-
On 7/16/2006 07:08:00 PM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
You're cute when you're mad, babe. :-)
-
On 7/16/2006 07:09:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Thank you, but Kate says I'm cute all the time.
-
On 7/16/2006 07:12:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Ok, Kate says I'm especially cute when I'm mad.
Or sleeping.
Answer the question.
-
On 7/16/2006 07:36:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Your last click was 8:20. You got nothin'?
Just gonna sit there and refresh?
-
On 7/16/2006 07:47:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Not inherently. What makes you think they are?
-
On 7/16/2006 07:48:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
If my lover Kate and I take a man or two, or a woman or two to bed together, and nobody's lying, where's the unspirituality?
-
On 7/16/2006 07:57:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
In fact, I can't think of anything MORE spiritual than people giving themselves to each other so completely.
-
On 7/16/2006 08:00:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Tribune, how frickin' hard is it? Do you have to go look your answers up in a Bible or something? Stop stalling and playing games. Be honest and answer the damned question. Talk to me, don't quote whatever source it is you're using. If you can't explain it without looking it up, then it seems to me you don't even believe the garbage you're spouting.
-
On 7/16/2006 08:00:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
In which case you're an even bigger coward and liar than I thought you were.
-
On 7/16/2006 08:03:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Do I frighten you? Am I a threat to your belief system?
Open your digital mouth and talk. Don't regurgitate what's being fed to you by book or email or whatever the hell it is that's taking you so long to answer.
If you can't even talk straight about what you think, then you aren't thinking at all.
-
On 7/16/2006 08:03:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
OHHHHH waitt a minute.
-
On 7/16/2006 08:08:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Our purpose?
First of all, if you think that's what our purpose is, you have to back that up.
Second. I am not the one confusing sex and love. It's you. If I love Kate and I have sex with someone else, they are two separate things. You sir are the one who thinks that sex outside of love shouldn't or couldn't exist and be fine.
YOU are the one equating the two.
Third, if sex is EVER destructive to love, you just ain't doin' it right, and that's YOUR problem, not mine.
Here's what is right and wrong.
If I'm not hurting anyone else, it's right. If I am hurting someone else, it's wrong.
And I didn't need an anthology of bedtime stories, or the threat of eternal damnation to tell me that.
-
On 7/16/2006 08:12:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Goodnight Janie
-
On 7/16/2006 08:18:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
If you have the courage to come back, three things...
1. Is your heart really so small that it only has room for one person? If so, then my pity is what you need, and what you have.
2. You still haven't even begun to link monogomy to spirituality. But rather only to your religious tradition, not even to your Bible.
3. Open up your brain, and perhaps your heart will follow.
JanieBelle
-
On 7/16/2006 08:45:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh and I hope your bunny feels better. I'm pissed at you, not your bunny.
-
On 7/16/2006 10:09:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
If I can weigh in here, I will be flabbergasted if Tribune7 can give you a straight answer. Now, this may not necessarily be deceitful on his part. I often find it is hard to get reasoned answers during religious discussions.
Faith often short-ciruits critical thinking. It certainly does not have to, but often does. If I take a stand on faith, it gives me an easy out to quit thinking about an issue. Much like sports fans who love their team too much, always believing they're going to the World Series this year, these "faith only" types are blinded to the benefits critical analysis can bring. One can think about an issue and still have faith in some future outcome. Faith does not have to be blind.
Tribune displays this sort of thinking in his comment:
Tribune7 said...
The purpose of our existence is to love God and to love our neighbor.
(snip)
Now, why do you think what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong?
July 16, 2006 9:01 PM
The first statement is unqualified. It is his opinion. What makes it better than anyone else's?
The second implies that the first is a given and passes judgment without suitable reasoning.
Now, Janie, you commit the same error in your reply:
Here's what is right and wrong.
If I'm not hurting anyone else, it's right. If I am hurting someone else, it's wrong.
If the point is to be tolerant, neither of these statements reflect that. If the point is something else, one should come out and state it. I, for one, think Janie's position has been well staked out despite the semi-rash statement above.
It would seem that it is Tribune who must present a counter argument. A remember, argumentation comes from backing a point...not by making statements. Answer Janie's first question: why is monogamy inherently spiritual? Asking another question will probably not be accepted as an answer (unless you're Lao-Tzu and can teach us a lesson through the question).
-
On 7/16/2006 10:16:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Blipey!!!!
You're right of course. I was just a little hot under the collar at the time.
Sort of a frustrated screaming PMS bitch rant kind of statement.
Your insights are always welcome, and since they are so well thought out, Kate and I award you another rose, and since we just love seeing your clown picture all over our blog, you get a kiss from each of us, too.
And he just poked his head back in here, but didn't comment.
