Debate : 232


Off-Topic / Debate / 232

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Wish that Starr had found the real dirt instead of this stuff. Who cares who he slept with? The law (1) that compelled him to testify is flawed and should be repealed, but since it wasn't he has to uphold it. My prediction: He won't be (...) (26 years ago, 19-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) That's my prediction as well. However, you missed the point above. Starr found things like perjury and tampering with witnesses, not sex. I wish he found more of the stuff that is mentioned in Unlimited Access - a book by a former FBI security (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Didn't say he didn't. But you missed the point too. Clinton (slimeball that he is) decided to hide his behaviour because if he hadn't he would have lost the Jones lawsuit. I have no doubt he harassed her, none whatever. My point, and I'll (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

More Clinton (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this) —Tim Courtney

(...) Ok, I see now. (...) How is the sexual harassment law written? Why would Clinton's not 'believing' in that law make a difference? I can say I don't believe a wall is there and run in its direction and fall down and get a concussion. Just (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More Clinton (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) You agree with me later, I think. But I want to ensure this point is clear. You're using the wrong sense of belief here. The sense I meant is "believe == think it's a good thing and support as just" not "believe == be aware of, and accept, the (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not sure that it's possible to write this and assure that it won't be taken the wrong way, and maybe since I'm responding to something a month old, I should just let it go, but as you've already guessed, I'm not going to. (I'm going to (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jesse Long

Christopher L. Weeks wrote in message <36A7985D.6AF9AF4@cc...ri.edu>... (...) Spotted recently on a car: a "Darwin" fish getting eaten by a larger "God" fish. The saga continues. Jesse ___...___ Jesse The Jolly Jingoist Looking for answers? Read the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) What _is_ a Darwin fish? or a God fish, for that matter? Jasper (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jesse Long

Jasper Janssen wrote in message <36a8aa9f.144815446@...et.com>... (...) I'll start this from the beginning, in case you don't know the whole story. Christians use a fish symbol to represent Christianity. It looks kind of like this: <>< if your (...) (26 years ago, 22-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Larry Pieniazek

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Larry Pieniazek

Jesse Long wrote: <good fish explanation> (...) Well, there are two kinds. That one, which makes me chuckle, and another one which substitutes TRUTH as the word in the middle on the larger fish. THAT one makes me steam. The first is clever. The (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Thanks. (...) Oh yeah, right, I think I remember seeing that once or twice now. (...) We here in the Netherlands almost never have bumper-stickers, so I guess we missed out :) (...) Any bets on when we will see a darwin fish being eaten by a (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock

Jasper Janssen writes: [[Sniped some stuff]] (...) [[snipped the rest]] Why don't we put all the fish in the Schrödinger-box[1] and wait till tomorow to see which fish has survived? Mark [1] This is the box in which you put a cat and some poison and (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) None and all.. I don't think the nerve gas used in S's box is very specific :) And when we open it, there'll be a collapse of waveforms to none or all. [4] Jasper (...) [4] No, I don't know what I'm talking about [6] [5] Yes, you can have (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —James Brown

(...) I don't know... I think it's pretty safe to say we don't need to wait until we open the box to determine the state of the fishies existence...just listen for the sound of a satisified cat. :) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) The box is sound, light & air proof. In fact, the material used is impervious to any Electromagnetic radiation. Otherwise, the first particle/photon that it emitted and that would happen to collide with either the observer, or cause something (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —James Brown

(...) we (...) for (...) Sigh..I should have taken it to .fun I am well aware of the various aspects of the Shroedinger theorum, I was merely attempting some humor. Mea Culpa, it won't happen again.(1) 1: if this sounds a bit snide, that's because (...) (26 years ago, 25-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) <stuff> (...) Ohwell. Why can't I try to keep a straight face? Jasper (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock

(...) merely (...) So...if we put YOU in this box and a cup of coffee, there is no way we can tell wether you drank the coffee or not? [11] B-) Follow-up set to .fun (I hope..never tried it before) [11] or can we assume you will drink it?[12] [12] (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock

