I could help :^)

By Tim

November 15, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this

I liked Amelia Bedelia books and Goosebumps books growing up… but I of course wore a pink tutu and high heels while I read the Amelia Bedelia books :) ahhhhhhhhhhh fun times… to be lil gay kid again

By Randy

November 15, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this

Thanks for clearing that up 72John, on the dino bones.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:10 PM | Link to this

Randy—I don’t agree with you regarding your literal view of the Bible, but will agree with you that probably 75% of what passes for Science is whack. I spent a few years rubbing elbows with the top Scientists from around the world, and the sad truth is that most of their “research” is nothing more than a sham to keep their bank accounts fat.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Good descriptions of Balch’s books here:

http://www.ncteamericancollection.org/litmap/balchglennid.htm

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:15 PM | Link to this

Monica—Don’t worry about the FF’s ex’s posts yesterday. It was just kimberly transferring her anger at her deadbeat first husband onto me. The bottom line is that the guy stiffed her financially, something I’ve never done. When I got divorced many years ago, I gave my ex everything. Call me old-fashioned (or maybe chauvinistic), but my pride would never allow me to take advantage of a woman financially. When I go on dates, I pay for everything, always.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this

Chilao—Since you’re an IT guy, surely you must have read “Godel,Escher, Bach” by Douglas Hofstadter. I was fortunate enough to meet the man personally while at Harvey Mudd College, along with a boatload of other famous scientists/authors/thinkers. One of my strongest memories of these cats is how unhappy most of them appeared to be.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:26 PM | Link to this

All the recent talk about Rodney Dangerfield motivated me to get his biography from Amazon.com. It’s called “Rodney Dangerfield, It’s Not Easy Being Me, or A Lifetime of No Respect but Plenty of Sex and Drugs.” I read it cover to cover last night, right after Dancing With the Stars.

Rodney had a hard life early on, but fought hard to become successful. He said in the book that he started smoking pot in 1942. When he was invited to fancy events with movie stars and politicians later on in life, he would usually excuse himself and go hang out with the limo drivers outside at the first opportunity. I can definitely relate to that feeling.

By Randy

November 15, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Freewheelin’ Franklin, Thanks for your post. The problem is most americans take scientific theories as fact. I really think Macro-evolution needs to be either proven or we need to take it out of our innocent childrens school books, or at least present it as a theory, not fact. But hey, the scientists want to be employeed and have the big houses also. Have a great day.

I know that Fernbank says the dino bones are not real in their website. However, I asked one of the employees where that dinosaur came from and he acted as if it were as real as I am. A little deceiving, especially to children.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this

And finally to kimberly, if she is watching the board today—If your greatest “drawbacks” are being supersmart and a little freaky, then I’m definitely getting in line to take you out. To me, those are benefits. The freakier, the better. As far as cooking, don’t sweat it, that’s what restaurants are for.

Couple “personal” questions: What is your horoscope sign? What kind of food do you like? Are you a “Dunwoody girl” (i.e. a high-maintenance, stuck-up b***)? Where did you attend high school and college?

By Randy

November 15, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this

A further comment on FF post at 12:10. Being that in your estimation 25% of science is factual, how many people are “betting” their immortal soul on scientific theories? It reminds me of a license tag I saw yesterday “If you are living like their is no God, you better be right”.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this

Randy, if you ever want a good belly laugh, just take a few anthropology courses. These guys can reconstruct the entire Universe from two bone fragments, then argue to death about their fantastical constructions. The number of bones which have been recovered to “explain” human evolution can fit into two suitcases, no lie. In several cases, some of these bone fragments were later shown to be from pigs and other animals.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this

Randy, I am a lover of the Bible, and do try to live the Life prescribed by GOD. However, the truth is that the Bible is a very mysterious document which says something very different from what is taught in church. The sad fact is that church is a business. Jesus himself said that church occurs whenever two or three gather in His name. It has nothing to do with buildings and ceremonies. As for an afterlife, I stick by my statement yesterday that it is never mentioned in the Bible at all. Chuck’s “rebuttal” yesterday was off the mark, in case you didn’t notice.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Randy—do you live here in the metro Atlanta area? If so, maybe you could come out and see my properties for sale, I’m selling them cheap at this point. I’ve got two houses and a commercial building for sale right now.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this

“If you are living like their is no God, you better be right”.

was it even spelled that way?

Just received from a friend, too good not to share:

By Randy

November 15, 2006 12:56 PM | Link to this

FF, I figured as much on the evolution done by scientists. What it really gets down to is, human psychology. Scientists want to be recognized by their fellow scientists(awards banquets etc), so there is a line they don’t cross. Many don’t dare question scientific “truths”, although hundreds of scientists have came out against evolution recently. They want to make money in their profession, they want to be honored. I think the deadly sin here is “pride” and it’s probably going to be very expensive for them in the long run. Great information you are giving out here.

By kimberly

November 15, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

Mongrel, while your flattery is very kind, you know I’d never be able to replace the love of your life, as that only comes once. It would be too painful to be second best, knowing that no matter how hard I tried to erase her from your heart, I’d be only a substitute for that which you really love. As a gentleman, you’d of course lie and SAY I was the best — your new one & only…. but alas, I’d look in your eyes and know. Please don’t break my heart that way, Mongrel. ‘Tis better that we pass like ships in the darkness, neither seeing nor touching, nor feeling the other’s wake, to our very different destinations. Please excuse me now, while I fetch some more coffee and have a good cry.

By Mara

November 15, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

the multiple personalities of Bruno/Dog remind me of the “jackass” character Donald from Happy Gilmore. Y’know, the one that Shooter hires to help him take Happy out of the tournament? It’s his desperate attempts for relevancy via attaching himself to the “cool” kids. “Shooter, wanna go to the Sizzler and get some grub? My treat!”

what’s up with him trying to hook up with everybody outside of cyberspace? Creepy.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Good story, Chilao. I would have chosen a paper cup for myself. Even though kimberly believes I am materialistic, I’m not. I do believe in buying top quality when you plan to keep the product for a while, however, as it is usually cheaper in the long run. I’ve been driving the same car for nearly 15 years now, have had the same washer and dryer for 18 years, etc. The most expensive item in my house is my GO board, imported from Japan. The tree from which it was made has to be around 1000 years old before they cut it down. Additionally, I got one of the top GO players in the world to sign the back of it for me using Japanese calligraphy and permanent ink, which has greatly increased its value.

