Re: Dear God, Deliver Us from Their Insanity!

[Guest guest]

On 5 Mar 2006 environmental1st2003 wrote:

> Jesus once destroyed a market because the market in question was

> established inside a church.

There weren't any churches at the time, but that does seem to

describe a very autistic reaction.

But there's no book in either the regular Bible or the Apocrypha

called " Meltdowns " . Go figure...

- s

[Guest guest]

On 5 Mar 2006 VISIGOTH@... wrote:

> That of course is what I like about the Episcopal church. ...

> Thank you for confirming that the Episcopal Church is ...

This strongly suggests that religion as we know it is

essentially a collection of NT interpertations.

http://www.scn.org/people/autistics/religion.html

- s

[Guest guest]

On 5 Mar 2006 Toni wrote:

> I don't quite understand the reason for going to church if you

> don't believe in Christ and spreading the good news.

> (evangelizing) ?

Evangelizing is something typically done outside of church

(although generally offensive because one is telling other

people that their religious beliefs are wrong). One could call

a church gathering itself evangelizing because participants are

sharing their beliefs, however.

- s

[Guest guest]

On 5 Mar 2006 Toni wrote:

> I don't quite understand the reason for going to church if you

> don't believe in Christ and spreading the good news.

> (evangelizing) ?

Evangelizing is something typically done outside of church

(although generally offensive because one is telling other

people that their religious beliefs are wrong). One could call

a church gathering itself evangelizing because participants are

sharing their beliefs, however.

- s

[Guest guest]

Re:

> I doubt if the ancient courts would poke the tortfeasor's eye

> out. First off, that wouldn't compensate the victim.

Good logic - because, indeed, some centuries before Jesus it had

already become Jewish law that the courts could *not* poke an eye out

but instead had to fine the tortfeasor the officially estimated value

of the body part that s/he had damaged: sort of like those insurance

programs that have a fixed scale of compensation payments for the loss

of an eye, tooth, arm, leg, or whatever.

Re:

>Samaritans still do perform

> sacrifices at their holy place near Shechem, Israel.

And they have a pretty cool web-site at http://www.the-samaritans.com

If you dig through that site a little, you can find photos of their

rituals and even download sound-files of their music. (Some

musicologists believe that this music has remained unchanged for

several thousand years. In any case, I found the rhythms and harmonies

intriguingly unusual; so others here with a taste for music might

enjoy it too.)

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2006 5:30:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

My 'views' are that everyone has a right, as a citizen of the United States of America, to be free to express themselves as they choose, without harming others. This is called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is our right!

You pro-Bushes, anti-potters demand that everyone deny the laws of nature and only bow to the Feds.

Indeed people have the right to their own opinions. Laws are the opinions of the majority made real.

Perhaps you are correct. The laws of nature are survival of the fittest, anarchy and violence. We conservatives prefer the rule of law, civility and order over chaos and barbarism. We also understand that freedom is not license and vice is not virtue. We prefer people to act like reasonable humans, not instinct driven animals.

One bows to the Federal Law because that is the society we live under. If one chooses not to follow the law then one takes their chances running afoul of it.

Refer back to my posts about the difference between happiness and pleasure. Happiness is something we do - the meaningful activities of thinking, choosing, and creating; pleasure is something we receive from an object or an action. Therefore, smoking pot, sex or whatever is pleasure, not happiness. As you yourself have said, the Founders said the pursuit of happiness. So, by the Declaration's own words, they were not talking about the hedonistic pleasures that people today confuse with happiness.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2006 5:30:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes:

My 'views' are that everyone has a right, as a citizen of the United States of America, to be free to express themselves as they choose, without harming others. This is called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is our right!

You pro-Bushes, anti-potters demand that everyone deny the laws of nature and only bow to the Feds.

Indeed people have the right to their own opinions. Laws are the opinions of the majority made real.

Perhaps you are correct. The laws of nature are survival of the fittest, anarchy and violence. We conservatives prefer the rule of law, civility and order over chaos and barbarism. We also understand that freedom is not license and vice is not virtue. We prefer people to act like reasonable humans, not instinct driven animals.

One bows to the Federal Law because that is the society we live under. If one chooses not to follow the law then one takes their chances running afoul of it.