(...) I couldn't help myself [14], I had to try this follow-upthing myself. Sorry for the inconvinience[15] Mark [14] Actually I could, but I don't want to.[16] [15] Hitchickers Guide to the Galaxy [16] Confused yet? (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Actually, its: "We apologise for the inconvenience.", IIRC. "What do you mean you've never been to Alpha Centauri? For heaven's sake, mankind, it's only four light-years away you know. I'm sorry, but if you can't be bothered to take an (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock

Jasper Janssen writes/wrote/has writen: (...) So sue me. :-) I read that book a couple of years ago and after my lsat move I can't find it anymore. (...) Okay, so YOU have my book? Greetsz, Mk (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) I dunno. I have a one volume editon of all five books, which can be had at (among others) V&D and Broese Wristers for about 25 guilders. I do seem to recall _buying_ my version, so I think it's not yours :) HTH. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock

(...) Well, I got the same version. I didn't exactely buy it, though. A friend gave it to me (after he read it) (...) Okay, I'll believe you. Yes, I know, I am stupid that way...B-) (...) I know I shouldn't ask, but what the heck... What does HTH (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) Wow... I fooled him! <eg> (...) Hope this helps. (...) You a beta reviewer for Katmai? I didn't think it was officially out yet.. Jasper (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock

Jasper Janssen writes/wrote/has writen: (...) Folled you in believing you fooled me! (if you can't convince them, confuse them!) (...) Yeah, this helps. Now just tell me what HTH means....wait..got it (shrinking myself in order to become invisible) (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Jasper Janssen

(...) err... Yeah. wahtever you say. (...) Uhuh. (...) And you got to take them home? Cool! Wanna pass it on? I Think I'd really love a review sample of P-III. Not being multiplier-locked, and all. Anyway, what Motherboard do they use? I thought (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —James Brown

(...) As far as I understand the bos thing, while the state of things inside the box is not determined, we may assume that universal constants will apply. So it can be taken as read that I will drink the coffee. ;) James caffeine buzz & Lego - a (...) (26 years ago, 26-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: More religion (sort of) (was Re: More Clinton ) —Mark de Kock

James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) But now you just _asume_ you will drink the coffee. What if in the dark you can not find the cup or you spill the coffee? There are lots of possibilities possible in which you will not drink it (the (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else) —James Brown

(...) box (...) Ah, but it's not an assumption, except in the very extreme view that all theories are assumptions. Based on extensive empirical research, it has been determined that when a cup of coffee and I are placed in the same enclosed area (...) (26 years ago, 27-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Shroedinger and the coffee constant (was RE: something else) —Mark de Kock

James Brown writes/wrote/has writen: (...) area (...) will (...) rule, (...) in (...) considered (...) Is this known as the Theorem_of_James ? (...) do (...) Cheers! (...) is (...) Sooo... this is the way for you to always drink coffee? I just get (...) (26 years ago, 28-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matthew Marshall

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <367D3775.E8CC6DCC@c...AM.com>... (...) True very true, ecspeccialy in California (...) Lewinksy I thought happened at the smae time he testified (...) Clinton has moral courage, I mean who could stand up to 250 (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matt Hanson

(...) Ken Starr is a good man... I never used to believe this, but because of him, the eyes of the American people have been opened *WIDE*... This is not a conspiracy, the conspiracy was committed by the opposite side. And quite frankly, I'm sick (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matthew Marshall

Matt Hanson <"mth8358"@NO SPAMwichita.infi.net> > wrote in message ... (...) there (...) Starr (...) until (...) No, any american who listned to the press, which had already tried and convicted him, already new he did the dirty with lewinsky, and (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matt Hanson

(...) Ken Starr's job was to dig up dirt on Clinton. In doing so, he may have changed the focus from the matter at hand to the present matter. No problem with me, I want the truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If the guy is a sleaze (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

A lot of people have been debating the impeachment issue here. I have an opinion, but because I am lazy, I am going to re-post something that I wrote for another discussion group. There are a couple of references to people who are members of that (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Clinton: Amoral? —Larry Pieniazek