I think I scared ol' Josh out of his wits. He seems to be rather impotent to deal with assertive women. But that's just my unqualified opinion.
I hope he didn't pee himself.
Just so y'know.
-
On 7/16/2006 10:45:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I hate to be called a "self-pee-er", so I guess I better acknowledge my peeking (not, pee-ing, no pee-ing here).
Too bad he didn't leave a comment. I wish people would. Discussion is good for the soul, argument even better. Takes two to do it though.
I know you don't like name-calling here, so I won't. But, it is the very number one thing I dislike about IDers and especially UD--there is no discussion. As soon as things get interesting, everyone is banned or the thread is erased.
People can hold differing opinions; in fact it is probably healthy that we do. But places like UD are incestuous (the blog, not the people) and by being so manage to contribute almost nothing of worth.
Well, I must go wipe off my leg uh...get a drink.
-
On 7/16/2006 10:46:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
And another raspberry for blogger...no {strike} tag.
-
On 7/16/2006 10:58:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
well I don't suppose I can gripe too loudly about name calling after the last day or so of posting I've done here. I've been less than kind with some of the things I've said.
I don't usually out the peekers, but he was really pissing me off. There are actually a WHOLE LOT of them. Hey, have you seen the visit counter lately? That's not page views, that's visits!
Do the math. There are a whole lot more people reading this blog than the few who "have the stones" to comment here. Most of them are regulars. They come back day after day, some of them several times a day. A handful of them are spending hours reading this and that page here. They're not people who are accidently leaving a window open in the background. I watch the blogometer stats in a separate window, just to see what's going on. I can see all sorts of things with that thing.
What's really interesting is looking at which pages get the most views as opposed to which get the most comments. Trust me, there is no signifigant correlation there at all.
Truth is, people come here to read the sexy stuff for the most part. But I guess a very few of them are willing to admit they are spending time reading about a 17 year old girl "getting down" with a female Marine.
Get over it. It's not porn, it's romance. I won't tell, and I don't mind. If I did it wouldn't be on the web.
After having said all that, I really do wish more of the "lurkers" would participate. It would be a lot more conducive to everyone's understanding and well being here, I think.
Ok, I'm rambling, tired, about to start my period, and Kate is dozing and snuggling, so I'll end it here.
And raspberries to blogger for no strike tags in the comments, from blipey, the Shakespeare quoting Snuffleupagus.
I'm not proof-reading this, get over it.
-
On 7/16/2006 11:00:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
And Josh is back again, just FYI. I wouldn't expect him to say much, though.
-
On 7/16/2006 11:25:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Well shiver me timbers, he did pop in... right after I said I was done for the night.
Turns out I had one more post to put up. Good thing I left the email account open.
One quick thought before I go tonight. The rest can wait 'til morning.
Josh blustered thusly
Why? They make you feel good and other people happy?
Allow me to just ask this about that:
Is there any better reason?
Good night, and Grease For Peace.
-
On 7/16/2006 11:50:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Hmmm. No, I don't think we're talking past each other. I understand exactly the words you use. I just don't think you're saying anything.
We still have just your word that polygamy, divorce, etc are bad for the soul. How do we know this? On what authority? So far, you have just given us "according to my life experience."
Well, I have no reason to base my life on your life experiences. I've had my own, thank-you very much. I find it odd that you presume that your life experiences have prepared you better for life than mine (or, by extension, anyone with a different world view than yours) have.
On what grounds do you live a better life than me? I'm sorry if I sound a little snippy, but I really am interested. Do you think that your life has more value in some way than mine...that you are somehow a wiser or better person than I am? On what basis do you believe this? Notice I am not making any judgement about the ultimate truth of this, I would just like to know how you know.
Does monogomy affect the soul? Sure. How? If you are wholeheartedly practicing monogomy you are not practicing polygamy, divorce, adultery, promiscuity etc.
Those things are bad for the soul.
I'm sorry, this is NOT a definition. Monogomy affects the soul because it isn't polygamy? Come on. So, now we have the question does polygamy affect the soul? Notice you failed to answer this question. There is no "Commutative Property of Polygamy".
Once again, if all you have is your personal belief, what makes it better than someone else's personal belief? If you have something more than this, please tell us what it is. No, the bible will not count. Other people have different religious books that tell them different things...why is one inherently better than the rest?
-
On 7/17/2006 12:17:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Maybe this will clarify my point; I'm going to do a little word substitution.
Does (monogomy) affect the soul? Sure. How? If you are wholeheartedly practicing (monogomy) you are not practicing (polygamy), (divorce), (adultery), (promiscuity) etc.
Those things are bad for the soul.
Does idleness affect the soul? Sure. How? If you are wholeheartedly practicing idleness, you are not practicing dancing, thinking, arson, pre-marital sex etc.