By Randy

November 15, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this

FF, I do live in the Atlanta area and I purchase real estate for a living(what a coincidence). However, due to the weakness of the R/E market, I’m only paying 60-65 cents on the dollar for properties. Don’t want to insult you with a offer.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this

And for those who doubt my smarts, just take a look at today’s stock report. I told evry one of you last week to buy Parker Drilling, Dreams Inc. and Delta Airlines. Here are the gains today alone:

DALRQ DELTA AIR LI… DELTA AIR LINES INC $1.621 +0.15

DRMS DREAMS INCOR… DREAMS INCORPORATED $0.401 +0.02

PKD PARKER DRILL… PARKER DRILLING CO $9.891 +0.37

So laugh at DOG all you want, and don’t believe a word I say. When I told you all about these stocks on Nov 8, Delta was $1.03, Dreams Inc was $0.25, and Parker Drilling was $9.00. A nice profit in less than a week.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 01:24 PM | Link to this

I do think you could benefit from having a partner, kimberly. It’s tough and lonely in the world, especially for a single mother. I’m not sure why your choice of men hasn’t been too good so far, but I suspect you fell for the “players” who ended up playing you like a fiddle.

My biggest problem is in finding a woman who isn’t totally self-centered, one who has interests other than Cosmopolitan magazine. My attraction to you is intellectual. You have a brain, girl.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this

24Mara—Maybe it is strange for me trying to meet some of you. I’ll have to double-check with my shrink sometime about that. My explanation is that I’m bored silly right now, and am looking for some adventures. Most of the folks I meet in life are pretty dumb, in contrast to you all here.

As far as offering to treat all of you for dinner, I do that every week already with several friends. I love treating others. Maybe that is a sickness, but there are worse sicknesses in the world to have.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

So BRUCE, you are willing to sell your property that is appraised at $172,000 for $180,000?

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

It is appraised at $220,000, chuck. You are confusing the tax evaluation with the appraisal. Maybe that’s why you’re still poor, chuck, unlike Randy and me.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

So BRUCE, you are willing to sell your property that is appraised at $172,000 for $180,000?

call me Good In Math, but that sounds like a real hardship.

By Randy

November 15, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

FF, Be nice to Chuck, he’s one of the few people on this site with some sense. I’ll look at the property this weekend.

By GOB

November 15, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

I really think Macro-evolution needs to be either proven or we need to take it out of our innocent childrens school books, or at least present it as a theory, not fact.

You mean something like referring to it as the theory of evolution, which oddly enough is how science textbooks refer to it??

Randy, based on your posts here, you must live one of the saddest lives imaginable.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

chuck, you can post my address all you want. If you have a beef with me, come on over, and we’ll settle it like men.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this

So the BRU came from the first 3 letters of your first name and the NO came from what women tell you at the end of a date?

By chuck

November 15, 2006 02:33 PM | Link to this

Just messin with you dog. Wanted to diminish the hubris a little bit and change the tone of the blog.

By kimberly

November 15, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Ahhh, look. The testosterone has come out to play. Do you wonder why we’ve lost faith in the whole lot of you? Really.

By Freewheelin' Franklin

November 15, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this

Ok, then publish your name and address, chuck. I don’t think you have the courage to do that.

By Randy

November 15, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this

GOB, You hit the nail on the head, it’s sad. I got to go, planning another cruise. I hope your comment made you feel better.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Oh how the mighty have fallen. Got to say, that was fun.

By chuck

November 15, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Name and address Bruce?

Sonny Perdue Office of the Governor, Georgia State Capitol, Atlanta, GA 30334

By Mara

November 15, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

Sherwood’s seat [in Pennsylvania] would have been overwhelmingly ours, if his mistress hadn’t whined about being throttled,” - Grover Norquist

Well isn’t that nice!? A staunch neo-conservative blaming an abused woman for causing her attacker to lose his congressional seat. But then, this is the same guy who once equated bipartisanship to date rape…

and they wonder why more women tend to vote Democrat than Republican. Sheesh!

By The72John

November 15, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Well, this is fun. Let’s sign him up for pornographic e-mail advertising and spammers, and have subversive materials sent to him in the mail.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this

yeah, rule number one: always have your public emails at yahoo/hotmail/gmail. LOL

By chuck

November 15, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this

You’re welcome john

By chuck

November 15, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this

or do like I do and just make one up.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

I made the ‘mistake’ a couple years ago of posting a write-up, with pics, of an old truck I have, stating how it was when I bought it and what I had done to improve it. and used my LEGAL name.

I say ‘mistake’, because actually it has allowed people I have not had contact with in years to write “are you the that (lived/worked) at (someplace)”. When I asked how they learned my addy, they reply “You have a truck?”.

But that is the only thing that comes up. And never again will I use my legal name.

By A song

November 15, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Darkness, darkness, be my pillow Take my head and let me sleep In the coolness of your shadow In the silence of your deep

Darkness, darkness, hide my yearning For the things I cannot see Keep my mind from constant turning To the things I cannot be

Darkness, darkness, be my blanket Cover me with this endless night Take away this pain of knowing Fill this emptiness with light

Darkness, darkness, long and lonesome Is the day that brings me here I have felt the edge of sadness I have known the depths of fear

Darkness, darkness, be my blanket Cover me with the endless night Take away this pain of knowing Fill this emptiness with light

Darkness, Darkness, be my pillow Take my head and let me sleep In the coolness of your shadow In the silence of your deep

By chuck

November 15, 2006 04:09 PM | Link to this

Anybody who puts ANYTHING that enables someone to identify them is NUTS…or not nearly as smart as they want to appear

By Kevin

November 15, 2006 04:26 PM | Link to this

Chuck,

Bruce is a big boy and doesn’t need me to take up for him, but it is going over the line to post his personal information. Yes, it is his fault that he posted the building address which allowed you and Chilao to track down his personal info, but his error in judgment and combative nature are no reason for you to take advantage of the situation in that manner.