Beaker wrote: <masterful essay, clearly delineating the key points about rule of law> Wow. Great job. Some key points I think need more amplification: - Jim feels, as I do, that the current sexual harassement laws are flawed, but that the president (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Clinton: Amoral? —Jim Baker

Also sprach Larry Pieniazek: : Wow. Great job. <blush> ... thanks:) / _ _ / _ _ It's lonely at the top, but you eat better. ()(-(//((-/ ===...=== Jim Baker -- Weather Weasel Extraordinaire ===...=== (26 years ago, 25-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matt Hanson

Beaker wrote: <alot of stuff cut out for obvious reasons> (...) You have more articulately described what I was hoping that I would not have to. I don't think there was a single word I disagreed with, other than the part about your seemingly (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Matt Hanson: : You have more articulately described what I was hoping that I would not : have to. I don't think there was a single word I disagreed with, other : than the part about your seemingly condoning discreet extramarital : (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Mike Stanley

(...) You know, if Bill & Hillary have an understanding that it is "ok" for each of them them to sleep around, then I could understand what you're saying. If, however, they have the kind of marriage that the vast majority of people enter into, one (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matthew Marshall

Mike Stanley wrote in message ... <snip> (...) Lying is probaly the most important part of leading a country I mean, you have to look the Chinese whatever in the eyes and say "No the American People want to trade with you, we don't think your a (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matthew Marshall

Matt Marshall wrote in message ... (...) oops heres the footnotes (1) Absolutely no offense to any Chinese person out there, just communism in general(4) (2)Diplomacy is best backed by a large arsenal of weapons (3)Yes even Jesus has lied (...) (26 years ago, 27-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Mike Stanley: : So you either can accept that he's breaking his vows to his wife and : she doesn't mind, which makes sense, because if she doesn't mind why : should you? Or you're saying that you condone the violating of one : person's (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Mike Stanley

(...) Prosecute, no. Have faith in them to run the nation? Not me. (...) I'm not saying infidelitey ought to carry a criminal penalty, but infidelity, basically, is dishonesty and betrayal at its worst. I know people who have been unfaithful to (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matt Hanson

(...) That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or wherever) But if you enjoy living in a country where one's word means nothing, I guess that's your (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Marriage and Law (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

Various people have been writing about what it means to be unfaithful. Now, I have no idea what deal Billary and Billary worked out, and this is kind of tangential, but I DID want to point out that in the US, the state has a monopoly on the ability (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Matt Hanson: : That's really a pity. I think that if somebody has an affair, they : should be punished, according to the oath they took at the altar. (or : wherever) Out of curiosity, what punishment do you have in mind? And on what (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matt Hanson

(...) Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about marriage. (another abused institution) (...) Well, you seem to have overlooked the part I wrote (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Matt Hanson: : Divorce, in my opinion, ought to entail some sort of punishment on both : sides, to discourage the practice, or to make people think harder about : marriage. (another abused institution) Yeek. What you are asking for has a (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Matt Hanson

(...) I have no faith in our system of government... It serves those who serve themselves. I would much rather live under Hammurabi's code of Laws. (...) It's not a level of government. It's one of the flaws of our constitution. One that has been (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) But a promise to do what? I agree, people should be held to promises they make of their free will. But the government has a monopoly on granting marriage and constrains who can be married and under what terms. I will not hold a group of people (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Richard Dee

(...) There was a brilliant advertising campaign here in the UK shortly after all of this became known. It was by Sketchley's, a big dry-cleaning company. It was a full page ad, with a picture of a dejected looking Clinton in the centre. Text (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Larry Pieniazek: : My prediction: He won't be convicted because there is no way 67 Senators : will go along. I agree ... even assuming that the 'defectors' even out as they did in the house, that still leaves only 60 'sure-thing' votes (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) At least the house didn't allow censure. Its not their constitutional right to vote on it. The Senate can, but its strictly forbidden to the house. (...) They are definitely impeachable offenses. Perjurs who aren't the president get put behind (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Mike Stanley

(...) I almost rolled out of my chair today when I saw a replay of some democrat talking about sexual McCarthyism (sp). It's amazing how many people want to focus in on the sex involved in this to the extent that they want to ignore the rest or say (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Lee Jorgensen