Those things are bad for the soul.
Why is my version any less valid than yours?
Also, something I forgot to comment on above. Why can you not practice divorce as a monogamous person? It would seem to me that you could be a seial monogamist, being faithful to one person until you divorce them, then do the whole thing over.
I believe this reveals your blind spot (perhaps the hole we're talking through/past? You personally disagree with divorce and agree with monogamy so they must be opposites. That just isn't true. You are once again substituting your personal beliefs for universal truths.
-
On 7/17/2006 12:20:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Sorry; it's late. My last comment should conclude:
You are once again mistaking your personal beliefs for universal truths.
-
On 7/17/2006 05:46:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
blipey!
Well said.
It's pretty funny that he didn't come back until he thought the tiger had left.
Really tribune7, she's just a kitten. It's ME you should worry about. I'm full grown, and I'm a carnivore.
But my thought on this statement by blipey:
You are once again mistaking your personal beliefs for universal truths.
It looks more like he's mistaking his personal delusion for reality.
As for tribune7's latest pile of poo, I don't care if god loves me...
Janie does, and that's all that matters.
Kisses to blipey from Corporal Kate
-
On 7/17/2006 05:49:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Janie does make a girl proud, though, doesn't she?
blipey, if you haven't read the whole thing that WENT DOWN (sorry, couldn't resist) at Uncommon Descent yesterday, you should.
It's good for a chuckle. My little Kitten really bared her claws over there.
CK
-
On 7/17/2006 07:01:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh the things she can do with that tongue...
What?
I was talking about her verbal skills. What were YOU thinking?
CK
-
On 7/17/2006 07:08:00 AM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Here Janie -- something for you to ponder then I'll let you be.
Many persons want to know their election before they look to Christ, but they cannot learn it thus, it is only to be discovered by "looking unto Jesus." If you desire to ascertain your own election;-after the following manner, shall you assure your heart before God. Do you feel yourself to be a lost, guilty sinner? go straightway to the cross of Christ, and tell Jesus so, and tell him that you have read in the Bible, "Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out." Tell him that he has said, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."
Look to Jesus and believe on him, and you shall make proof of your election directly, for so surely as thou believest, thou art elect. If you will give yourself wholly up to Christ and trust him, then you are one of God's chosen ones; but if you stop and say, "I want to know first whether I am elect," you ask you know not what. Go to Jesus, be you never so guilty, just as you are.
Leave all curious inquiry about election alone. Go straight to Christ and hide in his wounds, and you shall know your election. The assurance of the Holy Spirit shall be given to you, so that you shall be able to say, "I know whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed to him."
Christ was at the everlasting council: he can tell you whether you were chosen or not; but you cannot find it out in any other way.
Go and put your trust in him, and his answer will be-"I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. "
There will be no doubt about his having chosen you, when you have chosen him.
-
On 7/17/2006 07:17:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Janie
Can you make this or this the picture associated with my blog ID here? I prefer the second one if it comes out legible.
Thanks.
-
On 7/17/2006 07:28:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
You're kidding, right?
Do you feel yourself to be a lost, guilty sinner?
I think I can safely speak for sleepyhead here when I say
ummmmmm. no.
If you will give yourself wholly up to Christ...
Currently the only one she's "giving herself wholly up to" is me. You and Jeebus have to get in line.
Behind blipey.
And the octopus alien.
And the pile of steaming Snuffy poo.
Leave all curious inquiry about election alone.
Translation:
Don't think. Just do what I say.
Again.... ummm... no.
I want to know first whether I am elect
What we want to know is this:
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING JEEBUS BOY?
Christ was at the everlasting council
Was that at the UN? You know I think I was in New York that week. Traffic was murder. Tell JC I really appreciated that. NOT.
There will be no doubt about his having chosen you, when you have chosen him.
There is no doubt that you are mentally unstable.
Janie chose me. I chose her. That's the only choosing going on here.
Sleepyheaded Kitten has read (sort of, with one eye mostly open) and approved of these comments and added "tell him to go to Hell".
Have a nice day.
Corporal Kate
(with minor imput from my lover)
-
On 7/17/2006 07:30:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Dave,
Janie says "sure, either one, but you have to upload the picture to your blogger profile"
Kisses, no tongue,
CK and an almost awake JanieBelle
-
On 7/17/2006 07:34:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I really would love to read the thread at UD, but I can't. I think my IP Address has been permanently banned. I keep getting forbidden errors when trying to access the site. I tried a different compiler and same result. So, I guess I am no longer welcome there.
Really my own fault--I was loading their filter up with a few actual questions, but a lot of crap. However, I thought that they deserved it at the very least. I used to ask questions and participate in much the way I have done in this thread. My points were often in oppositon to theirs, but in the same vein and tone as those above. This got me panned and belittled. So, I decided that I would become a little snippy.