I know, you will say that he deserved it - maybe so. However, look at how Chilao handled the same situation. While Chilao let Bruce know that he had found the records for the property, he didn’t post any personal information (other than his first name and the price of the property). Bruce had already told us in an earlier email that his first name was Bruce, so that was no big revelation.

72John, I know that you and Bruce have had several heated arguments, but I am going to trust that you are kidding about spamming his email account. Regardless of our difference of opinion on … well just about everything, I do not believe that you are the kind of person that would do such a thing.

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 04:31 PM | Link to this

Okay, no more insults, guys, here you have it:(from MSNBC)

Fergie, of the Black Eyed Peas, says that anyone who insults her voice insults God. “I may not have the type of voice you like, but I can sing,” the white hip-hopper told Vibe. “You can’t take that away from me, ‘cause singing is a gift from God, and when people say I can’t sing, it’s kind of like insulting God.”

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 04:32 PM | Link to this

Kevin - I did not track down anything, you must have misunderstood something there along the line; I have no interest in personal knowledge of Dog to boot.

to paraphrase I don’t waste my time with that kinda sh!d

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Kevin - Yeah, I think you read those posts a little too quickly, I merely commented on privacy related to email accounts and personal names.

By Kevin

November 15, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this

Sorry Chilao,

I assumed (I know, I know) when you called out his first name and stated the price of the property that you had researched the property records. My apologies. I was actually complementing your restraint.

Have to go - my Wednesday night indoctrina … uh, I mean church service is calling. I wonder what the pastor meant when he said we were beginning a series on vipers and faith?

By Chilao

November 15, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

Kevin - it’s cool but I never called out a name either, I merely did quick math when the tax appraisal vs. selling price was posted. And I know I missed the ‘lol’ on that but I thought it was funny, as deadpanned as it may have come across. (Call me good in math, but…) In fact it never even crossed my mind to do what Chuck did, as I had no interest in ATL properties, period.

Going to be doing snake handling tonight are you? (J/K)

By The72John

November 15, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this

72John, I know that you and Bruce have had several heated arguments, but I am going to trust that you are kidding about spamming his email account. Regardless of our difference of opinion on … well just about everything, I do not believe that you are the kind of person that would do such a thing.

Ask that pastor to skip the sermon on serpents and substitute one about “tongue in cheek”, Kevin :-)

By NetBanker

November 15, 2006 05:16 PM | Link to this

~waving~ hey kids! Yet another killer day in corporate land, but on the up side we did our company Thanksgiving pot luck so everyone was very mello this afternoon. I really enjoyed the trip you’ve all provided down my childhood reading memory lane. John…easy on the Hardy Boys!! Mara…the Misty books was where we got the name for our lab when I was little. I’ve even been to the pony roundups to watch them swim in to shore on Assateague.

TIM!! Hey Mister! How are you? How’s the hubby? I don’t recall wearing the same outfit, but I do recall Amelia!

Anyone else get into Roald Dahl?

By The72John

November 16, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Net, I read all the Hardy Boys books, but you have to admit they were formulaic, predictable and lacking in depth. Fun reads, but kind of the Children’s Lit version of a Dean Koontz novel. Also liked Tom Corbett, Space Cadet and Tom Swift books a lot.

And yeah - Roald Dahl was great.

By Chilao

November 16, 2006 09:34 AM | Link to this

I had the same view of Hardy Boys, (formula, etc). Even read some Nancy Drew, at least you could think of her with mind wandering abit in her hot little skirt..LOL

NetB - if you were here in person, I would kneel and say “Touch me; you have seen the Assateague ponies swimming?” in the same way I did when a coworker met one of the hot weatherwoman on TV. “you have met (her name);Touch me”. An aspiration, (Chincoteague swim/sale); conceptually I could buy a pony but have no interest in keeping anything equine.

Okay, ON TOPIC: Since Bush’s 51/49 popular vote in 2004(perhaps 52/48 if rounded) created a “Mandate”(his words) does this new election mean the Democrats have a “Mandate” and he must sign everything they propose? LOL

Anybody hear the GOP are so peeved at him for making them loose the election(like their own 6-year rubberstamping had nothing to do with it…SNORT). that they held up sending two bills to him, and waited until he had left for Asia? So now some WhiteHouse aide has to fly the bills to Asia for him to sign there.

By Randy

November 16, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

I see that the conversation yesterday that put science in its place(science being estimated at 25% accurate)has run off most of the liberals. The truth hurts. By-by liberal nutcases.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this

Hardy Boy books formulaic? I’m shocked. I would have totally hung out with Chet Morton. Every once in awhile don’t you just want to read something that you don’t have to think about but just enjoy? Sort of like the democrat plan for Iraq.

As for the next 2 years. I have no doubt that W will sign most of what they send. He has not yet VETOED a Bill. Not one in 6 years. I don’t think that the Republicans in Congress have anyone to blame for their losses but themselves. They should have finished implementing the Contract with America by instituting Term limits to begin with.

They have little hope of ever getting rid of a little known practice called “earmarks” that has seriously damaged any chance to lower or eliminate the deficit. I certainly don’t expect the democrats to do it. I started to cut and paste a great article on earmarking that would curl your toes, but I decided just to post the link instead for those who want to know how our government really works.

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0504/051004nj1.htm

It is not an anti-democrat or pro-rebublican site. Just good info.

By The72John

November 16, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

I see that the conversation yesterday that put science in its place(science being estimated at 25% accurate)has run off most of the liberals. The truth hurts. By-by liberal nutcases.

No, Randy, it’s just that it is too stupid to even argue with. Much like you.

By Flibberdigibbit

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

Pelosi “is in fact a rainbow-colored-liberal” and we simply can’t abide colored politicians runnning things. You tell ‘em Shaunti!

By 2D

November 16, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

Chilao… Even if the Dems did have a mandate, I’m not sure there would be anything for President Bush to sign when you consider that:

It becomes more and more apparent, to me at least, that the Dems won b/c the public was mad at the GOP, not b/c the public felt the Dems had a plan. Didn’t the most recent poll show that 57% didn’t feel like the Dems had a plan for getting out of Iraq?

When Newt and the GOP took control in 1994, there was a plan and an expectation of things to come. With the Dems in 2006 it appears to be one big fuster kluck.

I will reiterate, I’m all for giving them 2 years to see what will happen, but, things have to appear, at the very least, more organized and focused that it is right now.

By Dog's Apology

November 16, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

chuck, what you did yesterday was wrong. What is on the blog should stay on the blog, no matter how much you dislike what someone blogs.

But, if I offended you to the point where you wish harm to me as a human being, then I apologize for that. As much as I disagree with your views of the Bible, I have no malice toward you as a human, and hope that you feel the same in return, especially as a self-professed Christian. Ditto for all the other bloggers here.

By Dog's Apology

November 16, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

I know that I “over-blogged” the past few months, but forgive me for being a “newbie”. Blogging can be downright addictive!

P.S. to all the Hardy Boys fans, I thought the “Three Investigators” were much more entertaining as a kid.

By Neo-210

November 16, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this

Hi! It was nice to see such a great site!
http://meridiaon.thehostcity.com/meridia-iud/

By chuck

November 16, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this

Dog, the biggest problem I have with you is that you neither listen to reason nor respond reasonably to anything posted. I have no desire to harm you as a human being. You have however called me some pretty vile names in the past few weeks in the attempt to get my attention or engage me, not in a serious conversation, but rather so that you could rant and try to show everybody how smart you are at my expense. I have to admit that your faux pas caused me a little bit too much joy. I saw it as both an opportunity to put you in your place but also as a reminder that just because blogging is anonymous, it does not mean that you should use that anonymity to be a butt or a bully. You have been a total jerk.

You have come to this blog that many of us enjoy a few minutes each day to verbally parry over issues that we care about. Certainly all of us have been unreasonable at times and have had to apologize to others for our transgressions, but you have taken being unreasonable to a new art form. I thought that perhaps removing the anonymity would cause you to dial it back a notch…or maybe 3 or 4. Some still can’t participate with any real level of maturity and resort to name calling, but maybe you can.

There is nothing that I would like better than to have another point of view on the board…if that view was reasonably and maturely expressed. You have been castigated by virtually every person on this board at one time or another. Most have asked you to leave. I don’t care about that one way or another. Sometimes I read what you write and other times I just scroll through. It does not bother me to do that. You can continue to blog however you wish. I don’t care what you say about me frankly. I would never even CONSIDER looking you up personally to settle any percieved score that I might have with you, but you might want to consider that there are others who might, and back off on some of the rhetoric. Now maybe you will have to think and consider the consequences before you write.

You are the second person that I have “outed” in this manner. One decided not to blog here any more. That wasn’t my goal, but then again, it didn’t hurt my feelings any. I just think that everybody who contributes to this blog would appreciate less bloviating and hubris and more discussion. I don’t think I really owe you an apology. You have put enough information in the blog to be found, several times. You did that not me. It certainly was not any attempt on my part to harm you or to have anyone else harm you. You can take these ramblings anyway you wish. I have no plans to “publish” any of your personal information again. Most people rarely go back to previous topics so after this week you have little to worry about anyway. Anyway, I hope you don’t take anything I have written the wrong way. Let me reiterate:

No plans to contact you anyway except possibly in this blog.

No wish for you to be harmed in any way.

Not likely anybody who read the info has any plans to contact you or do you harm

By Chilao

November 16, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

Dog put ENOUGH information here for ANYONE, especially a non-posting lurker with attitude(the people you really would need to be concerned about ANYWAY), to find Dog. IF they were so inclined.

By Richard

November 16, 2006 12:53 PM | Link to this

Tom Delay was called the “Hammer” for his hard ball rule of his fellow Republicans. Now Shaunti wants to disparage Pelosi for the same kind of governing style with the Democrats. Not sure if this is sexist or just partisan, as usual.

By Monica

November 16, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this

No wish for you to be harmed in any way. Not likely anybody who read the info has any plans to contact you or do you harm

Chuck, there is no possible way that you could know the plans of all who post on this blog, or all of those people who don’t post but read the blog. Posting DOG’s personal information did harm him. While I might not agree with his views or his mehods of posting, he is still entitle to the same anonymity that everyone else has. What you did was a cheap shot.

By Renee

November 16, 2006 01:04 PM | Link to this

You are the second person that I have “outed” in this manner. One decided not to blog here any more.*

Who was the first, Chuck?

By Dog's Apology

November 16, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Sorry again to anyone I offended. You are all good people here.

By Renee

November 16, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

One of the inviting factors of the blog that is the protections of one’s anonymity. By the same token, it is up to each and every person, to ensure that their own anonymity is protected. Dog did give enough information for any person, not even being web savvy, to be able to pull up what they own. What chuck did was a low blow to publish it and make it easier, although that is more a battle of morality, since the information would have been relatively easy to obtain.

I would never even CONSIDER looking you up personally to settle any percieved score that I might have with you, but you might want to consider that there are others who might, and back off on some of the rhetoric.

I did, however, find this sentence amusing. Amusing that chuck would accuse another of spouting rhetoric. I mean, on the list of people that someone might be trying to “settle a score with” in my opinion, chuck would be pretty high on the list.

By Chilao

November 16, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

LOL @ Renee - maybe that is why Chuck has never posted any property for sale.

what is so funny about the tax-records thing, my county has a marginal web-site AT BEST, so you can be sure no tax records are available(on-line). Takes those sophisticated urbanites to do that kind of stuff. LMAO

By Mara

November 16, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this

I seldom address the Dog directly but today I’ll make an exception.