Refer back to my posts about the difference between happiness and pleasure. Happiness is something we do - the meaningful activities of thinking, choosing, and creating; pleasure is something we receive from an object or an action. Therefore, smoking pot, sex or whatever is pleasure, not happiness. As you yourself have said, the Founders said the pursuit of happiness. So, by the Declaration's own words, they were not talking about the hedonistic pleasures that people today confuse with happiness.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/5/2006 6:18:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

,Maurice can believe whatever he wants, even if you don't agree with it. We ought to respect his right to have his beliefs even if some of us don't agree with them.Please apologize to Maurice for your sarcasm.TomAdministrator

Tom,

Maurice was being offensive toward me and others. I demonstrating the same in return in an attempt to let him see how his comments affect others on the board. If I get an apology, then I will reciprocate.

[Guest guest]

" I hope you recall *reading* or *being taught* that; otherwise

> we'd be worried about you.

>

> - s "

Lol. I tend to avoid it if it's changed into a funny colour and

smells odd :-)

>

> > Maybe I am misunderstanding this - but surely he must have

> > replaced some of it?

>

> Judaism taught that non-Jews are not obligated to most of the

> commandments, of which there are 613 (including the 10)

> http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm . What remains are things like

> murder, eating the flesh of a living animal, etc., called the 7

> Noachic laws or " Noah's Seven Laws for Universal Humanity " .

> That's in concord with the concept (I think 's) that the old

> law does not apply to Christians.

> www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/law_ellison.pdf

>

> So in that sense, Christianity is in concord with Judaism. If

> you're a Jew, you're obligated to the 613 commandments, and if

> not, you're obligation is limited to laws of humanity. Except

> that Judaism differs on the Faith and Messiah parts.

>

> We see this in the Sabbath, by which the old Sabbath is voided

> and a new " Lord's Day " is instituted (in part because the

> concept of a day of rest based on religion had become popular.

>

> > We no longer do 'eye for eye'

>

> But we do. It's common in tort law. If you are negligent and

> " poke someone's eye out with that " , you can be sued for the

> damages. That's probably the same as the ancient rule, meaning

> I doubt if the ancient courts would poke the tortfeasor's eye

> out. First off, that wouldn't compensate the victim.

>

> > or animal sacrifice

>

> Orthodox Jews hold that if the Temple is restored, etc., then so

> will sacrifices. They're just waiting for divine intervention

> (same with atheistic Jews). Samaritans still do perform

> sacrifices at their holy place near Shechem, Israel. There

> remain some aspects of sacrifices in Judaism, including Sukkot

> (harvest offerings) and Passover (roasted egg and lamb shank).

>

> Also consider that most people in Western countries (including

> myself) are still carnivores.

>

> > - there isn't all the laws about eating certain things

> > and not others is there?

>

> Part of the 613 commandments, much of which is in Leviticus.

> Incidentally, food taboos in cultures have been used by

> anthropologists as evidence of Jewish ancestry.

>

> > I think I recall Jesus saying all food

> > was good, something about blessing it too?

>

> I hope you recall *reading* or *being taught* that; otherwise

> we'd be worried about you.

>

> - s

>

[Guest guest]

Did you write that - the page where the link goes to?

>

> > That of course is what I like about the Episcopal church. ...

> > Thank you for confirming that the Episcopal Church is ...

>

> This strongly suggests that religion as we know it is

> essentially a collection of NT interpertations.

>

> http://www.scn.org/people/autistics/religion.html

>

> - s

>

[Guest guest]

> : "Thank you for confirming that the Episcopal Church is nothing but an Heretical Cult intent on deceiving people away from the faith."So..... you Baptists have a patent on faith also?  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> : "Thank you for confirming that the Episcopal Church is nothing but an Heretical Cult intent on deceiving people away from the faith."So..... you Baptists have a patent on faith also?  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> Toni: "I don't quite understand the reason for going to church if you don't believe in Christ and spreading the good news. (evangelizing) ?"It's called TOLERANCE for other people's beliefs!Like only the 'saved' have a right to be dogmatized?  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> Toni: "I don't quite understand the reason for going to church if you don't believe in Christ and spreading the good news. (evangelizing) ?"It's called TOLERANCE for other people's beliefs!Like only the 'saved' have a right to be dogmatized?  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

> : "I still don't understand how you can demand tolerance for your views but deny the same to those who disagree with you."My 'views' are that everyone has a right, as a citizen of the United States of America, to be free to express themselves as they choose, without harming others. This is called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is our right! You pro-Bushes, anti-potters demand that everyone deny the laws of nature and only bow to the Feds.  Rainbow

[Guest guest]

Strict,

Inger came down on you that day harder than she should have because

she was afraid you would start attacking people the way you attacked

Maurice that one time.