If DaveScot disagrees with my assessment of the banning, perhaps he could tell us why here? I'd link to relevant threads, but I can't. And, of course, since they'd be highly edited, it really wouldn't make that much difference would it?
-
On 7/17/2006 07:38:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
We can't speak to your banning issue, but I was proud enough of my little tiger kitten to copy and paste the whole thread as a text document.
I'll email it to you.
It really was a beautiful thing.
Kisses,
CK
-
On 7/17/2006 07:39:00 AM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Have a nice day too, Janie.
-
On 7/17/2006 07:45:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh, am I being ignored, Tribune7? Can I have your holy permission to have a nice day, too?
Piss off, jerkweed.
(yeah, what she said, homo-jb)
blipey,
the email is zooming digitally to your inbox.
CK
-
On 7/17/2006 07:47:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Man, the bold tag just doesn't have the same effect on a black page...
:)
Bo'f us
-
On 7/17/2006 08:00:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
As for Tribune7:
Completely abandonded argument entirely? I see your latest post completely ignored the question of why YOUR belief system was better than everyone else's?
Abandon your saintliness; put away your prudence; and the people will gain a hundredfold!
Abandon your benevolence; put away your justice; and the people will return to filial piety and paternal devotion.
Abandon smartness; give up greed; and thieves will no longer exist.
These are three things for which culture is insufficient.
-Tao Te Ching, verse 19
I can quote philosophy, too. So what. What makes mine better than yours? You can't upbraid me for not sharing yours if you can't give me any objective reason why it is better than any other (say Bhuddism, Hinduism, Agnosticism, Atheism) These are popular models all around the world, do you expect their adherents to have the same attitude that you do? Why, or why not? Would it make a difference to you, if you lived in their cultures? Why or why not?
Please answer without quoting scripture.
-
On 7/17/2006 08:38:00 AM, Clint Bourgeois waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Please answer without quoting scripture.
It seems clear to me that's all you'll get out of Tribute7.
I've interacted with others like Tribute7. The Bible is the end of any and all discussion. The evidence from the Bible is truth, and their response to questioning of that truth is nothing but prayers for your soul.
If you try to quote The Bible to support your point, all you get in return is how you misunderstand what you are quoting. At some point you just have to roll your eyes. Reason and logic will not win arguments with these people.
-
On 7/17/2006 08:38:00 AM, Clint Bourgeois waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Gah, tribune7, not tribute7. Raspberries for me.
-
On 7/17/2006 08:41:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Well we just called you blipey on the space shuttle thread, so if you get raspberries, so do we.
-
On 7/17/2006 08:45:00 AM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Janie
One more point then I'll leave you alone.
Sexual promiscuity etc. will lead to bitterness and inhibit your ability to love others without inhibition.
That's why there are sexual sins.
That's the point I'm getting at.
Anyway, have a great day.
-
On 7/17/2006 08:47:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
You are absolutely deranged and clueless, aren't you Josh?
-
On 7/17/2006 08:53:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I know that's all I'll get, BR. However, I am generally optimistic and think that by stating the obvious, people will look in the mirror and see what my objection is. Sometimes my objection isn't even with their point, but in their justification of it. (Though those two things are often inseparable with fundies). This discussion, for instance. I believe that promiscuity can lead to various social problems. I'd agree with him that far. Oh well.
And, I say BIG ROSES FOR JANIE for mistaking me for BR. I didn't even have to do anything and I take a step up in the world. I just need to figure out how to make people think I'm BR all the time.
-
On 7/17/2006 08:59:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Blipey, see Kate's comments here.
Ok, NOW we're getting in the shower.
-
On 7/17/2006 09:14:00 AM, Clint Bourgeois waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
And, I say BIG ROSES FOR JANIE for mistaking me for BR. I didn't even have to do anything and I take a step up in the world. I just need to figure out how to make people think I'm BR all the time.
Oh, how easy it is to fool people on the internet! I'm really not all that much to idolize. :P
-
On 7/17/2006 10:43:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Aww, we bet you're very handsome, BR.
And just for the entertainment of you all, Kate says I should cross post my latest comment at UD--
2) a creature unable to foresee something as obvious as that is not a modern human.
This from the woman stuck in 1872? Perhaps modern is a word with which you are not familiar.
Here, let me help:
From the Free Dictionary
“mod·ern Pronunciation (mdrn)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to recent times or the present: modern history.
b. Characteristic or expressive of recent times or the present; contemporary or up-to-date: a modern lifestyle; a modern way of thinking.
2.
a. Of or relating to a recently developed or advanced style, technique, or technology: modern art; modern medicine.
b. Avant-garde; experimental.
