 | | Re: I will NOT be putting a link to this comic in off-topic.fun's header
|
|
(...) Dave K. (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | I will NOT be putting a link to this comic in off-topic.fun's header
|
|
(URL) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Response for Dave! (about 3 years later:-)
|
|
(...) huge, and elements were easily overlooked. (...) That's an interesting explanation, but I'm kind of surprised to hear you offer it, since it's strongly reminiscent of Jesus as portrayed in The Last Temptation of Christ. That film is one of my (...) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Oh, but it is in fact the very *crux* of the issue... at least in one line of argument that's advanced. If you posit the existence of a creator because you can't accept a universe always having been, you haven't actually *explained* anything, (...) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) The whole Hacker's Dictionary is, IMHO... (...) Well, maybe. But as the entry points out, if you do it on purpose, it doesn't count, so since you said you did, you failed, and I guess it's still on. :-) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I will assume you read that reply. SNIP (...) I always took the creation of angels as implied. 'In the beggining God...' (No mention of angels) 'created heaven and earth' (I always put them in the heaven stage that isn't really described in (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Ah, you caught me. @8^) I was trying to sneak out of continuing this debate. By mentioning the H-man, I thought I could end it having still gotten in the last word(1). Alas, not everyone recognizes Godwin's Law around here(2). -Rev. Smith (1) (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Well, I've never met a Dave I didn't like, so there's a personal axiom--I've never met a Dave I didn't like! No recollection needed. Though, thinking of it now, not too many Larry's I didn't like, either. But just those two... Dave K. (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I'm thinking YDNRC... (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) snip lots of stuff (...) big snip again (...) What if free choice is something like Quantum Physics (QP)? I've read somewhere that according to QP, ALL events happen, we just experience the ones we choose (the other events are potential (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Inconceivable!! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Wait a minute--- John? Neal? I should have known! Dave! (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 2nd Amednment meets the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
(...) How could I? My handgun has been confiscated by some wacky San Francisco Judge! ;-) I have learned my lesson WRT getting all heated up about rulings coming out of the 9th, although I could live with a ruling that grants the States the power to (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never to get involved in a land war in Asia. And only slightly less well known is this: never go in against a double-named debater when truth is on the line! -John (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 2nd Amednment meets the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
|
|
Or: Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger! The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld California's right to ban certain types of firearms and place restrictions on them. But the ruling's foundation has extremely broad implications. Basically, they (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Will Bush Jr pardon whomever Kissinger sheds some light on?
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes: <snip> (...) Yes, I noticed that as well, with the exception of late night talk show hosts--they're always saying 'President Bush'. I wonder why that is? I guess it's to distinguish the jokes about (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) But if I did that, my wife would kill me. Dave! PS. By the way, I forgot "scolex" (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Will Bush Jr pardon whomever Kissinger sheds some light on?
|
|
(...) What can we say? Surely his "alleged" improprieties can't be as serious as a legal extramarital affair, false accusations of perjury, baseless rumors of cocaine smuggling, trumped-up allegations of murder, or ultimately unfounded implications (...) (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I thought the old axiom was "make sure you marry a man with two last names" (preferably old money names). :-) Maggie C. (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I thought the old axiom was 'always trust a Dave!' At least, IIRC Dave K (22 years ago, 6-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
