"Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong - Page 50

02-08-2007, 11:48 AM

>>>Such locations are supposed to have reduced speed warning signs so that
>>>stopping from the reduced speed is possible. If these signs don't exist,
>>>the transportation engineer in charge should be notified.
>>
>>
>> Transportation engineer <BAHHH HAAA HAA COUGH!!> <wiping tears from my
>> eyes> Oh man THAT IS A GOOD ONE. The county I came from didn't even have
>> building inspector (note that is for the entire COUNTY) and you expect
>> them to have a transportation engineer.
>>
>> As for the state roads the spot is well known because during the summer
>> tourist season there is usually at least two MAJOR traffic accidents (one
>> time involving a state trooper).
>>
>> The point is slow speed objects in a place where they are not expected
>> are dangerous. It doesn't matter if the object is a car, tractor, bike
>> or cow..
>
> Wow. A state transportation department full of ingoramuses responsible for
> a known hazardous situation that could easily be fixed.

Have you ever tried dealing with a state department? Been there (several
times) and didn't even get a lousy tee shirt. I was sure that after in one
year a trooper had been rear ended and a motorcyclist KILLED at that
intersection something would be done. I was on that same road last year and
there was a change. . .they repainted the lines.

Remember you can't sue the state w/o its permission.

02-08-2007, 11:48 AM

>> I disagree on the target issue. Motorcyclist are the most in danger
>> because
>> people in cars seem to think that we are nothing but small cars and treat
>> us that way. When a car over takes a walker or biker most of the time it
>> will pull over to give extra room. When they pass a motorcycle they
>> don't.
>
> In 20 years of motorcycle riding, I've never been passed by another driver
> in my same lane. So by definition every time I was overtaken the driver
> moved over into the adjacent lane.

You will note I said EXTRA ROOM. On a 4 lane road most cars will move to
the far left (passing) lane if they can when they see a bike on the
shoulder. Most cars seem to just clear the line when passing me on the
motorcycle.

02-08-2007, 11:48 AM

>>That's because they didn't hand harvest nor have to try to plan on how
>>much
>>corn to plant to harvest enough to feed ever how many chickens, hogs,
>>ducks,
>>etc.
>
> Hell, they didn't do it for the garden in the back, either. And, yes,
> it was handharvested, whatever that has to do with anything. Corn
> yield is a ridicuolous thing to count based on seeds planted - maybe

Because when you are hand harvesting to feed the critters which will keep
you from going hungry you want to make sure you get each and every ear.
That means you check each stalk even when you know that the odds of finding
a second ear is very small.

> especially for a back acre garden. BTW, you do know that the corn
> generally used to feed the livestock has very little to do with the
> corn generally grown as food for humans?

Yes. IIRC, there are three basic types. Corn for livestock, corn for
direct consumption (on cob, canned, etc) and corn for indirect consumption
(meal, oil, etc)

We grew field corn (mostly for livestock) and sweet corn (mostly for humans)
we did share some

Ever had parched field corn? Good stuff.

>
> Maybe we just didn't know how to do things in Kansas, but we did grow
> a fair amount of corn before soybeans took over.

Cotton was king for us. Corn was grown for our use. I do know that we'd
been very happy to get more than one ear per stalk (tried saving seeds from
those to replant but not much luck) because that would have meant less land
in corn and more in cotton and therefore more money in the bank.

02-08-2007, 11:48 AM

"Curtis L. Russell" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:31:04 GMT, "no spam" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>First, you failed to answer my main questions, who gets to pick who
>>breeds?
>
> I do. Unfortunately, part two, where I tried to pick the "who with"
> got me an elbow in the face. Still have the broken nose...

Well there's another use for corn. Grind it up, add a little sugar, water
and a few other things. Do something in the barn that you don't tell many
folks about then apply results to said 'who'. Not fool proof but can
improve your odds a tad.

02-08-2007, 11:49 AM

Wayne Pein wrote:

> More on drivers out to kill and collide with others! Yes, there are a
> very few psychotics out there. Am I going to assume they are after me?
> No. Should anybody assume that? No. If you did, then you'd have to yield
> inappropriately at every junction out of fear that the boogey man had
> finally found you.

Have you ever actually driven a motorcycle? You've never seen somebody
deliberately open a door in front of you? Yeah, I know that's what
happened -- the little ****head was looking right at me and laughing
when he did it.