3. often Modern Linguistics Of, relating to, or being a living language or group of languages: Modern Italian; Modern Romance languages.
n.
1. One who lives in modern times.
2. One who has modern ideas, standards, or beliefs.
3. Printing Any of a variety of typefaces characterized by strongly contrasted heavy and thin parts.”
Here’s another one:
“ar·cha·ic Pronunciation (är-kk) also ar·cha·i·cal (–kl)
adj.
1. also Archaic Of, relating to, or characteristic of a much earlier, often more primitive period, especially one that develops into a classical stage of civilization: an archaic bronze statuette; Archaic Greece.
2. No longer current or applicable; antiquated: archaic laws. See Synonyms at old.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of words and language that were once in regular use but are now relatively rare and suggestive of an earlier style or period.
[Greek arkhaikos, old-fashioned, from arkhaios, ancient, from arkh, beginning, from arkhein, to begin.]”
And I believe that should conclude our lesson on adjectives for the day, class.
Comment by janiebelle — July 17, 2006 @ 10:32 am
-
On 7/17/2006 10:54:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Sorry, but that million year old prude is on my last nerve.
modern human?
Have you SEEN this woman's picture???
Perhaps she should look in the mirror before she starts talking about modern humans.
Here's another definition for ya' lady:
Ne·an·der·thal Pronunciation (n-ndr-thôl, -tôl, n-ändr-täl) also Ne·an·der·tal (-tôl, -täl)
n.
1.
a. An extinct human species (Homo neanderthalensis) or subspecies (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) living during the late Pleistocene Epoch throughout most of Europe and parts of Asia and northern Africa and associated with Middle Paleolithic tools.
b. An individual belonging to this species or subspecies.
2. Slang A crude, boorish, or slow-witted person.
adj.
1. Of, having to do with, or resembling Neanderthals.
2. Slang Crude, boorish, or slow-witted.
[After Neanderthal (Neandertal), a valley of western Germany near Düsseldorf.]
-
On 7/17/2006 12:04:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I'm just in it for the scapegoat. On the multiple times that I screw up, it would be nice to have people think I was BR.... :)
-
On 7/17/2006 12:12:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Well be that as it may, dear blipey, we still think you're hot.
-
On 7/17/2006 12:13:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
... with AND without your clown makeup.
Kisses,
JanieBelle and Corporal Kate
-
On 7/17/2006 12:14:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
(are you in a committed relationship? Would it be ok to slip you a little virtual tongue?)
-
On 7/17/2006 12:15:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
(or two?)
-
On 7/17/2006 01:17:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I guess Tribune has said his piece. He has moved on to shake his head at the naive, lost souls who are us.
Fortunately, I brought a flashlight and found the party. And I have tasty peppered beef jerky for everyone, so they like me.
And, thank-you Tribune7, I'm having a great day...except for the car thing. But I still don't thihk God hates me.
-
On 7/17/2006 05:32:00 PM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
blipey was banned for cause on UD a long time ago. He figured out that I still glance at all the comments from banned posters because they show up in a blacklisted queue designed to intercept spam. Sometimes someone that isn't banned accidently uses a blacklisted spam word and I have to fish those out so they aren't lost.
Blipey sometimes added as many as a dozen comments in a day to the spam queue just to mess with me. I finally had enough and used an IP ban so he can't access the site at all. Problem solved.
-
On 7/17/2006 05:39:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Ah yes. That is the cause of the IP ban. Perfectly valid, DaveScot; I agree. I was talking about the previous ban, you know when I behaved decently, but disagreed with you.
Whatever, your blog, your rules; that's the way it is.
-
On 7/17/2006 05:54:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Hi guys.
We've been out running some errands and generally horsing around town.
Good to see you two can talk without flaming.
If anyone around here is going to start a flame war, it's us.
:)
-
On 7/17/2006 05:56:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Dave,
If you upload that pic to your blogger profile, I'll get it entered into the template so it shows up on the black pages as your icon thingy.
JanieBelle
-
On 7/17/2006 06:00:00 PM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Ok, it's attached to my profile. Now what?
-
On 7/17/2006 06:02:00 PM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I'm not seeing anyone at all's icon thingey on the black pages - only on the white pages.
-
On 7/17/2006 06:04:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Now you just sit back and wait. I've got to manually enter it into my template.
for now it will show up on the white comment pages only. When I'm done, it will show up on the black pages, too, in all your new comments.
Once the blogger profile server updates again (I think that's what takes a while) it will start showing up in all your old comments, too, where you were logged into blogger to comment.
So you just sit back and look pretty, I'll handle it from here.
Kisses from bo'fus
-
On 7/17/2006 06:13:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Really? I'm not sure what that's about.
