 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 22/12/2012 8:30 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Except, of course, they where not. The only evidence of Semites "in"
>> Egypt, ever, is several hundred years earlier, when they temporarily
>> ruled it, then got their asses kicked out. None of the dates, based on
>> the Bible, line up with any pharaoh that could have done it. There is no
>> evidence of mass famine, the loss of most of the male population of
>> Eqypt (they would have either died in the army, or as "first born"
>> during the plagues), no sign of them being attacked by their enemies
>> during any time period it could have happened, based on the chronology,
>> etc. Worse, there is evidence of his "people" having had settlements,
>> for centuries, in the areas they supposedly wandered only 40 years (and
>> its not even the right 40 years, but like.. again *prior* to the
>> supposed Exodus.
>
> Very interesting, I did not know any of that. You are obviously better
> at research than I am, possibly you have a lower boredom level. ;-)
> Do you have any references as I would like to read them before shooting
> my mouth off.
>
That's a convoluted way of saying "[Citation needed]".
;)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/12/2012 1:55 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> That's a convoluted way of saying "[Citation needed]".
And a politer way too, I think.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> wrote:
> I just love how some Americans are trying so hard to rewrite their own
> history and their own constitution.
Btw, I also love how some Americans try to get around the constitution
by playing with words. For example, some argue that Christianity is not
a religion, that it's a "philosophy", and therefore it's completely ok
for the government to promote it. (Yes, this *is* an actual argument that
some make, eg. Bill O'Reilly.)
Yes, who cares about the spirit of the law? Let's twist the letter of the
law so that we can get around it. Let's change the meaning of words so
that they mean something else than was originally intended. If we *call*
things with different words, then we can avoid the restrictions. It's all
about how we name things. Who cares what the *intent* of the constitution
is...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:37:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Btw, I also love how some Americans try to get around the constitution
> by playing with words. For example, some argue that Christianity is not
> a religion, that it's a "philosophy", and therefore it's completely ok
> for the government to promote it. (Yes, this *is* an actual argument
> that some make, eg. Bill O'Reilly.)
I find that amusing as well. But O'Reilly is an ass, plain and simple.
He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26/12/2012 5:37 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:37:44 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> Btw, I also love how some Americans try to get around the constitution
>> by playing with words. For example, some argue that Christianity is not
>> a religion, that it's a "philosophy", and therefore it's completely ok
>> for the government to promote it. (Yes, this *is* an actual argument
>> that some make, eg. Bill O'Reilly.)
>
> I find that amusing as well. But O'Reilly is an ass, plain and simple.
> He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
> tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
>
Barnum: Roll up! Roll up! Only a quarter to see the Egress.
O'Reilly: I’ll have two.
I have seen a clip of him. Seriously, “care in the community”, with an ego.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:47:26 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> Barnum: Roll up! Roll up! Only a quarter to see the Egress.
> O'Reilly: I’ll have two.
:)
> I have seen a clip of him. Seriously, “care in the community”, with an
> ego.
Yeah, that probably sums him up well. Never liked him, though I remember
seeing him on a "pulp news show" called Inside Edition. It /is/ fun to
watch him and Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert get into it - they play off
each other to an extent (Stephen calls him "Papa Bear", since Stephen's
character on The Colbert Report is a caricature of the conservative
mindset based on O'Reilly).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
> tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
When he was given an elementary school level lecture on what makes tides
happen, rather than admitting he was wrong about them, he just moved the
goalposts. "How did the Moon get there?"
This is so typical of creationists, conspiracy theorists and the like.
When a claim they make is refuted so completely that even they cannot
deny the explanation anylonger, they still cannot admit being wrong.
They will simply try to evade by moving to something else.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 04:37:46 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> He thinks the tides are magic and proof that God exists ("Tide goes in,
>> tide goes out - never a miscommunication." - WTF?)
>
> When he was given an elementary school level lecture on what makes tides
> happen, rather than admitting he was wrong about them, he just moved the
> goalposts. "How did the Moon get there?"
I remember it - Jon Stewart made a huge deal about it, and either he or
Colbert had Neil DeGrasse Tyson on to explain it to O'Reilly.
> This is so typical of creationists, conspiracy theorists and the like.
> When a claim they make is refuted so completely that even they cannot
> deny the explanation anylonger, they still cannot admit being wrong.
> They will simply try to evade by moving to something else.
Yep.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/17/2012 11:36 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 9:52 PM, clipka wrote:
>>
>> The truth is that they never sought religious tolerance in the first
>> place - they had always strived for their own rules to be law.
>> Unfortunately for them those rules contradicted the Church of England's,
>> so they did suffer from religiously-motivated oppression, and this
>> indeed happened to be the one factor that drove them to America. But
>> that's about it.
>>
>
> You are correct of course but it is received wisdom that it is true. And
> IMNSHO England was well rid of them. I only wish that they had taken the
> Scottish Presbyterians with them.
>
>> It's an all too common misconception that every person subject to
>> oppression and fighting against it is automatically a warrior for
>> tolerance.
>
> Now that is very true. For an example you only have to look at a certain
> state in the middle East, founded after WWII.
Or for an even better example, the people who claim to be oppressed by them.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/12/2012 5:21 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> BTW, the new California law that was just passed--legalizing or de-criminalizing
> the possession of marijuana--goes flatly against a seemingly-overarching Federal
> law. It's a current example of this State-vs-Federal system that we have. If no
> one in California challenges it, then I'm *guessing* it will remain valid. I'm
> not sure if the Federal government itself can summarily strike it down simply
> because it differs from the 'higher' law.
The US Constitution does not authorize Congress to ban marijuana[1].
And unless words have no meaning, the Tenth Amendment reserves to the
states those powers which are not reserved to the federal government,
but the courts have generally failed to enforce the Tenth.
Regards,
John
[1] Or to do a whole host of other things that add up to around 80% of
our federal budget.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