It’s not necessarily the amount of posts that have annoyed me, it’s your penchant for stealing other people’s screen names and posting as them. It’s your seeming inability to debate anything without stooping to playground tactics and name calling. It’s your irritating habit of “debating” yourself under other names, usually about garbage nobody else in this forum gives a hoot about (like math and thermodynamics). Your habit of touting how very, very smart you are and how stupid we all are. It’s your habit of demanding personal information to “support” our bone fides. And when you don’t get what you want you throw a tantrum and spam the blog with posts reiterating your demands. It’s your hatefulness, your arrogance, and your self-congratulatory self-high-fives.

In other words, you’ve destroyed the sometimes rancorous, but usually civil, debating tone of this forum and shat upon it. Which is why I, personally, don’t hang here as much as I used to.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

Monica, I agree it was a low blow, however, I teach my own children and my kids here at school that you are foolish to put ANYTHING on a website that could make you a target…that could enable someone to identify you. I don’t use my real name here and I signed up on ajc with a onetime use e-mail address for that reason. Bruno is a grown man. Many of his posts have been about “personal responsibility”. I am not the one who put his identity on the blog HE IS. I just pointed it out.

As for the other one Renee, I’d rather not mention who it was. It was a couple of years ago. He was much like Bruno. He could not JUST disagree with someone, he had to try to make them feel and look foolish. He was a pompous you know what. Thought he was God’s gift to blogging. Again, I meant him no harm, but just like Bruno he thought he could say whatever he wanted to without consequence, trusting to the anonymity of the the internet. The truth is it is NEVER as anonymous as you think it is. Even with the precautions that most of us have taken, it would not be impossible for someone to find out who we are.

And yes Renee, I might very well be high on the list but not because I intentionally tried to rub people’s noses in anything. Everything I have stated on this blog has been because I believe it 100%. If someone wants to persecute me for that or LOOK for me for that, they are welcome to do so. I’m certainly not, however, going to make it easy for them.

By The72John

November 16, 2006 02:11 PM | Link to this

Mara, you forgot to mention one of the prime behaviors exhibited by abusive personalities - profuse apologies to those abused followed by a slow build up to the abusive behaviors again.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this

What county is that Chilao?…just kidding.

By Just Being Me

November 16, 2006 02:17 PM | Link to this

Wow, I’m really surprised at you, Chuck. Seriously. I’m not judging, I’m just really surprised you did that yesterday.

For all the scriptures you toss out, surely you can think of a few to rebuke or chastise yourself, right? To try to recover your witness (for what it’s worth), perhaps you should apologize and post some scripture to go along with it.

You were wrong. Dead wrong.

By GOB

November 16, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

Monica, I agree it was a low blow, however, I teach my own children and my kids here at school that you are foolish to put ANYTHING on a website that could make you a target…that could enable someone to identify you.

Chuck - That is good of you to make sure your children and students know to beware of people like yourself…

By Just Being Me

November 16, 2006 02:21 PM | Link to this

It’s not necessarily the amount of posts that have annoyed me, it’s your penchant for stealing other people’s screen names and posting as them. It’s your seeming inability to debate anything without stooping to playground tactics and name calling. It’s your irritating habit of “debating” yourself under other names, usually about garbage nobody else in this forum gives a hoot about (like math and thermodynamics). Your habit of touting how very, very smart you are and how stupid we all are. It’s your habit of demanding personal information to “support” our bone fides. And when you don’t get what you want you throw a tantrum and spam the blog with posts reiterating your demands. It’s your hatefulness, your arrogance, and your self-congratulatory self-high-fives.

In other words, you’ve destroyed the sometimes rancorous, but usually civil, debating tone of this forum and shat upon it. Which is why I, personally, don’t hang here as much as I used to.

I don’t know who Dog is, but that description sure sounds like someone else I remember from this blog.

Anyway, I agree with you Mara, the frequent spamming and confusing aliases is what drove me away from this blog. I really used to enjoy (most of) the debate, and looked forward to coming in here every single day. But now, it’s just such a headache to see all these silly, childish games going on… it’s just ridiculous.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this

Hey I know…let’s take a poll. How many of you think I should apologize to Bruce for what I did? I will abide by the will of the blog.

By Mara

November 16, 2006 02:28 PM | Link to this

John - profuse apologies to those abused followed by a slow build up to the abusive behaviors again

(smacking forhead) Now how ever could I have forgotten that item!?

By Jack

November 16, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

Dog hasn’t been much more offensive as Taboga, Candide, Norm, Zack or Randy. Chuck it was a low blow. Everyone should use their imagination on the blog, that makes it fun. I have many friends here and all should remain invisible & anonomous(sic) The blog is like the US. A melting pot, all different. I would like to say I was very proud of everyone when that poster from another country trashed the US and we all jumped on him as one. Those are the kinds of posters we want run off. Gotta go, I’ll stop in when I can until they take this away. Love to all. :)

By Bruce

November 16, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Had a minute and just stopped by to see what was going on. Apparently I have missed something and do not have time to read the entire week. Whatever I did please except my apology Chuck. I don’t think I have ever attacked you but if I have…….Forgive me please.

By Just Being Me

November 16, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this

Hey I know…let’s take a poll. How many of you think I should apologize to Bruce for what I did? I will abide by the will of the blog.

Hey I know… instead of taking a poll, why don’t you consult with your Lord and Savior and abide by HIS will? Ask HIM if HE thinks you should apologize to Bruce.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Gob, and I mean this in the NICEST way…bite me.

By Randy

November 16, 2006 02:57 PM | Link to this

Chuck, When in doubt, apologize.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Not you Christian Bruce…the bruce known as Bruno, DOG, God, Sherlock, and various other pseudonyms.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this

Not you Christian Bruce…the bruce known as Bruno, DOG, God, Sherlock, and various other pseudonyms.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this

Not you Christian Bruce…the bruce known as Bruno, DOG, God, Sherlock, and various other pseudonyms.

By Chilao

November 16, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

By Bruce November 16, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this

Older(to W2W) Bruce: you are not the “Bruce” being discussed.

By Monica

November 16, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

You should apologize.

By chuck

November 16, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this

JBM yes

Monica Yes

Jack yes

Randy yes

By chuck

November 16, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

posting madness…sorry for the triple post

By Chilao

November 16, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Shouldn’t apologies come from the heart? not sure what this ‘apology by democratic rule’ is all about.