Is your javascript turned on?
-
On 7/17/2006 06:23:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh, and if I could, let me ask you something, Dave.
What's that Denyse lady's problem? Seems like she has some serious issues with men.
and women, for that matter.
What's her problem?
-
On 7/17/2006 06:33:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
All done.
-
On 7/17/2006 06:39:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
We're done with you Josh. You had your chance, you played games.
Post your Jesus stuff and it goes in the can.
So don't bother, ok?
JanieBelle
-
On 7/17/2006 06:43:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
but speaking of ducking questions, BLIPEY,
(are you in a committed relationship? Would it be ok to slip you a little virtual tongue, or two?)
-
On 7/17/2006 06:48:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Okay, no; I am recently out of one. Happily single.
-
On 7/17/2006 06:55:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh sorry. :(
We didn't mean to press you on it for real, we were just tickling you a little bit.
Of course, single blipey can't be bad news for us...
;)
-
On 7/17/2006 06:56:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Good that you're happily single though.
:)
-
On 7/17/2006 07:15:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Don't do it, Josh. Fair warning.
-
On 7/17/2006 07:25:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
DaveScot,
Your JavaScript is off, that's why you can't see the pics on the black pages. It's a little JavaScript that runs that feature.
I don't know how to fix that, it was just something cool I found on the web. I'm strictly a cut and paste kinda girl.
I think I posted the link to where I found it in the "What's New" thread.
-
On 7/17/2006 09:11:00 PM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Cool thanks re javascript. I should have thought of that. I surf at medium security so stuff like that happens all the time.
Say, they're talking about you on ATBC again. Deadman, jujuquisp, and blipey are saying you aren't who you say you are. I've had suspicions but I usually give people the benefit of doubt until there's a good reason not to trust them. Kate's jarhead knowledge comes awfully easy to her. Too easy for someone on the outside. I did have a question though that could clear some things up. Your location shows up on Uncommon Descent's stats log as a couple hundred miles from Camp Lejuene (listed at 94% confidence - locations aren't always right). I won't mention the city. Kate can't be commuting that far. What's up with that?
I know who jujuquisp is if you want to know. He's the anethesiologist in Wisconsin who impersonated me.
-
On 7/17/2006 09:38:00 PM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
re O'Leary
Do me a favor and try to be a little more subtle with the putdowns on UD. Bill Dembski might ban you even if I cut you some slack.
I've had some words with O'Leary before. She doesn't take being told she's wrong very well. You can check out her blog - it's listed on the sidebar at UD.
She appears to be very religious and ultra-conservative. If I really wanted her opinion I could write it for her. But she and Bill Dembski are friendly so out of respect for that I have to cut her some slack too. I'm an agnostic and not shy about why so when people with firm spiritual and religious beliefs get under my skin now and again and I start asking uncomfortable questions about the rational basis of their beliefs. That pisses a lot of them off and UD is heavy on the spiritual/religious readers. I'm surprised Bill hasn't fired me by now but all he ever does is tell me what a great job I'm doing and how much he appreciates it.
-
On 7/17/2006 09:46:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Ok, she just really got under my skin, with all that yacking about monogomy being the only proper way to be spiritual, and the only way a child could be raised. Her comments were thinly veiled cheap shots, and I don't respond well to cheap shots.
I was worried you'd be upset, but some weeks of the month my temper reeeeaaaaallllly takes over my mouth, if you get my drift.
Sorry I got a bit out of hand over there, I was really trying hard not to completely go ballistic.
I don't really care what she thinks of me, but I do care what you think, and I certainly wouldn't want to get banned.
Let me know when you get that message above.
-
On 7/17/2006 09:59:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Hi Dave,
Kate and I will go take a picture of the main gate tomorrow, if that will make everyone feel better.
We show up in our logs as Jacksonville, which is where we are (right outside the city limits in Onslow County, anyway), so I have no idea why it would be different than yours.
As for my fan club over there, it was cute for a while, and I followed it pretty close.
It's sort of old now. I posted pictures Kate took of my legs with a sign to Deadman, but that's as far as I'm willing to go.
I think the only thing that would convince them over there is a driver's license and there's no way I'd put anything like that up. Even then I suppose some of them would swear it was faked. I wonder if they see Elvis often.
Eh, well, let them yack. If they're talking about me, that means they're visiting my blog. Any publicity is good publicity, right?
I'd kind of like to get the blog back to more literature and posts about Kate and me a little more often.
I think I need a little less controversy for a while. I want to spend less time on this laptop and more with Kate.
Kate says to tell you this and you'll know what it means.
XXXX Never mind, I'm going to email this, I don't want it sitting up there too long.
Once you comment and let her know you saw that, I'm going to erase this post, though.
I've reposted the rest of the comment afterwards.