> I think a safer and more realistic attitude is to assume that people
> don't want to hit you, but might make a mistake and accidentally do so.
> So you drive your vehicle in such a way as to mitigate that risk.

Yeahyeahyeah, but it's a lot more efficient to just assume the worst --
active malevolence -- and plan accordingly. Evil or stupid, you're just
as dead.

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-08-2007, 11:53 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]lid wrote:

> When I am driving, I don't have time nor
> appropriate facilities to evaluate the reasons for the risk they
> present, nor is it germane. There are far too many drivers repeatedly
> and consistently "making a mistake". Those drivers rely on my assumption
> that they are (pick one or more: stupid, psycho, emotionally unfit,
> inexperienced, inebriated, etc., etc., etc.) to avoid the collisions
> which their (pick one or more: neglect, distraction, aggression, etc.,
> etc., etc.) would otherwise cause.

I'm constantly amazed at how much reliance total strangers place on MY
brakes.

> Practically every police agency in the nation has data indicating that
> almost *all* vehicular "accidents" (GOD, I HATE that term) are
> AVOIDABLE.

> That means that when "accidents" happen, they happen because drivers
> don't want to avoid them. Ergo, most "accidents" happen because the
> driver at fault wishes, at some level, for them to happen.

More likely too stupid or careless to try to prevent them from
happening. Do not attribute to malevolence etc...

--
Cheers, Bev
===================================
New sig on order, watch this space.

02-08-2007, 12:12 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make
>>>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

>>>>> IIRC, the church still says he and his rulings are perfect and must be followed.

>> It doesnt even say that. Only a microscopic subset
>> of his pontifications are even claimed to be infallible.

> So any priest anywhere can stand up and say that the Pope is full of hot air on his rulings on
> homosexuals and letting women be priest and still keep his post in the church?

Nope, so anyone is welcome to discuss whether a particular
ruling makes sense, and sometimes even a later Pope decides
that the shafting of Galileo made absolutely no sense, even tho
he didnt mention Bruno, presumably because he went up in flames.

And anyone with a clue just kept their mouths shut on the question
of whether the sun revolved around the earth, whatever some damned
pope or other ruled, until even that pathetic collection of utterly
corrupt clowns managed to get the basics right on that eventually.

> Sorry don't think so.

'think' again.

>>>> Its much more complicated than that, most obviously when the rulings change over time.

>>> Not really,

>> Corse it is.

> Not the basic rules.

Fraid so. Married priests is an absolutely classic example of that.

Now those who choose leave a protestant cult and join the roman
catholic cult dont even have to ditch the wife and kids anymore.

Best eventually they'll have to allow priests to marry, just because
the entire organisation will eventually implode if they dont.

> But my point is even if the rules do change what does it matter if you ain't following them go
> begin with?

Plenty do make some attempt to follow the more sensible ones.

And basically make an obscene gesture in the general direction of
Rome on the most stupid rules like not using any contraception etc.

I doubt too many in the west take any notice of the ban on
condoms anymore, even if plenty of the fools in africa still refuse
to use them because those fools in rome ban the use of them.

We've seen plenty of the sillier rules like eating fish on fridays etc
and attending communion regularly just ignored by most now.

>>> you have rules and if you are a true <insert something here> you follow the rules.

>> Its nothing like as black and white as that mindlessly superficial line.

> Sure it is.

No it isnt, most obviously with the sillier stuff like eating fish
on fridays and sending your brats to church schools etc.

> If you don't believe and follow the rules then you
> shouldn't claim to be a member of the group.

Mindlessly fanatical, as so often with you rabid fundys.

Hordes in asia have a quiet grovel to most of the available deitys,
presumably on the basis that its better to spread your bets or something.

> Just because I eat pork or beef every meal does that mean I'm not a vegetarian!! OF COURSE IT
> DOES. It doesn't matter how many times I tell you "I'm a vegetarian." if I don't follow the rules
> and eat meat I am NOT a vegetarian NO MATTER how often I say I am.

Its nothing like that black and white with eating fish on fridays etc.

> I can claim to be a Christian but if I screw around on my wife and rob banks for a living am I a
> Christian? Nope.

But you are still a catholic if you dont always eat fish on fridays.

> Therefore you saying that Christians screw around on their wife's and rob banks is foolish.

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

>> A hell of a lot of what protestantism is about isnt about 'rules'

> Such as?