(...) The biggest problem with the whole impeachment investigation, and the eventual impeachment of the President, is that it was related to sex. IF it was JUST about sex, he'd still be in office ... possibly with another intern :P Though as the (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Mike Stanley

(...) I'd put big money on him getting off. BIG money. Sad, but it will happen. (...) Didn't say he tried to resign. I said he tried to make himself a martyr, which he did. I have no more respect for him than I do Clinton, because, for me, the core (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Amen(1). Is there anyone here at this point who wonders why I advocate the Libertarians? Power corrupts. Less power == Less corruption. When Libertarians say they want less government, they're talking orders of magnitude, not a small trimming (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Larry Pieniazek: : 1 - IT'S JUST AN EXPRESSION. I haven't converted or anything. :-) Trollin', trollin', trollin', keep them flame wars rollin' ... / _ _ / _ _ In a New York restaurant: ()(-(//((-/ "Customers who consider our waitresses (...) (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) Went over my head. It doesn't bother me if a non-Christian uses 'amen.' Oh well, its late, and I'm dead tired. Why am I still up? -Tim <>< (URL) - Coming Soon! (URL) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Terry Keller

(...) Just a question, Larry. You say you haven't converted, but how can that be? To say that implies you have something to convert _from_. Does that make any sense? Just struck me oddly. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Caught me being insufficiently precise. :-)... I should have said "I haven't decided to reject reason yet, and I haven't decided to take things that don't make sense or follow the rules of causality on faith yet, and I don't intend to." (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Terry Keller

(...) Yes, that's clearer. But not as pithy. Could you distill it down into something more succinct? :-) -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um... "I haven't converted?" :-) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Barry McFarland

(...) Republicans, (...) It is said that Larry Flint did not specify party affilation when making the offers, he got what he got (14 republicans, 1 democrat). It may mean that those that would accuse the democrates have nothing to gain because no (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes, thanks for showing a good way to do the feet. (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Terry Keller

(...) Oh! I get it! I hate when ascii art is offset. Makes it hard to see what the heck is represented. Thanks Larry, for lighting that bulb. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Terry K: : Oh! I get it! I hate when ascii art is offset. Makes it hard to : see what the heck is represented. : Thanks Larry, for lighting that bulb. If it was offset, it probably means you are using a variable width font. Try switching (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Terry Keller

(...) True, but using a variable font is easier for me to read. I should have just done a quick copy/paste into a simple text editor. Instead I sit there scratching my head trying to figure it out. -- Terry K -- (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Selçuk Göre

(...) ...<snip>... (...) ...<snip>... (...) What's this thing?..I mean " <>< " Selçuk (26 years ago, 20-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) ...<snip>... (...) Its an electronic symbol of the Ischtus (I think?) Fish, Christians put them on their cars (at least in the US). It was a symbol the apostles used in the early church, etc. You see then plain, with Jesus in the middle, and (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Tim Courtney: : Its an electronic symbol of the Ischtus (I think?) Fish, Christians put them : on their cars (at least in the US). It was a symbol the apostles used in the : early church, etc. You see then plain, with Jesus in the (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) the (...) And I'm a Christian and don't know who Ralph Reed is. See my other recent post on my opinion of the Darwin fish...I don't find it funny at all. -Tim <>< (URL) - Coming Soon! (URL) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Tim Courtney: : And I'm a Christian and don't know who Ralph Reed is. See my other recent : post on my opinion of the Darwin fish...I don't find it funny at all. Ralph Reed is the founder of the Christian Coalition, and he was still in (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well I don't find either of them funny. I see both of them as serious attempts by people to let others know where they stand. I won't ridicule people for using either, as I think it's good to know who I'm dealing with. Someone who is an out (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) Gee, thanks. that makes me feel this big --> . For some reason I'm coming fast to the end of being able to calmly discuss this without preaching to people. The only thing is for some reason you guys all read books so you can argue against (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tom McDonald