-
On 7/17/2006 10:05:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Emailed that message to you, Dave.
-
On 7/17/2006 11:37:00 PM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
re Jacksonville/Summerfield discrepancy.
I imagine we're using different location services and for some reason yours is better in this case. I don't know how they work but I figured they do what's called a traceroute and have assembled a database that links the geographical location of gateways and routers with the IP address of the same equipment. Not all databases will be equal and not all traceroutes will yield the same route information.
-
On 7/18/2006 03:22:00 AM, Alan Fox waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
@ Janiebelle
Mind if I ask Dave a question? (on the presumption you don't)
@ DaveScot
As you seem to be in reflective mode here, I was wondering if you have any real intellectual commitment to ID as a scientific proposition, rather than just enjoying an opportunity to yank chains? You may be aware that I find the whole debate hard to take seriously, and find it difficult to imagine others doing so.
-
On 7/18/2006 04:01:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Alan
I'm actually in agreement with John Davison that design is so obvious it shouldn't be a matter open to debate and I really can't understand what would make anyone deny it aside from hubris, ignorance, or fear.
-
On 7/18/2006 04:12:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
The serious part for me isn't scientific. That's academic. It doesn't make one degree of difference whether you think life was created or an accident. The world is what it is regardless of the motive (if any) behind it.
The serious part is political. The educational system in the U.S. is socialistic. It, like all socialist systems, is run by an elitist minority who are convinced they know what's best for everyone else. I strongly believe that people should be able to decide for themselves what's best for them.
-
On 7/18/2006 04:31:00 AM, Alan Fox waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Taken to the extreme, individual freedom results in anarchy. human civilisation is built on social co-operation. (Slavery is an example of cooperation. A slave who submits to his place, has at least that limited choice. I. e. parasitism is a subset of symbiosis.)
You would wish, then, by whatever political means are available, to enforce a regime that fulfills your own prejudices on everyone else. One man's freedom is another's oppression.
Or can all the socialists move to France?
-
On 7/18/2006 04:40:00 AM, Alan Fox waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
One man's freedom is another's oppression.
Oops! Sorry.
One person's freedom is another's oppression.
-
On 7/18/2006 07:19:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Alan
If you're asking if I favor democracy over oligarchy then the answer is yes.
-
On 7/18/2006 07:28:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Alan,
Don't worry about the "man" thing. I use it when talking about humans generally, and I've heard Janie do it, too.
Although we've never talked about it, I'm sure she wouldn't take offense. It's the idea that's important, not the words.
Kate
-
On 7/18/2006 07:31:00 AM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Hi Dave,
Sorry, I didn't see your following comment and didn't mean to ignore it.
Let me just say I'm glad you're sticking around despite the unhappyness going down at UD
Kate
-
On 7/18/2006 08:11:00 AM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Hey, stop slagging off Neanderthals!
And it is nice to see Dave Scot tacitly admit that he has no science behind him, and its all about politics.
guthrie
-
On 7/18/2006 08:50:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
DaveScot said:
The serious part is political. The educational system in the U.S. is socialistic. It, like all socialist systems, is run by an elitist minority who are convinced they know what's best for everyone else. I strongly believe that people should be able to decide for themselves what's best for them.
emphasis added
Do you think that this right should be extended to everyone? Are there any criteria that would disqualify a person from being able to make this decision?
For example, in a country where a staggering numbe of students can't point to their own country on a map (and neither can their parents), should we let them set the geography curiculum? This is just an easy example, of course, but it holds for all subjects.
I can conceive of appropriate answers on either side. I was wondering, Dave, what your opinion is?
-
On 7/18/2006 09:26:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Did I miss the place in the constitution where there's a knowledge test that must be passed in order to have an equal vote?
No, I don't think I did.
Taxpayers fund the public school system. They pay for it, they run it. It's just that simple. If a majority in a school district want to teach that the earth is flat it would be a shame but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
Is there some part of democracy you don't understand? It's not rocket science.
-
On 7/18/2006 09:41:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
That's the DaveScot I know!!!
Did I ask a constitutional law question, or did I ask for your opinion? Hmmm. I asked the latter. You immediately call me stupid. I guess you want me to stop asking your opinion.
Yes, I understand how Democracy works (and rocket science to some small degree also). I notice you failed to give me your opinion on the one question I asked it of. I'll repeat it.
Are there any criteria that would disqualify a person from being able to make this decision?
I take it that your silence means that you believe there are no such criteria. If the majority of the public voted flogging in as public school punishment...it would be a shame, but not unconstitutional?
Whether or not something is constitutional, I want your OPINION on whether it is a good idea or not. I guess you would support geocentrism or flat-earth if the majority wanted it? What do you think these educational policies would do to the nation?