Its mostly about a direct communication with some purported god
without the intervention of any priest or clergy with many of them
and without any church organisation laying down any 'rules' etc.

You're suppose to work out what that arsehole of a god wants
you to do by reading that pathetic collection of fairy storys instead.

Which can be no mean feat when that arsehole of a god had
no problem with Abraham ****ing his sister and Job ****ing
his daughters after that arsehole of a god chose to turn his
wife into a pillar of salt for mearly daring to look back on
what that arsehole of a god was doing to their home town.

>>>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

>>>> And you don't 'think' that the church isnt well aware of that ?

>>>>> Seems they don't care as long as they keep
>>>>> getting money from the non-Catholic Catholics.

>> It aint primarily about money.

> Then explain to me why the non-Catholic Catholics are not tossed out of the church?

Even the stupidest in rome have noticed that that sort of gung ho approach
doesnt work and just produces stuff like protestantism and Lutherans etc.

They've noticed that even burning them at the stake doesnt work either.

> Why do they allow women who the priest KNOW have screwed around and had abortions to be married
> "in the church".

For the same reason they allow priests who **** children to remain in
the church. Basically utterly misguided ideas about it being possible to
get them to stop doing that when it isnt another example of one of those
having managed to make it to bishop or cardinal without being caught etc.

Even the last pope didnt demand that those
be booted out of that obscenity of a church.

>>> In a lot of cases it has become a joke, allowing 30 year marriages with 5 kids to be annulled so
>>> someone can get married 'in the church' but not allowing divorce.

>> Sure, but thats got nothing to do with money.

> Hockey Pucks!

You're actually stupid enough to 'think' that using silly
words like that will stop you going up in flames ?

> If it ain't about the money then what is it about?

They have this rather naive idea that even those can change their ways.

Thats true of most of the protestant cults too even on stuff like
child molesting, let alone ****ing around with consenting adults.

Yes, some of the worst of the cults would rather burn individuals
like that at the stake, but we have made that illegal now.

>> Plenty of examples of that with protestants too, most obviously with the execution of
>> abortionists.

> Give me plenty of examples then.

Most obviously with how individuals who 'lapse' and **** a consenting
adult outside marraige are hardly ever booted out of the cult as long as
they admit that what they did was wrong and promise to never do it again.

Virtually all of the protestant cults allow remarraige after divorce now,
even tho it took the episcopalians quite some time to cave in on that.

Eventually even the roman catholics will wake up and smell the coffee
and decide that they've wasted enough time on stupid fudges on that stuff.

> The weak one

It aint weak at all.

> you gave fails on three reasons.

No it doesnt.

> 1) you can't show me one church that calls for that;

The whole point of many of the protestant cults is that there
aint no church hierarchy that sets the rules. You're sposed to
use that pathetic collection of fairy storys and work out for
yourself what that arsehole of a god wants you to do instead.

You do that yourself on something like giving up on non christians
when you have presented your claims about what some god or other
wants us to do, and they choose to ignore that, when you wave
around some bit of that pathetic collection of fairy storys and dont just
show what some church bigwig has claimed is the rule to follow.

> 2) check out what I have been telling you, just because someone calls himself a Christian doesn't
> mean he is;

True of you and your ilk in spades.

> 3) abortionist are not being killed day in and day out.

The frequency is completely irrelevant.

There werent all that many examples of people like Bruno being
burnt at the stake because they insisted that the earth revolves
around the sun either, essentially because those with a clue chose
to keep their mouths shut after Bruno had gone up in flames.

>>>>>> You missed 60's and love, love, love.

>>>>> Still a lot of hate there.

>>>> Just another of your silly little fantasys.

>>> Really?

>> Yep.

>>> Weren't there several lynchings in the 60's?

>> Not by those spewing that love ****.

> So you admit that there were lynchings in the 60's

Corse I do.

> and there was still a lot of hate.

A tiny number of lynchings in the 60s doesnt qualify as 'still a lot of hate'

> Using your logic we don't have any hate now
> because there are those "spewing that love ****."

You wouldnt know what logic was if it bit you on your lard arse.

You're the one stupid enough to believe that what some fool that
was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans is purported to
have said has any relevance what so ever to today.

A fool born to some slut with a rather novel way to
explain the unexpected brat, 'god dun it'. Yeah, right.

>>> How many military people did you hug and say you loved in the 60's?

>>> Never been into stupid stuff like that.