As you know, there is some turbulence on the forum at the moment, and

iof my computer doesn't go down again, I hope to get it resolved

shortly.

There are lurkers here who may be too timid to post, and the idea is

to keep this forum calm and civil so that should they choose to do

so, they can do so without fear.

That is what I am striving for here.

Tom

Administrator

So, I guess " discussion " and " debate " are only allowed if it fits

EXACTLY within a very narrow range of expression with no allowances

for anything deemed less-than-anally-retentively " nice and pure "

according to one's interpretation without questioning, if the whole

attack made on that post that I made that fulfilled the rules in

spirit and letter of the laws that presumably refer to this list.

[Guest guest]

Seeing how Tom deals with others here has helped me to appreciate all

that needs doing to keep things " calm and civil " so that absolutely

all posters and lurkers will feel safe.

Yours for better letters,

Kate Gladstone

Handwriting Repair and the World Handwriting Contest

handwritingrepair@...

http://learn.to/handwrite, http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair

325 South Manning Boulevard

Albany, New York 12208-1731 USA

telephone 518/482-6763

AND REMEMBER ...

you can order books through my site!

(Amazon.com link -

I get a 5% - 15% commission on each book sold)

[Guest guest]

,

Maurice can believe whatever he wants, even if you don't agree with

it. We ought to respect his right to have his beliefs even if some of

us don't agree with them.

Please apologize to Maurice for your sarcasm.

Tom

Administrator

In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:27:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

megaknee@... writes:

> That's a mighty superior attitude there. How can you call yourself

Christian if you don't believe in the central doctrine of the whole

religion, that Christ died for our sins?

Reread my post, kindly. I said I don't call myself a Christian. I

associate with Episcopal churches - did the reading in one today,

Acts 4:23-31 - without calling myself a Christian.

> I guess that is the New Episcopal view: the church is so

progressive and open that they had to make room for the new ideas by

kicking out ...

That of course is what I like about the Episcopal church. What I

don't like is that it has an Evangelical wing too - but that's the

price of being a broad-spectrum denomination without a doctrine.

Thank you for confirming that the Episcopal Church is nothing but an

Heretical Cult intent on deceiving people away from the faith.

[Guest guest]

,

Maurice can believe whatever he wants, even if you don't agree with

it. We ought to respect his right to have his beliefs even if some of

us don't agree with them.

Please apologize to Maurice for your sarcasm.

Tom

Administrator

In a message dated 3/5/2006 10:27:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,

megaknee@... writes:

> That's a mighty superior attitude there. How can you call yourself

Christian if you don't believe in the central doctrine of the whole

religion, that Christ died for our sins?

Reread my post, kindly. I said I don't call myself a Christian. I

associate with Episcopal churches - did the reading in one today,

Acts 4:23-31 - without calling myself a Christian.

> I guess that is the New Episcopal view: the church is so

progressive and open that they had to make room for the new ideas by

kicking out ...

That of course is what I like about the Episcopal church. What I

don't like is that it has an Evangelical wing too - but that's the

price of being a broad-spectrum denomination without a doctrine.

Thank you for confirming that the Episcopal Church is nothing but an

Heretical Cult intent on deceiving people away from the faith.

[Guest guest]

Rainbow,

I see your point of view, believe it or not. However the operative

words in your statement " without harming others " are problematic and

are also the crux of the issue, because what does and does not harm

others is a matter of opinion.

Thus laws were put into effect to ensure that people would be

unharmed while those who would do things that MIGHT be harmful still

had enough other personal freedoms intact to make their lives

endurable.

In an ideal world, I personally would enjoy a lifestyle like the

aboriginal people had where they took from the world only what they

needed and where every item that was naturally made was accorded a

specific purpose and value and none of these items were abused. In

fact, I'm guessing it was a sign of weakness if you abused anything.

But unfortunately, we live in a world where people abuse certain

things, including those products made by nature, and so we have to

keep people from using them or having access to them for their own

protection and their own well being.