(...) <snip> (...) I can appreciate Tim's feelings on the subject. Anyone, right or not, who thinks he is right can get angry when someone refuses to see "the truth". Even those folks who don't believe in God behave this way at times. I am a (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Wouter van Wageningen

(...) I don't get that one. Is someone who believes in the bible, but attends a biology class regarding Darwin, also a hypocrite? ____ |oooo| Cheers, |oooo| Wouter van Wageningen ¯¯¯¯ (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tom McDonald

(...) Presumably, I don't think that's what he meant. I think he means people who go just because "it's a nice place to be" without really taking into account (at least) the real purpose of church attendance. To directly answer your question, I (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Wouter van Wageningen

(...) I don't feel a need for a God of anysort in my life. But I do plan to go to church this christmas. Partly because there are a lot of things that do appeal to me, and partly because my friends like to celebrate christmas with me. And yes, those (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. I go to church too, believe it or not. Let me explain. Tom was close. I am prone to throwaway lines that don't explain in detail what I meant, and it's a consistent problem I have. Everyone should feel free to call me on it, too. What I (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Wouter van Wageningen

(...) Thanks, I guess we feel the same on this subject. Stange, how such a small remark can be interpreted in a totally wrong way ;-) ____ |oooo| Cheers, |oooo| Wouter van Wageningen ¯¯¯¯ (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tom McDonald

(...) Wouter van Wageningen writes: (...) True. My apologies for not being clearer. With the exception of whether I do believe or not, Larry largely put it (as far as I can tell :) how I wanted it said. Be genuine either way. The way I see it is, be (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes but if I walk into a room full of LEGO every day, does that make me a LegoManiac?? :-) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tom McDonald

(...) Garshk, I would *hope* so... and, no doubt, you do walk into such a full room whenever you can. I know I wouldn't mind doing so. :) I gotta start going to KKK's Thursday night poker games... From Tom McDonald Anti-spam block in place. (URL) (...) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Mike Stanley

Message-Id: <slrn78itgo.1gd.cjc@...S.UTK.EDU> X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.4.3 UNIX) p.IWANTNOSPAM.com> Reply-To: cjc@newsguy.com Followup-To: (...) If you walk into a room FULL of LEGO every day I'd say that makes you pretty small or pretty flexible. :) (26 years ago, 29-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Not to pull a Clinton or anything... but sir, it clearly depends on the meaning of the word "full". (26 years ago, 30-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Tom McDonald: : If you believe the bible _and_ that God used evolution, you had better know : your bible and your Darwin to verify their agreement. Many people find them : irreconcilable. This is te point I get hung up on .... I don't (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Barry McFarland

(...) Part of the understanding of evolution is that it does not require an "outside" force. Thus the two are not only irreconcilable, but also irrelavent in association. Choices are: (1) either one is true and the other in not. or (2) niether is (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Barry McFarland: : Part of the understanding of evolution is that it does not require an "outside : force. Thus the two are not only irreconcilable, but also irrelavent in : association. Choices are: (1) either one is true and the other (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, I'm not sure I agree. I have read of gods that were the "cause" of the particular set of laws that apply in this universe(1), and the "cause" of their consequences. Under that analysis, (whether these gods could subsequently work (...) (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Michael Huffman

(...) On a side note, check out the Darwin Awards Official web site ((URL) A friend of mine e-mails them to me about once a year with the new winners. Some of them are quite honestly very funny -- they hear me laughing 3 or 4 cubes away. :) --Mike. (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right as far as it goes, but the reason WHY is that Jesus is often referred to as the fisher of men's souls, and he instructed his apostles to continue his work. (0) One of my all time favorite movies, and my ultimate favorite when chosen from (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) Sounds dumb, but that escaped my mind when I wrote that. (...) In Catholicism. People generally lump Catholicism and Christianity together. They have the same basic history, the same God and hence the same Jesus, but believe other things like (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Selçuk Göre

(...) together. (...) but (...) Evangelical (...) the (...) Hey friends, do you ever think about this?..All of the religions has their own types of ceromonies (I can't find a better word) and beliefs, which are not respected (generally) by the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this (ain't it though? :) —Tom McDonald