I suppose I should consider it QUITE OKAY to post nasty crap under OTHER PEOPLE’S NAMES, after all, He did apologize after all.

MAJOR EFFIN SNORT

By Jack

November 16, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Yes Chuck. Dog added to the mix just as you. Like you he is not afraid to engage anyone on the blog. Hell, he even tried to engage NetB and he’s the only one that I remember doing that.

By Mara

November 16, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Hey JBM!! Didn’t know you were lurking out there! Hope everything is going smooth for ya and that life is treating you well. Delighted to hear from you!

as for your question - I don’t know who Dog is…

I was gonna tell you that DOG = Bruno = God = Sherlock =Love Monster = Eric Clapton = Oprah and on and on and on and on….but chuck beat me to it.

By kimberly

November 16, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

John, thanks for reminding us about the abusive behavior pattern. As a woman, I have a biological tendency to soften to tender words and expressions of remorse, but you are so right! It’s all part of the ugly cycle that always comes back around to the ugly stuff.

Hey Jack!

By Bruce

November 16, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this

Well… I am glad to here it wasn’t me. I have just been sitting back reading the blog instead of posting and came on today and thought I had been “sleep posting”.

JBM, Even though we do not agree on some issues I sure do miss you here.

Chuck, I agree with Randy, when in doubt, but apologies should come form the heart not from a poll. Two wrongs do not make a right. One of the reason I stopped posting so much. I was being just as wrong and those I was fighting with.

By kimberly

November 16, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

What are we voting on? Chuck gets my vote for consistently being the meanest, most hurtful person here over time. Would I ask him to apologize? Nope. An apology is worthless unless it comes from the heart.

By Jack

November 16, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

Hi Sweet Thing. :)

By Just Being Me

November 16, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this

Hi Bruce!

I miss you all a lot, too. There’s only so much nonsense a person can take… especially a person with ADD. lol

Hey there Mara! I’m doing very well, thanks for asking. Life hasn’t been this great in a long time! :-) I hope things have been great for you, too!

By chuck

November 16, 2006 04:01 PM | Link to this

Alright…the polls have closed and the general feeling is that I should apologize to Brudog. So, I apologize Bruce, and to show there are no hard feelings I will tell you how to get the information off of the blog.

Go to the webmaster’s page and send him an e-mail and ask him to remove your post giving the address and my posts giving your personal info. They will remove them for you.

By GOB

November 16, 2006 04:05 PM | Link to this

Gob, and I mean this in the NICEST way…bite me.

Ahhh…christian love is in the air…

By Renee

November 16, 2006 04:27 PM | Link to this

*Shouldn’t apologies come from the heart? not sure what this ‘apology by democratic rule’ is all about.

I suppose I should consider it QUITE OKAY to post nasty crap under OTHER PEOPLE’S NAMES, after all, He did apologize after all.

MAJOR EFFIN SNORT*

ummm…Chilao…you took the words right out of my mouth (or off my fingers, since I’m typing)….I swear, I was thinking it, but didn’t have the energy or time to type on it LOL

By Chilao

November 16, 2006 04:39 PM | Link to this

suppose I should consider it QUITE OKAY to post nasty crap under OTHER PEOPLE’S NAMES, after all, He did apologize after all.

I equate that to walking into someone’s office and INTENTIONALLY engaging in the so-socially-unaccepted practice of major flatulence and then walking out.

and then coming back later with ‘gee, so sorry’

By Renee

November 16, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

LOL Chilao…hahahaha…good one…

By Dog's Apology

November 16, 2006 05:10 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the kind words, Kevin, Monica, GOB, Jack. When you meet the Maker one day, there are going to be a LOT of voices calling up there for you from down here, you can be sure. I’ll try to add my own little voice into the chorus, if it means anything to the Real “Big Guy”.

For my own sanity and safety, I’m going to have to find a new hobby, so thanks again to everyone for the laughs and provocative thoughts. Thanks especially to kimberly for sharing your vision of GOD yesterday, it was very eloquent and moving. I believe you have put a lot of thought into what “GOD” really means, and don’t just fall for any old whack. Good luck. Hope you find your Jack one day. There aren’t many like Him, you know.

By sunglasses

November 17, 2006 01:26 AM | Link to this

index.html discount ray ban sun glasses ray ban predator sun glasses index.html discount designer sun glasses man designer sun glasses index.html wholesale replica sun glasses sun glasses wholesale replica oakley

By sunglasses

November 17, 2006 07:40 AM | Link to this

index.html discount ray ban sun glasses ray ban predator sun glasses index.html discount designer sun glasses man designer sun glasses index.html wholesale replica sun glasses sun glasses wholesale replica oakley

By Monica

November 17, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

Instead of a joke to start off this Friday, I’m going to share a link to ajc’s homepage headline story: [http://www.ajc.com//sports/content/sports/highschool/stories/2006/11/16/1117hsmoment.html])http://ajc.com)

It’s quite a moving story.

By chuck

November 17, 2006 09:09 AM | Link to this

A guy goes into Wal-Mart to buy a rod and reel. He doesn’t know which one to get, so he just grabs one and goes over to the register. There is a Wal-Mart associate standing there with dark shades on. He says, “Excuse me, Sir…can you tell me anything about this rod and reel?”

He says, “Sir, I’m blind, but if you will drop it on the counter I can tell you everything you need to know about it from the sound that it makes.” The guy didn’t believe him but dropped it on the counter anyway.

He said, “Thats a 6’ graphite rod with a Zebco 202 reel and 10 lb. test line…It’s a good all around rod and reel, and it’s $20.00.”

The guy says, “It is amazing that you can tell all that just by the sound of it dropping on the counter. I think it’s what I’m looking for, so I’ll take it.”

He walks behind the counter to the register, and in the meantime the guy farts. At first he is embarrassed but then realizes that there is no way he could tell it was him. Being blind, the salesman wouldn’t know that he was the only other person around. He rings up the sale and says, “That will be $25.50.”