> And yet you claim that my stating there was hate in the 60's

Nothing like what you actually said.

> was "Just another of your silly little fantasys."

Yep, thats what you actually said is.

>>> Yeah, I guess I'm just fantasizing all that.

>> Or havent got a clue about what was being discussed.

> You seem to be the one unable to follow the topic at hand.

Easy to claim.

>>>>> Racist have a lot of love, as long as you are the right color.

>>> Most of them don't.

>>> Sure they do, just read their literature on how much they love themselves.

>> Pathetic.

> Another thing you and they have in common.

Pathetic.

>>>>>> Actually, I wish it were that simple, but it is not.

>>>>> What exactly is Iraq, a holy war, an anti-terrorist war, or an oil war??

>>>>> All.

>>>> Nope, it aint a holy war for starters.

>>> Tell that to the Sunnis who are killing the Shiite or the Shiite who are killing the Sunnies

>> That aint a holy war.

> Let's see, they are killing each other because of difference in religion

No they arent. Its just the usual sectarian ****, they kill kurds etc even more enthusiastically.

> but you don't call that a holy war. Just how do you define a holy war?

Stuff like the crusades and the spread of islam thru north africa.

Even tho the english civil war had some religious cult component, it was actually
a civil war, much more about parliament versus the king etc than the religous stuff.

Even the spanish armada was just more dynastic stuff, even
tho different 'christian' cults were represented on either side.

Even pogroms and the holocaust werent essentially holy
war, they were just another example of an out group
getting stomped on even tho they were a different religion.

>>> or others who believe they have to kill the infidels.

>> There are **** all of those too.

> I give up what does that even mean?

**** all of those are killing infidels because they are infidels.
They are getting killed because they are the invaders instead.

>>>>> The terrorists are using false religious teachings to recruit people for a 'holy war' for
>>>>> control of the oil and the money it brings.

>>>> Have fun explaining the terrorists from countrys that have no oil.

>>> Frist off there's no need. We are talking about why the terrorist want control of Iraq.

>> No we arent.

> Try to stay on topic.

How is me denying that claim you made me not staying on topic ?

> Not editing so much might help,

I didnt edit a damned thing.

> although I doubt it because you are losing the debate.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> The point you are responding to is the fact that terrorist need money

No they dont.

> and oil is a good way to get it.

It aint the only way to get it.

> You tried to change the topic

No I didnt. I just rubbed your nose in that fact that that
stupid claim about money is just plain wrong, as evidence
by the fact that there is plenty of terrorism where no oil
is involved at all, most obviously with the palestinians.

> to terrorist from countries w/o oil.

Because thats the evidence that your silly claim
that its always about money is just plain wrong.

>>> But because you asked its simple they get money from terrorist who get money from oil or
>>> poppies.

>> Wrong again. There's plenty of terrorists where there is no oil or poppies.

> Ok, first you need to check to see if its time to take another dose of your meds because you seem
> to be completely losing your ability to focus here.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

And your obscenity of a god doesnt allow you to behave like that anyway.

> Next carefully re-read what I wrote.

Pointless, mindless pig ignorant silly **** stays mindless
pig ignorant silly **** no matter how often its reread.

> The statement above has nothing to do with the terrorist being where the oil and poppies are

Never said it did.

> only they are getting money from other terrorist who get their money from oil and poppies.

Just another of your silly little pig ignorant fantasys.

> Where do you think binny boy got his money to run his little holy war?

Irrelevant to what plenty of other terrorists have managed to do without.

> From selling magazines door to door? Nope from his family's oil business.

Irrelevant to what plenty of other terrorists have managed to do without.

Have a look at the background of the terrorists that blew themselves
to bits in england recently and you will find that they werent funded
by oil or poppys. What minimal funding they did need essentially
came from their parents or their employment.

>>>>> The more money they have the faster they can force their religion
>>>>> on the rest of the world under the threat of terrorist and death.

>>>> It aint about money.

>>> Everything is about money.

>> Just another mindlessly silly fantasy.

> IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindless fundy fantasy.

>>> Without money nothing happens in this world.

>> Just another mindlessly silly fantasy.

> IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

>>> They are told that their religion is the only correct religion

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

> And it is true.

No it isnt.

> Study their own words.

Been doing that likely since before you were even born thanks.

>>>> and they are to force it upon the rest of the unbelieving world.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

>>>> Can't do that w/o money.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> Ok, tell me how to spread a religion around the world w/o money.

No one said anything about 'spread a religion around the world'

Plenty of religions arent even into spreading their religion at all.

> I'd love to know so that I can start spreading mine at no cost.

Even someone as stupid as you should be able to work out
how that is done using the internet if someone was actually
stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.

>>>>> As I have said, if you have to threaten your followers with death
>>>>> to keep them following your religion then you are following a false religion.

> >>> There is no such animal as a 'true' religion.

>>> Sure there is, even in the human view of the world.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

>>>> A true religion is one that allows people to make their own decisions of how to live but shows
>>>> how that life should be lived.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

>>> A true follower of Christ does just that.

>> Another pig ignorant lie.

> IOW, you can't counter my point.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

>>> There are others who do, I disagree with them but once they have heard the truth as I see is
>>> they must make their own decision on how to live.

>> They ignore your mindless **** because they have noticed that you don't have a clue.

> You seem to be the only one here who can't support his arguments.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

>>>> If I think you are going to Hell I'll tell you and tell you what you can do to prevent it.

>> And I'll tell you to shove it where the sun don't shine.

> I don't care,

You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrlevant.

> I have done my part.

Just another mindlessly silly fundy fantasy.

> The rest is up to you and God.

There is no god, just an endless variety of crutches for pathetically inadequate 'minds'

> Just the same as if I tell you not to touch that wire because the
> electric fence is on. If you touch it after that its your problem not mine.

Pity that you are just raving about your pathetic little fundy fantasy and not reality.

>>>> But I will never try to force you, by physical force or by using the police power of the state,
>>>> to change.

>> You have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.

> Me in specific or me as a Christian in general?

All of the above.

>>> IOW, you are nothing more than a closed minded bigot who thinks he's the only one who knows what
>>> right in the world.

>> You'll burn child. That fool that was stupid enough to get nailed up by the romans said very
>> unambiguously indeed that you cant do that sort of thing.

>> Just another rabid fundy that cant even manage to work out what that fool who was stupid enough
>> to get nailed up by the romans told him to do.

> I do think you should talk to the docs about adjusting your meds.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead, child.

> Tell them you can't keep focused and tend to repeat yourself, having
> problems controlling your anger and have are having some really bad
> self image issues and feel the need to try to make others feel small
> to make yourself feel bigger. Personally I'd suggest you mention
> adding Seroquel or if you are on it already upping the dose.

You're clearly the one on the meds, child.

02-08-2007, 12:16 PM

R.H. Allen <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 15:42:04 -0500, "R.H. Allen" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and
>>> Protestants (some of whom, primarily Lutherans, still accept the
>>> primacy of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into
>>> a heated debate about it.
>>
>> I assume that you somehow mean that SOME Lutherans accept the primacy
>> of the Pope.
>
> Precisely. Sorry if my wording was confusing. Though I think that to
> say they accept the *primacy* of the Pope is a bit strong -- they
> accept the doctrine of apostolic succession, which opens the door to
> papal primacy, but the degree to which such non-Catholic churches
> accept primacy varies (and for the most part, the non-Catholic
> churches that accept this are Eastern churches rather than Protestant
> ones).
>> While I am not aware of any, and am aware that the three
>> largest Lutheran churches in the U.S. do not, I guess it could be
>> true. Like to hear the name of the Lutheran Church and where it is
>> located. It could be true, but I doubt it.
>
> As I recall, they call themselves Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical
> Catholic Lutherans, or some variation thereof. I guess a specific
> example would be the Evangelical Community Church-Lutheran, an
> offshoot of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. They follow an
> episcopal polity, their priests are ordained according to apostolic
> succession, and they won't ordain women until such a time as the Pope
> okays it.

Fark, I thought I'd seen it all. Guess its not much worse than the
considerable number of episcopalians and anglicans that jump
ship back to that obscenity, the roman catholic church, tho.

> Here's one I was able to find in Kansas City via Google:

> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

They should be burnt at the stake.

02-08-2007, 12:24 PM

no spam <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>>>>>> My parents were Catholic when I was born and gave it up because
>>>>>> of the weekly donation issue. It seemed to them that the church was out for the money and
>>>>>> people were trying to buy their way into Heaven.

>>>>> Had to drop in here. Your up bringing is the problem. The Catholic church, in most
>>>>> non-catholic's opinions, DOES NOT follow the true teachings of Christ and therefore are not a
>>>>> true Christian church.