As for Democracy, are you familiar with the concept that government exists to protect the rights of the minority, not to unquestioningly enforce the will of the majority?
-
On 7/18/2006 10:16:00 AM, waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
DAves post on democracy sounds very like comments i have seen from a communist friend of mine.
How entertaining.
Not being a USA'ian I avoid getting into talk of constitutions.
guthrie
-
On 7/18/2006 11:12:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Where did I call you stupid, Blipey?
I swore a solemn oath to defend the United States constitution. My opinion is the same as the constitution when applicable. Funny how it works out that way, huh?
-
On 7/18/2006 11:18:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
The rights of the minority should be protected insofar as so doing doesn't infringe on the rights of the majority. When the two come into conflict the majority always rules. Even when the constitution and the majority come in conflict the majority rules as the constitution can be modified by a 75% majority of states. There are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority you're struggling to describe.
-
On 7/18/2006 11:22:00 AM, DaveScot waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
I take it that your silence means that you believe there are no such criteria. If the majority of the public voted flogging in as public school punishment...it would be a shame, but not unconstitutional?
You can take my silence to mean I don't bother responding to absurdity. The day a school board actually votes to flog then I'll consider the circumstance and render an opinion.
-
On 7/18/2006 11:55:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Janie,
I apologize for making this thread something between Dave and I; I certainly understand if you erase.
Where did I call you stupid, Blipey?
Let's see. What do these imply? I think they imply that I'm too stupid to think rationally:
Is there some part of democracy you don't understand? It's not rocket science.
or,
...the tyranny of the majority you're struggling to describe.
or,
Did I miss the place in the constitution where there's a knowledge test that must be passed in order to have an equal vote?
Now, you (Dave) said:
My opinion is the same as the constitution when applicable.
Great. Very clear. So why can't you offer an opinion on majority flogging? Does the Constitution have nothing to say about it? Seems to me that very situation has already happened: We've had a school board try to introduce creationism (you may be familiar with Kizmiller?) See, my flogging scenario is an example, a model...familiar with those? Which brings me back to the question I asked and you didn't answer:
Are you in favor and fully supportive of geo-centrism, if that's what we vote into the curiculum? Hint: This should be the same stance you take on Kitzmiller. And, since you've already weighed in on that, you should have an opinion.
Of course, taking you at your word, I can confidently say that you support geo-centrism. Paley will be happy.
Dave says:
The rights of the minority should be protected insofar as so doing doesn't infringe on the rights of the majority. When the two come into conflict the majority always rules.
Am I then correct in assuming you would've supported slavery, disenfranchisement, or anything else that the majority deems appropriate? If we voted those back in, would you support them now? What happens when the rights of the minority are infringed upon? Why are one group's RIGHTS more valuable than anothers? Hint: Rights are not the same as wishes, desires, or entitlements.
BTW, I am familiar with the phrase "tyrany of the majority"; I could've used it. I like the way I said it better. And I didn't even stutter when I typed it. What makes your word choices better than mine?
-
On 7/18/2006 11:58:00 AM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Oh, forgot:
I'm still waiting for an answer to the first question I asked. Here it is again:
Are there any criteria that would disqualify a person from being able to make this decision?
-
On 7/18/2006 12:01:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Just try to keep it somewhat civil, you two.
Kate and I have something to do today, so we'll be gone until this evening.
Links need to be posted with HTML tags or they screw up my homepage, so please remember that, too.
I leave you with this thought:
"There is nothing like hot, rough, passionate sapphic love in a public place to work out your frustrations and calm your soul."
JB
-
On 7/18/2006 12:04:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Just so y'know.
-
On 7/18/2006 05:32:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
and ditto the ladies' room at the county hospital.
Just so y'know.
Did you guys know that nurses have a sense of humor about such things, but doctors apparently don't? Is there a biological explanation for this? Just wonderin'.
We're back home, and it'll take us a bit to catch up with the goings on.
We hope you guys behaved yourselves.....
Kisses,
JanieBelle and Corporal Kate
-
On 7/18/2006 06:41:00 PM, JanieBelle waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
Things seem to be getting a bit pointed here in this one thread. I'm very impressed, very proud, and very appreciative of all of your behavior across the board on this blog.
I would just like to admonish you all to continue this discussion in that spirit.
It's not gotten tooo out of hand here just yet, I just want to strike pre-emptively.
Thank you in advance.
JanieBelle
-
On 7/20/2006 03:11:00 PM, blipey waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
-
DaveScot,
Are you done with my constitutional law course? I paid for the full semester.
Just to start the weekend study session off:
Are there any criteria that exist that would disallow a person from making public education decisions?
Or is it always simply "majority rules" no matter what?
What may this say about the future of geo-centric theories?
