 | | Re: Terrorists hate freedom
|
|
You know, I had kinda hoped that someone other than John might have spoken up in defence here. Perhaps that they have not is a very good sign. This post is longish, and I do apologise. I don't normally wax quite so lyrical, but it is a deep and (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Perhaps our history has given us additional insights into the importance of freedom, and the lengths one might be prepared to go for it. Not to suggest our thinking is necessarily better, perhaps just a little different ;-) Richard Still (...) (21 years ago, 13-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Prove it. (...) So, apparently, does "gentleman's" war, if it's a useful objective. ROSCO (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Er-hem. I know what you are trying to get at, I'm just trying to point out that your examples aren't exactly the best for doing that (and mostly just to give you are hard time for humor's sake). In your example above, all that's true, but it's (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) That's my amazing prose, of course. (...) I don't know that it's two steps back. I can accept that Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are separate authors of the Gospels, just as I accept that, say, HP Lovecraft and August Derleth are separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) I don't have time for your endless tangentalizing-- as if I am obligated to comment on every new topic you toss out in the form of a 6 word question. JOHN (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) I didn't say that I thought they were right, or wrong, just that I was amazed at your example. (...) Freudian equivalent of a banana peel? (...) So, within the universe of the Bible, Luke, Matthew, John, and Mark are sufficiently separate (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Terrorists hate freedom (was Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles)
|
|
(...) Show me how that analogy is relevant. (...) Get a dictionary, and see what "condone" actually means. Then look up "cluster bomb"... a weapon of indiscriminate destruction. You are a (...) Did I say civilians were targets at any point? (...) (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) It is not me that is making the claim. (...) Hardly a credible objective viewpoint! (URL) About> the same pet group: "Some U.S. officials see Iran as a target for regime change and have suggested using the Mujahedin-e Khalq as a vehicle for (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: codifying marriage on biblical principles
|
|
(...) Since they cannot be verified as independent sources and can instead be shown to borrow heavily from one another (in a manner quite similar to the process of editorial revisions of a single work), they cannot, to my satisfaction, be regarded (...) (21 years ago, 12-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