The guy says, “But didn’t you say it was $20.00?” He says, “Yes sir, the rod and reel is $20.00, the duck call is $3.00, and the catfish stink bait is $2.50.”

By chuck

November 17, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

If Yoko Ono married Sonny Bono, she’d be Yoko Ono Bono.

If Dolly Parton married Salvador Dali, she’d be Dolly Dali.

If Bo Derek married Don Ho, she’d be Bo Ho.

If Ella Fitzgerald married Darth Vader, she’d be Ella Vader.

If Oprah Winfrey married Depak Chopra, she’d be Oprah Chopra.

If Cat Stevens married Snoop Doggy Dogg, he’d be Cat Doggy Dogg.

If Olivia Newton-John married Wayne Newton, then divorced him to marry Elton John, she’d be Olivia Newton-John Newton John.

If Sondra Locke married Elliott Ness, then divorced him to marry Herman Munster, she’d become Sondra Locke Ness Munster.

If Bea Arthur married Sting, she’d be Bea Sting.

If Liv Ullman married Judge Lance Ito, then divorced him and married Jerry Mathers, she’d be Liv Ito Beaver.

If Snoop Doggy Dogg married Winnie the Pooh, he’d be Snoop Doggy Dogg Pooh.

G. Gordon Liddy married Boutros-Boutros Ghali, then divorced him to marry Kenny G., he’d be G. Ghali G.

If Jack married Andy Capp, then married Jack Paar, then moved on to Stephen King, he’d be Jack Handy Capp Paar King.

If Woody Allen married Natalie Wood, divorced her and married Gregory Peck, divorced him and married Ben Hur, he’d be Woody Wood Peck Hur.

If Ivana Trump married, in succession, Orson Bean (actor), King Oscar (of Norway), Louis B. Mayer (of MGM), and Norbert Wiener (mathematician), she would then be Ivana Bean Oscar Mayer Wiener.

By chuck

November 17, 2006 09:19 AM | Link to this

St.Peter was checking the gate between Heaven and Hell and found a broken hinge. He walked over to the “Pit” and called to the Devil…The Devil says, “Yeah, whaddya want..?”

St. Peter: “The hinge is broken and it’s your turn to fix it..” .

The Devil retorted: “Gee, I am a bit busy and don’t have anyone available for that..”,

St. Peter got angry, “Look, we have an agreement, and it’s your turn to fix the gate..!” ,

The Devil responded, “Sorry Pete, it’s our peak season and there just isn’t anyone available…”

St. Peter turned red and exclaimed…”Ok, if that’s the way you want it, we’ll sue..!”

A big grin broke out on the Devil’s face, “Oh yeah, and just where are you going to find a lawyer on your side …?!”

By chuck

November 17, 2006 09:37 AM | Link to this

Great story Monica. Those 2 coaches and their teams did a great thing. A great message for Thanksgiving.

By Chilao

November 17, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

Monica’s post reminded me of the kid up around Philly, with no legs, born that way I believe, but he plays great h.s. football, can move quite well on his hands. cannot remember his name.

By chuck

November 17, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

With Viagra being such a great medical success for increasing men’s sexual prowess, Pfizer is bringing forth a whole line of drugs oriented towards improving the performance of men in today’s society.

Here are a few of the new ones:

DIRECTRA - a dose of this drug given to men before leaving on car trips caused 72 percent of them to stop and ask directions when they got lost, compared to a control group of 0.2 percent.

PROJECTRA - Men given this experimental new drug were far more likely to actually finish a household repair project before starting a new one.

COMPLIMENTRA - In clinical trials, 82 percent of middle-aged men administered this drug noticed that their wives had a new hairstyle. Currently being tested to see if its effects extend to noticing new clothing.

BUYAGRA - Married and otherwise attached men reported a sudden urge to buy their sweeties expensive jewellery and gifts after taking this drug for only two days. Still to be seen: whether the drug can be continued for a period longer than your favorite store’s return limit.

NEGA-SPORTAGRA - This drug had the strange effect of making men want to turn off televised sports and actually converse with other family members.

FLATULAGRA - This complex drug converts men’s noxious intestinal gases back into food solids. Special bonus: Dosage can be doubled for long car rides.

FLYAGRA - This drug has been showing great promise in treating men with O.F.D. (Open Fly Disorder). Especially useful for men on Viagra.

By chuck

November 17, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

A lady awoke one morning and discovered her dog was not moving. She called her vet who asked her to bring the dog in. After a brief examination, the vet pronounced the dog dead.

“Are you sure”, the distraught woman asked? “He was a great family pet. Isn’t there anything else you can do?”

The vet paused for a moment and said, “There is one more thing we can do.” He left the room for a moment and came back carrying a large cage with a cat in it. The vet opened the cage door and the cat walked over to the dog. The cat sniffed the dog from head to toe and walked back to the cage.

“Well, that confirms it”, the vet announced, “your dog is dead.”

Satisfied that the vet had done everything he possibly could, the woman sighed, “How much do I owe you?”

“That will be $1,330”, the vet replied.

“I don’t believe it”, screamed the woman! “What did you do that cost $1,330????”

“Well”, the vet replied, “it’s $30 for the office visit and $1,300 for the CAT scan.”

By chuck

November 17, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

Two men are trying to get in a quick eighteen holes, but there two women golfers in front of them who are taking quite a long time to play each hole.

The first guy says, “Why don’t you go over and ask if we can play through?” The second guy gets about halfway there, turns and comes back. The first guy says, “What’s wrong?”

He says, “One of them is my wife, and the other is my mistress.”

The first guy says, “That could be a problem. I’ll go over.” He gets about halfway there and he turns and comes back, too.

The second guy says, “What’s wrong?”

The first guy says, “Small world!”

By chuck

November 17, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

A married couple was in a terrible accident where the woman’s face was severely burned. The doctor told the husband that they couldn’t graft any skin from her body because she was too skinny.

So the husband offered to donate some of his own skin. However, the only skin on his body that the doctor felt was suitable would have to come from his buttocks.

