LUGNET News : Search Results: crap


Search Results: crap

Results 1141 – 1160 of 1516.

Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.

Messages: Full | Brief | Compact

Sort: Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Well, if you're like most male human beings -- you will! One at a time. It's called "serial monogamy." And if you don't get married or have children I think I'd have to say that you would be increasing your chances of increasing the numbers (...) (21 years ago, 24-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) <snip> (...) Are they inherently different? Saying 2 + !2 = 5 or 2 + 2 = !5 Both equations are superfluously different, but inherently they are stating the same thing. Whether you say "I believe that God does not exist" or "I don't believe (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Well Hoppy, I see that you're on a tirade, and, for the most part, a perfectly understandable one. However, your little rant above is not called for. I didn't mention at all my convictions, but am pointing out what may be a reasonably (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) I also like the point of his tirade--Bible thumping Christians who think they have all the answers and like to force their POV down the throats of others is contemptable. (...) You wrote it below--is computer geek for the word 'not' 2 + not 2 (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) Now that was a tremendous ST:TNG ep when Jean Luc was being tortured by the Cardassian--can't remember the quote right now, but when I heard it, it was a "Wow!" moment. And I concur with (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Double D'oh!!!! Grr!!! 'Twas suppose to be 2 + not 2 = 5 and 2 + 2 = not 5 !!!!!! Grr!!! crazy kid doesn't know what the h-e double hockey sicks he's talking about!! Grr!! Going (...) (21 years ago, 20-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) On that we both agree! :) And the rest nicely stated. Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) <snip> (...) Scary, ain't it? K, all religious debate aside, what do we do when generals and political appointees believe their 'god given mandate'? At what point do the citizens actually shut this fiasco down? Dave K (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Vietnam (and a whole bunch of other war/police actions) that America got involved in for selfish reasons would be a similar situation--we wish to distance ourselves from the wrongdoings of our ancestors, or even the wrongs we've done (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) This I do not know but you have an appointed president tlaking all 'christian values' and letting ownership of endangeded and wild species pass into the hands of the average joe (good legislation there) and started a 'military campaign on (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) I'm not one to even remotely come close to throwing Dubya a life line, but which president in recent history wanted to develop a consistant foreign policy? Not even Bubba attempted that task. The Saudis are 'always good', for one example. I (...) (21 years ago, 21-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Intellectual Property Question
(...) Isn't the whole point of making a copy so you can still use the material even if the original is damaged. Unless the record company can prove you did not purchase the CD in the first place they should not have a case against you. (...) I think (...) (21 years ago, 23-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

crap
(score: 0.716)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Then you're asserting that God is finite and imperfect? Dave! (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Well, the chain works like this: To "want" something (such as fellowship), is to imply a lack of that thing (or a desire to prevent the negation/removal of that thing). A being who lacks something is incomplete, and incompleteness indicates (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Did you think the usual proof was to trite? The Problem of Evil A good God would destroy evil. An all powerful God could destroy evil. Evil exists and is not destroyed. ~~~...~~~ Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and all powerful (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) I like that proof just fine, but when I've presented it here before (in prior discussions) it's usually been dismissed off-handedly in terms of "His mysterious purpose" or the like. For variety's sake, I thought that I'd try this perfect = (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Yeah, that's straight from the mouth of Elihu in the Book of Job. Elihu says God "was angry at Job because he justified himself rather than God" (Job 32.2): "God is greater than man. Why do you contend against him?" (Job 33.12-13). God even (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Funny: I want you to express your free will. If you do good, I will love you and reward you in this life and with the attainment of heaven in the afterlife. If you do evil, I will smite you and burn you down in this life and punish you with (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) I'm afraid that the doctrine of free will is incompatible with the notion of original sin; it is logically inconsistent to believe in both. (...) God is limited in other ways, too. God, as an omnibenevolent being, can never take first-hand (...) (21 years ago, 27-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

		Re: Holy crap! (was Re: The partisian trap in California)
(...) Gee, how did I know that all of this was coming? It's not that God is logically impossible -- it's that YOUR CONCEPTION of God is logically impossible. Can you see the difference? Your conception of God, however much you try to evade your (...) (21 years ago, 28-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

crap
(score: 0.715)

More: Next Page >>