For example, you do not have a prescription to use your " medicine " do

you? Are you a qualified physician that is capable of self-

diagnosing? Could it be you are doing more harm than good by smoking

this medicine? And if so, not being a physician, how would you know?

Thus it is up to people like me to take away pot from people like you

for your own good, and out of care for your well being so that you do

not hurt yourself. For this, people like me are scorned, but because

we love you, we do not take it personally.

Tom

Administrator

> : " I still don't understand how you can demand tolerance for

your views but deny the same to those who disagree with you. "

My 'views' are that everyone has a right, as a citizen of the United

States of America, to be free to express themselves as they choose,

without harming others. This is called life, liberty, and the pursuit

of happiness.

This is our right!

You pro-Bushes, anti-potters demand that everyone deny the laws of

nature and only bow to the Feds.

Rainbow

[Guest guest]

There's alot of wisdom about the seeking out of pleasures to be equated as a breakdown of society's true happiness. It's not just teenagers who are at risk obviously and adults need to be careful about not hanging out with adults who engage in overindulgence. Women will always deny it and men will try to cover up their tracks. They're really just lying to themselves and making every excuse possible to be complacent. As for political views, the people who claim to be in certain positions and show their faces on television are faking it and the citizens are in the dark. No one in this forum knows about what really goes on with the pres or any of the cabinets unless they were there and even then, it's seeing through a glass darkly. As for religion, it's emotional and there will not be a logical end to the debate for either side. VISIGOTH@... wrote: In a message dated 3/5/2006 5:30:59 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rainbow@... writes: My 'views' are that everyone has a right, as a citizen of the United States of America, to be free to express themselves as they choose, without harming others. This is called life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is our right! You pro-Bushes, anti-potters demand that everyone deny the laws of nature and only bow to the Feds. Indeed people have the right to their own opinions. Laws are the opinions of the majority made

real. Perhaps you are correct. The laws of nature are survival of the fittest, anarchy and violence. We conservatives prefer the rule of law, civility and order over chaos and barbarism. We also understand that freedom is not license and vice is not virtue. We prefer people to act like reasonable humans, not instinct driven animals. One bows to the Federal Law because that is the society we live under. If one chooses not to follow the law then one takes their chances running afoul of it. Refer back to my posts about the difference between happiness and pleasure. Happiness is something we do - the meaningful activities of thinking, choosing, and creating; pleasure is something we receive from an object or an action. Therefore, smoking pot, sex or whatever is pleasure, not happiness. As you yourself have said, the Founders said the pursuit of happiness. So, by the Declaration's own words,

they were not talking about the hedonistic pleasures that people today confuse with happiness.

Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.

[Guest guest]

This is a gross generalization that is also incorrect, .

There's the temples, and then there's the synagogues. There are

vastly different reasons for them to exist in terms of the whole, and

one supports the other, but is for different purposes.

A synagogue is the everyday temporal (ie. earthly affairs) type of

meeting place, and takes care of the standard things that relate to

those of daily living people and their earthly needs. Temples, on the

other hand, are for things more eternal in nature: eternal marriages,

and other things that are binding throughout the eternities, and other

things that are more sacred in nature. As such, money changers at the

temple were that much more of a problem, since a temple is for the

higher functions than the standard synagogues.

>

>

> In a message dated 3/5/2006 1:48:58 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,

> vze2txm3@... writes:

>

> There weren't any churches at the time, but that does seem to

> describe a very autistic reaction.

>

>

>

> Jewish churches were technically called temples, but the effect was

the

> same. It was a place that was supposed to be holy, but they had been

corrupted by

> the presence of the moneychangers and other merchants.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I find it interesting how people can say " Smoking and chewing tobacco

is perfectly fine because it is legal! (at least for those 18 and

older) " while marijuana when used for medicinal/palliative purposes

(relieving pain in those sorely afflicted that are terminal) is very

wrong. The best evidence I have is that indeed, marijuana is not

without harm, and likely causes brain damage in those that use it,

amongst other ills. However, the numbers of people that would have

legitimate use of it for the palliative effects have much bigger

issues to deal with: having a quality of life that doesn't strongly

encourage them to end it right then and there because of how much pain

and stress they are under. It is true, tobacco is legal in this

country and others for smoking and chewing to those 18 years old and

older; what is false is that it doesn't do harm to either the intended

users, or those around them. To truly consider the rights of others

to not be afflicted with the side-effects of someone else using

tobacco products recreationally (I will mention right now that there

are valid medicinal uses for tobacco, but not smoking or chewing it)

rightfully those that decide they have the " right " to use it should be

segregated completely from everyone else, because second-hand smoke

*does* cause harm, often more harm than the first-hand smoke, because

at least the intended user of the stuff most of the time has at least

part of it filtered: those around them have the straight smoke and all

the harmful things contained therein. Thus, your argument " the

greater good of others " is blatantly disregarded both by the fact that

tobacco for smoking and chewing are legally allowed, compared to

palliative and prescribed marijuana for those truly suffering. The

science supports that the improper use (smoking and chewing of

tobacco) harms others directly, as well as the intended users. If

life were fair and just and remotely logical, tobacco for smoking and

chewing would be as controlled/illegal as marijuana for non-medicinal

purposes. Once again, I mention " medicinal purposes " as both have

valid uses, though a very small percentage of it is used legitimately.

Why is it, then, that tobacco is legal for adults (who then afflict

everyone around them as a side-effect, including babies and young

children, many still in the womb, causing them lifetime deficits even

during that short time) and marijuana isn't legal? That seems to be

more of a foolish societal acceptance of something grandfathered in,

more than any true logic based on knowledge of the effects that allows

tobacco to still exist legally, perhaps largely combined with a huge

economic resistance to wiping out various farmers that rely on that

for their income. The reality is that the world's valid reasons to

use tobacco could easily be fulfilled by a single farm field, and not

even a huge one at that. But marijuana, because it hasn't had such a

deeply embedded cultural heritage for usage, has been excluded from

being legal, if only because prohibition (here in the U.S.) clearly

demonstrated that there would be massive backlashes if tobacco were

also made illegal, and people would get it any way they could, much to

the detriment of the same sorts of violent crimes that caused

prohibition to fail. Thus, it's a trade of one sort of crime (easily

described and recorded) for another one that's harder to define

precisely (that of afflicting non-users around them with everything

that goes with the usage of tobacco products for recreational

purposes) that for some reason, was/is considered more reasonable.

Now, let me inform those that are unaware that there *are* valid

medical uses for tobacco what it is useful for:

1. Swallowing it can purge worms/parasites out of animals (sick

cattle, cats, I know for sure, and probably humans, too, though you'd

be sick as a dog.... that should tell you something right there,

shouldn't it?) which I remember as being the only time in my life my

parents bought a tobacco product or bummed it off someone, to de-worm

some of our cats. Yup, it does a darn good job of knocking the worms

out as crap, and seems to kill them. Are you *sure* you really want

to insert that into your system on a regular basis?

2. As a poultice for wounds and bruises

As such, it is very useful and effective for that. The question is,

how much of the tobacco sold anywhere is used for the valid uses? I'd

wager less than .0001% due to the heavy use of tobacco and the volume

sold for everything else, especially since the valid medical uses

require so little at a time and so rarely.

You also stated to the effect " If they really need it and are not

wanting to break the federal laws and are patriotic " etc. or something

to that effect, they should leave the country to get it, as one

solution. Well, that's all fine and dandy in theory until you take a

lot of reality into account.

1. What if they are unable to really travel due to their current

health conditions? That's far more common than you might be aware of.

Either it is extremely uncomfortable for them to travel, or it might

outright kill them. Ask a good internist for examples there. Also,

by the time you're in such a situation where you have a hard time

traveling due to the medical problems, money tends to already be long

gone, and I've not heard of any insurance that pays for travel

expenses like that.

2. How often have you looked into insurance coverage as it relates to

traveling outside of the country for treatment? If it isn't an

emergency that happened while already outside of the country, chances

are that won't be covered one bit.

And then you threw in the idea of " Why can't they get the other drugs

that exist to take care of their problems? " which is once more, nice

in theory, but one of those frequently problematic things in reality.

People build up tolerances to various substances and drugs, or have

them naturally is one major problem. For example, I have an extremely

high tolerance for morphine, which does cause me real problems when

that's what is available for treating pain when I've been in the ER

for kidney stones. The amount of morphine that would start to become

effective for me is an amount only prescribed for terminal patients (I

asked a nurse if I could have anymore, and that's the result I got).

I also have strange reactions to many things that work for other

people: my physiology is notably different, and Vicodin (which

typically makes people sleepy, from my best understanding of an

informal survey I've made of others) acts like an upper that makes

caffeine look like a sissy. Codeine makes me sick to my stomach (I

had that when I broke my arm in 1986 when I was hit by a car) and also

doesn't seem to work very well for the desired purpose. And yet

another thing that is far from uncommon is that people may be very

allergic to the drugs that are available: one of my brothers I know is

allergic to morphine: what is *he* supposed to do, if he has allergic

reactions to opiates? There are other potentially fatal reactions to

various drugs used to treat pain, such as relaxing the system too much

for the body to breathe correctly: some asthmatics (I'm lucky there,

it seems, at least for now) can't afford to take the risk of having

such anesthetics, because it is likely to kill them outright.

And finally, it's really funny: morphine is no less problematic for

addiction than marijuana, tobacco, etc. and yet, it is prescribed

regularly, including very large amounts for palliative purposes, which

is what the medicinal prescription of marijuana would exist for. I

have no problem with seeing marijuana being a controlled substance

like morphine and some of the other things, like oxytocin (I think I

spelled that correctly: for all I know, that won't work for me)

because when you're already dying, there's no reason to get overly

anal-retentive about how it could be abused by the patient: chances

are, they're not going to be up to getting out and about and

endangering others, anyway. I watched my Dad die of pancreatic

cancer, and he was prescribed a huge amount of morphine. My best

observation is that I have a very close approximation to his

physiology, along with a few additional complications he didn't have.

It was very apparent that there simply was no amount that was

effective. Well, everything on this earth has to have at least one

valid reason, and if I'd had access to something that would have

helped him not die as horribly, and didn't require me to harm someone

in the process to obtain it, I'd have zero remorse for providing a

humane quality of life as far as was possible for someone.

So, as I'd hope I've made obvious, making marijuana purely illegal

across the board for every purpose is logically corrupt, when there

are other controlled substances (morphine) which can also cause many

nasty effects and addictions as well as the supposedly acceptable

tobacco, which also causes a huge amount of harm to those around them.

Even from an ecological/cleanliness standpoint, I would *love* to

have a dollar for every #%#@ cigarette butt I've had to clean up off

my property in the past, and the eyesore it causes, and for every fire

caused by the %_$* lazy-arsed litter bugs that don't think they should

have to clean up after themselves, and throw their butts out the

window (too bad they didn't throw the ones they sit on out instead)

and cause all the mess, and too often massive property damage and

occasionally death of humans as well, either directly from being in

the way of the fires, or fighting them. Believing medicinal marijuana

for palliative purposes is wrong and should be illegal while believing

that recreational usage of tobacco is right and should be legal for

anyone at all (over 18 or not) is the height of hypocrisy, and should

be left smoldering in the ash tray of history.

>

> > : " I still don't understand how you can demand tolerance for

> your views but deny the same to those who disagree with you. "

>

> My 'views' are that everyone has a right, as a citizen of the United

> States of America, to be free to express themselves as they choose,

> without harming others. This is called life, liberty, and the pursuit

> of happiness.

>

> This is our right!

>

> You pro-Bushes, anti-potters demand that everyone deny the laws of

> nature and only bow to the Feds.

>

> Rainbow

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 12:46:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Fair enough.However, in thinking over what's been happening the past few days, my feeling is we, as admins, ought to watch ourselves a bit more carefully and not de-evolve into the same sort of mudslinging that we receive. Therefore we ought to apologize first even if no apology is returned to us.TomAdministrator

A good point. I suppose I will apologize for a lapse in judgement of the wording of my comment. However, I do get rather tired of people thinking they can bad mouth Christians and conservatives and think they can have it all their way. Been seeing a lot of that this past week or so.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 3/6/2006 12:46:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Fair enough.However, in thinking over what's been happening the past few days, my feeling is we, as admins, ought to watch ourselves a bit more carefully and not de-evolve into the same sort of mudslinging that we receive. Therefore we ought to apologize first even if no apology is returned to us.TomAdministrator

A good point. I suppose I will apologize for a lapse in judgement of the wording of my comment. However, I do get rather tired of people thinking they can bad mouth Christians and conservatives and think they can have it all their way. Been seeing a lot of that this past week or so.