The husband and wife agreed that they would tell no one about where the skin came from, and requested that the doctor also honor their secret. After all, this was a very delicate matter.

After the surgery was completed, everyone was astounded at the woman’s new beauty. She looked more beautiful than she ever had before! All her friends and relatives just went on and on about her youthful beauty!

One day, she was alone with her husband, and she was overcome with emotion at his sacrifice. She said, “Dear, I just want to thank you for everything you did for me. There is no way I could ever repay you.”

“My darling,” he replied, “think nothing of it. I get all the thanks I need every time I see your mother kiss you on the cheek.”

By chuck

November 17, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Actual newspaper headlines….

Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers

Safety Experts Say School Bus Passengers Should Be Belted

Drunk Gets Nine Months in Violin Case

Survivor of Siamese Twins Joins Parents

Farmer Bill Dies in House

Iraqi Head Seeks Arms

Is There a Ring of Debris around Uranus?

Stud Tires Out

Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over

Soviet Virgin Lands Short of Goal Again

Reagan Wins on Budget, But More Lies Ahead

Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim

Shot Off Woman’s Leg Helps Nicklaus to 66

Enraged Cow Injures Farmer with Ax

Miners Refuse to Work after Death

Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant

Stolen Painting Found by Tree

Two Soviet Ships Collide, One Dies

Two Sisters Reunited after 18 Years in Checkout Counter

Killer Sentenced to Die for Second Time in 10 Years

Never Withhold Herpes Infection from Loved One

Drunken Drivers Paid $1000 in `84

War Dims Hope for Peace

If Strike isn’t Settled Quickly, It May Last a While

Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures

Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide

Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge

Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead

Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group

By kimberly

November 17, 2006 10:35 AM | Link to this

Great week, y’all! Some actual discussion happened. Since this is “woman to woman,” a shout out to all the smart, thoughtful women here: Lozen, Mara, Renee, Monica, Trog, and Just Being Me, and of course to our “gurlfriends” on the other team, too! (Sorry if I missed anyone.) Thanks for joining in, gentlemen, as always. Hope you all have a great holiday next week, and have something you’re thankful for; don’t spend too much time in the kitchen, and may your favorite football team win BIG! Woo-HOOO!

By chuck

November 17, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

A couple of drinking buddies who are airplane mechanics are in a hangar at JFK New York. It’s fogged in and they have nothing to do.

One of them says to the other, “Man, have you got anything to drink?”

The other one says, “Nah, but I hear you can drink jet fuel, and it will kinda give you a buzz.”

So they do drink it, get smashed and have a great time, like only drinking buddies can.

The following morning, one of the men wakes up and he just knows his head will explode if he gets up, but it doesn’t. He gets up and feels good. In fact, he feels great! No hangover!

The phone rings. It’s his buddy. The buddy says, “Hey, how do you feel?”

“Great”, he said! “Just great”! The buddy says, “Yeah, I feel great too, and no hangover. That jet fuel stuff is great. We should do this more often!

“Yeah, we could, but there’s just one thing … ”

“What’s that?”

“Did you fart yet?”

“No … ”

“Well, DON’T, ‘cause I’m in Phoenix.”

By chuck

November 17, 2006 11:59 AM | Link to this

Wow is it ever dead in here today.

By chuck

November 17, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this

Last one for today!

In the back woods, Mr. Stewart’s wife went into labor in the middle of the night, and the doctor was called out to assist in the delivery.

To keep the nervous father-to-be busy, the doctor handed him a lantern and said, “Here, you hold this high so I can see what I’m doing.” Soon, a wee baby boy was brought into the world.

“Whoa there Scotty!” said the doctor. “Don’t be in a rush to put the lantern down… I think there’s yet another wee one to come.” Sure enough, within minutes he had delivered another little baby.

“No, no, don’t be in a great hurry to be putting down that lantern, young man… It seems there’s yet another one besides!” cried the doctor.

The new father scratched his head in bewilderment, and asked the doctor. “Do ye think it’s the light that’s attractin’ them?”

By Randy

November 17, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

Comment for all the Christians:

The hot thing for this Christmas is “HAPPY BIRTHDAY JESUS” yardsigns, they are given out at some of the churches around Atlanta and people use them year after year and put them in their front yard right after Thanksgiving. It’s a great idea.

By The72John

November 17, 2006 01:01 PM | Link to this

This is relevant, I think…

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/17/britain.webrage.reut/index.html

By Monica

November 17, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this

Chuck, everyone must be in line to buy the new PS-3.

By Chilao

November 17, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this

LOL @ 72John - yeah, I thought about posting that here earlier today. speaking of dem-der Brits, anybody been watching the latest, and final, PrimeSuspect(7)?, Second segment is Sunday evening. Talk about some GOOD TV.

By chuck

November 17, 2006 01:29 PM | Link to this

A teacher across the hall from me stood in line to buy 3 of them last night. She makes her real living off of E-Bay and was planning to sell them for $1500.00 each.

By chuck

November 17, 2006 02:09 PM | Link to this

Maybe Bruno should go to Bloggers Anonymous:

http://darmano.typepad.com/bloggersanonymous/2006/07/blogrageisit.html

By sunglases

November 18, 2006 07:56 PM | Link to this

index.html prada womens sun glasses replica prada sun glasses index.html maui jim sport sun glasses maui jim polarized sun glasses index.html index1.html dior sun glasses man sunglasses.bravehost.com

By aviator

November 20, 2006 04:03 AM | Link to this

index.html aviator ban glasses ray sun aviator glasses mirrored sun index.html spy optic sun glasses glasses spy sun wear index.html man versace sun glasses replica versace sun glasses

By aviator

November 20, 2006 07:15 AM | Link to this

index.html aviator ban glasses ray sun aviator glasses mirrored sun index.html spy optic sun glasses glasses spy sun wear index.html man versace sun glasses replica versace sun glasses

By aviator

November 20, 2006 07:16 AM | Link to this

index.html aviator ban glasses ray sun aviator glasses mirrored sun index.html spy optic sun glasses glasses spy sun wear index.html man versace sun glasses replica versace sun glasses