(...) I would say that's true. IMO, I need to believe "this" _and_ disbelieve "that" to have a better defined path. Perhaps analogous: Lego bricks only fit in certain ways, though we must explore and use all the ways they do and don't fit and why. I (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this (ain't it though? :) —Matt Hanson

(...) I consider myself to be a Christian, but I have a hard time believing that anybody who does not believe just as I do is bound for hell... I don't think that a God, knowing the confused nature of mankind, would allow this to happen... The idea (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this (ain't it though? :) —Tom McDonald

(...) I'm not quite like that either. At the same time, I don't believe that every person becomes saved either. <snipped middle of thought out response> (...) Yeah, I can't answer them all either, as I didn't invent the mechanism of salvation - (...) (26 years ago, 28-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jeff Stembel

(...) People lump them together because Catholicism is a branch of Christianity. If you believe that Christ is the son of god (and the rest of the Bible), you are a Christian. Most Branches of Christianity formed after the Reformation. Jeff P.S. I (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

(...) Evangelical (...) Good point. I was pointing out that it was lumped, and it is confusing to some non-believers. And I agree, I will un-involve myself now. -Tim <>< (URL) - Coming Soon! (URL) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Christian == Catholic? (Was Geez... —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I apologise for not being sufficiently precise. Catholicism is a kind of Christianity. But there are offshoots that feel that they are christian that most christians would not feel actually are. The one that springs to mind the quickest is the (...) (26 years ago, 22-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Christian == Catholic? (Was Geez... —Jeremy H. Sproat

(...) No, you are pretty much right on target. Larry, thank you for that. You have no idea how much that snippet of understanding means to me. It is because of misunderatndings on this premise that I quit debating general religion with anyone. I (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Christian == Catholic? (Was Geez... —Selçuk Göre

Larry Pieniazek wrote in message <367EE16C.C3BE1B7E@c...AM.com>... ...<snip>... (...) It is partially true. Islam accepts both Jesus (Isa) and Moses (Musa) as prophets, but believes that the Islam is much more completed, and fills the gaps that (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Christian == Catholic? (Was Geez... —Jeff Stembel

(...) On a historical note, Christianity and (I believe) Islam are offshoots of Judaism, which itself is an offshoot of the Polytheistic Babylonian Religion. Jeff (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

(canceled) —Matt Hanson

Re: Christian == Catholic? (Was Geez... —Matt Hanson

(...) Religion. (...) While the first statement is true, the last is garbage.... (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Christian == Catholic? (Was Geez... —Richard Dee

(...) Religion. (...) I do believe there are also slight similarities to Zoroastrianism, which I believe was the first monotheistic religion from that region... (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Christian == Catholic? (Was Geez... —Richard Dee

(...) The Islamic faith recognises Christ as a prophet, though not a saviour. Not quite as highly revered as Mohammed, but quite high up there....... (26 years ago, 24-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Jim Baker

Also sprach Tim Courtney: : They have the same basic history, the same God and hence the same Jesus, but : believe other things like worship of Mary, the Pope, etc. I am an Evangelical : Christian (Pentacostal/Charismatic to be precise) who does not (...) (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

SF Story (was Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this) —Chad Smith

(...) check my back issues of Science Fiction Age for the author and title. The action took place on a lunar colony, IIRC. I forget who won the case, though. Chad (26 years ago, 8-Jan-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Steve Bliss

(...) Plus, IXOYE (or I<CH><TH>US) is Greek for fish, right? Steve (26 years ago, 23-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tom McDonald

(...) For anyone interested, the Ichthus was a symbol of a fish with the Geek acronym inside it that meant, I=Jesus - in greek his first name starts with iota; latin has it as "Iesu"), X=Christ - last name starts with chi for the hard sound in (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Tim Courtney

Re: Geez, its hard to stomach all of this —Terry Keller

(...) But sometimes, I just _have_ to make a modification. :-) I have twice. Once on a 4x4 turntable - separated it and ground a small amount from the joint on the top half. I needed it to make the radome for my Apache. And I reamed out the axle (...) (26 years ago, 21-Dec-98, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)