He hit a couple of those stacks right on the edge instead of in the middle. Bet that hurt...
My Time Warner doesn't have Speed HD.
33 - vince guaraldi - linus and lucy (donno which version)
Joined as wark.
Why make a new subleague?
Why make a new subleague?
Wow, it actually sounds like an engine at the beginning. 
edit: is it a M/F or a F/F?
edit: is it a M/F or a F/F?
Last edited by wark, .
If they hadn't gone so far out of their way to make it LOOK like a ricer it would have been even faster. :rolleyes:
The greatest cars look slower than they are, but not in this way!
The greatest cars look slower than they are, but not in this way!
For what it's worth, when I took the MSF course the two biggest points they emphasized (they really hammered the guys when they forgot) were to NOT cover the brake (cover the clutch instead) and keep your head and eyes up and staring seemingly off into the distance. They said if you did those things, you'd be fine on the test—but this was the California Highway Patrol.
How is P•~Q non sequitur?
P | Q |~Q |(P•~Q)
T | T | F | F
T | F | T | T
F | T | F | F
F | F | T | F
P = Homosexual behavior is now tolerated
Q = It needs to be promoted as a normal alternative
It's not even an argument. He didn't say anything "follows," as you suppose.
Last edited by wark, .
Reason : truth table
Quoted For Truth. ;]
I feel enlightened after reading some of this stuff.
I feel enlightened after reading some of this stuff.
Wycliffe's translation says "nether letchouris ayen kynde, nether thei that doon letcheri with men, nether theues, nether auerouse men, nethir `ful of drunkenesse, nether curseris, nether rauenours, schulen welde the kyngdom of God." I believe he and his apprentices worked from the Vulgate, though. It's a funny one—Tyndale's (what the KJV was mostly based off of) translation says "whormongers" and "weaklinges" shall not inherit the kingdom of God... whatever that means.
...but what about the Hebrew part (Leviticus)? The part that says "Thou schalt not be medlid with a man bi letcherie of womman, for it is abhomynacioun."
I know it's a little off-topic now, but I was just bored/curious: if you read the bible and interpreted it in a pretty straight-forward manner, wouldn't you consider it to contain at least a couple anti-homosexual bits? Personally, I haven't been able to find anything to the contrary...
Maybe it would be more logical to be against the bible than to be for it and consider it to say nothing against homosexuality?
I think the most oft-quoted bits in a religious opposition to homosexuality are Leviticus 18:22 (Jews, Christians), and First Corinthians 6:9 (Christians).
Well, my point is that you can blame them for believing what's in the book, but you can't really blame them for thinking homosexuality is bad if they do.
That website has the original Hebrew/Greek if you want to delve deeper into the meanings of words. I'd be interested in hearing another interpretation/viewpoint of the biblical position on homosexuality. I hear context is pretty relevant.
Maybe it would be more logical to be against the bible than to be for it and consider it to say nothing against homosexuality?
I think the most oft-quoted bits in a religious opposition to homosexuality are Leviticus 18:22 (Jews, Christians), and First Corinthians 6:9 (Christians).
Well, my point is that you can blame them for believing what's in the book, but you can't really blame them for thinking homosexuality is bad if they do.
That website has the original Hebrew/Greek if you want to delve deeper into the meanings of words. I'd be interested in hearing another interpretation/viewpoint of the biblical position on homosexuality. I hear context is pretty relevant.
Last edited by wark, .
Reason : links
I got a huge kick out of that. Talk about tolerance! These guys are opposing-viewpoint-o-phobes. Better plug your ears and shut your eyes! someone on a message board disagrees with you!
I'd say that flymike91 has the most right to say anything in this thread, as it's a thread ABOUT him (and his people). He lives in California—he actually has a physical vote on the issue, and whether or not you choose to listen to him, his government will. :haha:
Except "activism" and "hyperbole" are important words to understand, too.
roffelz.