>> You're just describing the centuries-old rift between Catholics and
>> Protestants (some of whom, primarily Lutherans, still accept the
>> primacy of the Pope). If I were Catholic I'm sure we could get into
>> a heated debate about it.

>>>> The Pope is just the figurehead of the church and does not make
>>>> many decisions. It is the Cardinals that tell the Pope what to say.

>> Nonsense. It is Catholic dogma to excommunicate anybody who challenges the Pope's primacy. The
>> *nature* of his primacy can be debated, but his

> If that were true then it seems to me that 90% of the US Catholics
> should be kicked out. They are openly thumbing their noses at him
> and his teachings on birth control, divorce and more.

They arent as hard line as the worst of you rabid fundys.

They have confession for a reason, stupid.

>> As I said, I'm not Catholic myself, but I've spent enough time with practicing Catholics to have
>> learned a thing or two....

> Ask them if they are following the teachings of the church on all things.

Only rabid fanantics ever do that.

> Only a handful of the "practicing Catholics" I have known through my life (I dated one for a
> while) were what I would call true Catholics, i.e. following the teachings of the church. The
> rest looked at them as guidelines not rules.

And that has always been one way of doing a religion.

Doesnt stop it being a religion and plenty of protestant cults operate like that too.

>>> Heck most of the Catholics I know don't even follow their own rules.

>> Most of the "religious" people I know, regardless of faith, don't follow their own rules.

> Which is my point. I'm telling you I'm a vegetarian but I eat pork, beef, chicken and fish. Now
> am I a vegetarian or not?

It aint that black and white with stuff like eating fish on fridays.

> I can tell you I'm a Catholic (not to pick on them but because we have been talking about them)
> but I don't go to mass,

It aint that black and white either. What about only going occasionally ?

> have sex outside marriage, use birth control and support abortion on demand. Now am I a Catholic?

Corse you are if you decide that the ban on birth control is stupid.

> To me the answer to both questions is a huge NO.

Yeah, but you are a rabid fanatic.

You dont see many of those in the roman catholic church
anymore, most of those turned into protestants instead.

>> That said, there's actually a process by which Catholics can formally question some of the tenets
>> of the church without being
>> excommunicated. I forget what it's called, what can be questioned,
>> and the details about how it works, but it's an involved enough
>> process that I'm guessing the people you're talking about are merely
>> lapsed to some degree and not "officially" questioning the church.... :-)

> My point had very little to do with Catholics in specific. I picked
> them because they are world known and I know a little about their
> religion. My point was and is you can't condemn a group based on
> actions of people who are only claiming to be members of that group.

But you can condemn a group which is stuffed with rabid fanatics like you.

02-08-2007, 12:28 PM

no spam <no@spam.net> wrote:

>>>>>>> I think having them ride a bike, the vehicle Jesus would have ridden,

>>>>>> By all reports, Jesus walked, went boating and (on special occasions) sat on a young ass.

>>>>> IOW, he used the transportation of the day.

>>>> Pity that bikes arent that.

>>> Depends on where you are.

>> Nope, and its certainly not true of where you are, or where he is either.

>>> Seems to me that they are in some cities. I used to have a vid clip of an Asian city showing
>>> what looked thousands of bikes on a round about.

>> Pity that fool that got nailed up by the romans aint asian.

>>> I don't think there's a US city with that many bikes in total much less on the road at the same
>>> time.

>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

>>> Of course bikes aren't much use for us who live in the middle of no where.

>> So your silly stuff is just that, mindlessly silly stuff.

> Tell you what, tell me how much use a bicycle is for me.

Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully
and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored.

> Let's take buying groceries. To get from my new place (closer to town now) to anything other than
> a 'quickie mart' store (they don't tend to sell
> much in the line of fresh veggies there) I first have to head down my
> driveway (just a couple hundred yards) to the county 1 1/2 lane wide
> dirt road. Take it for about a mile where I get to the paved county
> road, 2 lanes no shoulder. After about 3 miles on that I can get on
> a state highway and go only about 45 miles. Yeah, I can see how me
> thinking a bicycle isn't much use for me is silly.

Irrelevant to that mindlessly silly stuff of yours above that you carefully
and dishonestly deleted from the quoting and I have restored.

What was being discussed was what that fool that was stupid enough to
be nailed up by the romans would use for transportation, not what you use.