Just ask yourself: "What was the last thing I spent 10 pounds on?"
That was probably the best thing to spend 10 pounds on at the time. Or at least it should have been.
If this fails, whatever you spend 10 or so pounds on semi-regularly (like petrol).
That was probably the best thing to spend 10 pounds on at the time. Or at least it should have been.
If this fails, whatever you spend 10 or so pounds on semi-regularly (like petrol).
Right. Nothing inherently religious about the lawyers or Elvises I mentioned, either.
I guess the big deal with the religious folks is that they're obliged to respect their government (not that they always do).
The funny thing is, I could go get legally married to a girl by the wave of a registrar's magic wand, and make out with her in church or something, and the ferocious people would harass us until they found out that we were "technically married." Then they'd have to leave us alone. I'm not even kidding.
I guess it's that logic that would twist their brains into pretzels if a gay couple walked into church. They'd usually go apeshit on them, but now they'd have to treat them like humans. It's that kind of a paradox that they're scared of.
So why are we all so eager to copy them with marriage (usually in churches, no less)?
Tradition, I guess. Who cares about tradition, though.
Well, I've been thinking about it and maybe I was wrong. It isn't that religious anymore, is it? a lot of straight couples just drive to Vegas and let Elvis marry them... or skip the ceremony altogether and just sign the papers. But they still need an ordained religious minister of some kind to do the deed--unless they can find a lawyer or a ship's captain or something.
And is it really that romantic to make a lifelong commitment to someone before... the State Gov't? "Hey, baby. I'll love you until the Gov't falls apart."
Tradition, I guess. Who cares about tradition, though.
Well, I've been thinking about it and maybe I was wrong. It isn't that religious anymore, is it? a lot of straight couples just drive to Vegas and let Elvis marry them... or skip the ceremony altogether and just sign the papers. But they still need an ordained religious minister of some kind to do the deed--unless they can find a lawyer or a ship's captain or something.
And is it really that romantic to make a lifelong commitment to someone before... the State Gov't? "Hey, baby. I'll love you until the Gov't falls apart."
Prop 8 is only in CA/for CA.
While religious bigots will vote "yes" for all the wrong reasons (for the sake of being anti-gay), don't let the "gay rights" issue become a red herring: Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. all define "marriage" as between men and women. The very concept of "marriage" (a purely religious idea not synonymous with monogamy, simply living with someone forever, OR legal/economical implications) was brought about by some of these people many thousands of years ago.
You gotta ask yourself: Does one really have the right to mess with the ancient, sacred traditions of these people?
A "no" vote just to "stick it to the religious" is just as bad as a "yes" vote to "stick it to the gays."
I just don't like the idea of stealing someone else's idea and forcing them to change it to suit you. At least give them the courtesy of giving it a different name.
I'll vote for gay rights, but also for separation of church and state: religion that isn't governed by the state's own doctrine. I say stop calling it "marriage" in lawbooks altogether. Allow civil unions for all who apply--but leave the religious ceremonies to the religious!
While religious bigots will vote "yes" for all the wrong reasons (for the sake of being anti-gay), don't let the "gay rights" issue become a red herring: Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, etc. all define "marriage" as between men and women. The very concept of "marriage" (a purely religious idea not synonymous with monogamy, simply living with someone forever, OR legal/economical implications) was brought about by some of these people many thousands of years ago.
You gotta ask yourself: Does one really have the right to mess with the ancient, sacred traditions of these people?
A "no" vote just to "stick it to the religious" is just as bad as a "yes" vote to "stick it to the gays."
I just don't like the idea of stealing someone else's idea and forcing them to change it to suit you. At least give them the courtesy of giving it a different name.
I'll vote for gay rights, but also for separation of church and state: religion that isn't governed by the state's own doctrine. I say stop calling it "marriage" in lawbooks altogether. Allow civil unions for all who apply--but leave the religious ceremonies to the religious!
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG