|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:02:17 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:01:51 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to be the mayor of my home town? http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play" scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care about a pedophile that not only used his government office for cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for 'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get lost because West is a conservative Republican? Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in the local news to events which are also occurring here. Gee, so a couple gays getting married in San Francisco should be about as unimportant as the mayor of Spokane, huh? A totally different issue. One single gay couple in San Fran, is a minor footnote. The broader reaching implications of such behavior, is what concerns me and most Americans. I was simply not aware for what you were referring. Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. That's it? That's all you have to say about the subject? What do you want me to say? No diatribe about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor? Why should it? It's not the whole institution of mayor's which is at the heart of the issue. It's simply one person's sick, perverted behavior. No sermon on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination? I would think you'd already know that. If my assumption was wrong then, I apologize. Instead you refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language? How much stronger than "scumbag" do you want me to go? I'd like to keep this at a "PG" level. Hey, it's not like I'm suprised -- it's ok to call Kerry a criminal when there has been no trial; but Bush, who was tried and convicted of a DUI, is guilty of nothing more than a "civil infraction". I'm sorry if the truth bothers you. Bush's conviction was for a motor vehicle violation at that time. Not a criminal offense. Despite the fact that Kerry never saw a courtroom for his perjurious and arguably treasonous behavior, his actions are still contemptible. And all the while it was -you- that said that anyone who breaks the law is a criminal. So instead of condemning people in your own camp with your own standards, you simply use softer words. How nice. You really need to get over yourself Frank. You spend far too much time analyzing my words, and attempting to imply meanings which are not there. Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin. Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw. All pedophiles are guilty of moral sins, which happens to be a human flaw. You're a trip, Dave. No, your interpretations are. snip All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun. Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that tech school you claimed to have attended? Give me one good reason why I should tell you. Because if you don't then your claim has no credibility, and I will be reiterating that fact for as long as you post in this group. Then neither do any of yours for, as Twisty is so fond of pointing out, USENET is an anonymous service. Very little about anyone is verifiable. Being a ham puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage, as my name and address can be obtained from my call sign. But any personal information beyond that is revealed by personal choice at your own risk. As long as guys like Twisty can be a continual disruption and can safely hide from the consequences behind his cloak of anonymity, I feel no obligation to provide any more of my personal information, just to satiate your credibility issues. Remembering what happened to Dennis O, when his place of employment was found out, is further incentive for me to remain quiet about those aspects of my personal life. If you can't handle that, Tough. Who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Is this a loaded question? Not at all. Bush and the Republicans ignored the voices of the vast majority of Americans when they tried to meddle in the Shiavo case. If they were not acting on behalf of the majority of Americans then what was their motive? IOW, who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Principles, Character, Morality. Most of which the majority posses and agree with. Where does the Constitution require, or even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the government? Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious influences should NOT play any role in the government? You claimed that the Constitution included words that defined this country to be a Christian state. Where does it say anything of the sort? I never made any such claim. But I'm sure you've misinterpreted one of my past statements and think I said it. I did say that the constitution was written by religious, God respecting people, most of whom were Christian. How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights? It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights". That's absolutely correct, Dave. Of course it is, I said it. It's matter of tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the Constitution. The government has no right to do such. The government cannot prevent people from practicing their religion as they see fit, even if their religion includes a definition of marriage that's different than your's. The only thing the government can or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when dealing with secular issues. You can call it a "civil union" if you want. They can call it a "marriage" if -they- want. That's -their- right. It's not -your- right to prevent them from exercising -their- rights. From a secular point of view, they have the right to live in sin, but no true Christian church would recognize such a union. And any institution that would, cheapens and tarnishes that institution. You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government, then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing hypocrisy. I agree, the government should not impose upon any religion. How does gay marriage impose government upon religion? By forcing universal recognition of gay marriages as legitimate, which they are not in the eyes of God. I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage is not exclusive to religion. But it started there. It may have been formally defined under religion, but I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. Regardless, the concept of marriage is not only secular but universal. By necessity, not by choice. And the secular definition of marriage simply adopted the religious definition of marriage in order to define the civil rights that married couples would gain. Creating a new definition of marriage, that is not endorsed by the church, is not acceptable. Think of it as similar to a copyrighted trademark. The church has "licensed" the term "marriage" to the government to use for civil purposes, as long as they abide by the terms of the license. Unless the church decides to condone a gay union (Not likely), then the government has no right to apply the term "marriage" to a secular gay union. Like I said before, I have no problem with the government creating a gay civil union, with the same civil rights and responsibilities given to married couples, just don't call it marriage. And as I have pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage is, at best, poorly defined. But it has been widely accepted in this country for hundreds of years. Marriage is only recognized in the secular arena, due to the additional legal rights and responsibilities that couples get. Before the complexities of secular society necessitated such civil recognition of marriage, the only thing a couple needed to do was have the marriage blessed before God at a church service. That was all that was necessary to legitimize a marriage. I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with gay marriages. You don't want homosexuals to be able to walk down the same street that you do. You are a bigot. Ah, you're back to making unfounded speculative assumptions and then drawing an erroneous conclusion based on those unfounded speculations. That's yet another example of your poor logic. You never could stick to the facts Frank. But your liberal demonization tactic doesn't work on me Frank. Labeling me will not change the very real legitimacy of the issue. Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Thu, 19 May 2005 04:42:26 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:44:10 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Dave would know that already if he actually attended college. Heck, you can earn a college "degree" these days without ever setting a foot in a classroom. Sure. Just send a few bucks to a PO box listed in an advertisement in the back of Rolling Stone magazine. But 20 years ago, that just wasn't the case. You had a certain amount of credits that you had to earn, and a required course curriculum. Yes, it was possible to do it in less than four years, but that required an overly ambitious fast-paced schedule. Most people are not up for that. It depends on the person. For some people, three hours a day in the lecture halls is mindbogglingly slow. For others the challenge is overwhelming. The trick is to choose classes each quarter/semester that make the most efficient use of study time required -outside- the classroom. And not to waste your time at keggers. It should be that simple. But you forgot to consider, that not all courses are offered each semester, pretty much forcing you to do things "their way". Trying to transfer credits from other schools was also sometimes problematic. Sometimes they would refuse to give credit, other times they would only give partial credit. Colleges are somewhat competitive, and have no incentive to have students give another school money, and then accept that as credit in their school. At least that's the way it was 20+ years ago. Also, some colleges and most Universities offer equivalency tests as well as credits for prior experience directly related to the field. I cut down my time by almost a full year by testing out of first-year electricity courses, math all the way through calculus, and was given credits for being a radio tech in the USMC. Yes, I am aware of "testing out" I did similar things, with my previous tech school credits. Night school allowed people to avoid many of the "nonsense" courses, which were unrelated to your major, that the full time day programs usually required you to take. Those "nonsense" courses have very legitimate purposes. Really? I don't think you understand what I refer to as "nonsense". Suppose your major is electrical engineering. You need to study economics so you can do a cost/benefit analysis for a design project, as well as be able to run a business if the opportunity arises. For the same reason it's a good idea to study a little business law and accounting. There is no substitute for good communication skills, -especially- English composition, and because my objective required strong communication skills I decided to minor in the field. Along the same lines, a few courses in humanities and history are also a very good idea since a lot of current events either revolve around cultural differences and issues, or require some understanding of the history surrounding the events. Etc, etc, etc. You pick any course required for a BS and I'll explain how and why it's related to your field of study. Ok, then explain to me the necessity of phys-ed courses? Those are the ones that I was referring to as "nonsense". The examples you gave above I totally agree with. It's interesting that you'd think I was referring to them as "nonsense". Or is it that you don't like the idea of a liberal education because it's 'liberal'? A liberal Arts degree is basically useless if making serious money is one of your goals. Seen on a bumper sticker: "I have a Liberal Arts degree, Do you want fries with that?"_ Dave "Sandbagger" |
|
|
On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:01:53 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: It's also conceivable that over the last billion years, that the solar energy output from the sun could have deviated to some degree as well, which can certainly affect surface temperature here. It's not conceivable, it's been proved the sun's harmful rays have intensified over time. This is because of the damage in the ozone layer. I'm not talking about the ozone layer, I'm talking about the sun's actual energy output. Check this out: http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html This is called global warming. Again, you come full circle. My work on this topic is done. No one ever denied that global warming is occurring. The point of contention is how much of it can truly be definitively attributed to man's actions. Some light reading for you to bring you up to speed: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/ http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/ Your work on this topic is just beginning....... Dave "Sandbagger" |
On Fri, 20 May 2005 07:24:56 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:02:17 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:01:51 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall wrote in : snip Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens to be the mayor of my home town? http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/ No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play" scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care about a pedophile that not only used his government office for cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for 'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get lost because West is a conservative Republican? Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in the local news to events which are also occurring here. Gee, so a couple gays getting married in San Francisco should be about as unimportant as the mayor of Spokane, huh? A totally different issue. One single gay couple in San Fran, is a minor footnote. The broader reaching implications of such behavior, is what concerns me and most Americans. So a mayor that's a homosexual and a pedophile doesn't have any "broader reaching implications"? I was simply not aware for what you were referring. Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. That's it? That's all you have to say about the subject? What do you want me to say? No diatribe about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor? Why should it? It's not the whole institution of mayor's which is at the heart of the issue. It's simply one person's sick, perverted behavior. So the behavior is seperate from the office? No sermon on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination? I would think you'd already know that. If my assumption was wrong then, I apologize. Instead you refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language? How much stronger than "scumbag" do you want me to go? I'd like to keep this at a "PG" level. Hey, it's not like I'm suprised -- it's ok to call Kerry a criminal when there has been no trial; but Bush, who was tried and convicted of a DUI, is guilty of nothing more than a "civil infraction". I'm sorry if the truth bothers you. Bush's conviction was for a motor vehicle violation at that time. Not a criminal offense. Despite the fact that Kerry never saw a courtroom for his perjurious and arguably treasonous behavior, his actions are still contemptible. And all the while it was -you- that said that anyone who breaks the law is a criminal. So instead of condemning people in your own camp with your own standards, you simply use softer words. How nice. You really need to get over yourself Frank. You spend far too much time analyzing my words, and attempting to imply meanings which are not there. You can complain about how I "analyze" your words all you want, but the fact remains that you change their definitions and context when forced to defend yourself against your own words. Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin. Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw. All pedophiles are guilty of moral sins, which happens to be a human flaw. Then why do you refer to a homosexuality as immoral, yet a homosexual that is a conservative Republican merely has "human flaws"? This has to do with the strength of your wording, Dave. You use strong words when addressing people you despise, but much softer words when describing bad behavior of people you favor. This isn't a recent observation, Dave -- it's one of the common characteristics of your postings for a very long time. And it's very hypocritical. You're a trip, Dave. No, your interpretations are. snip All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun. Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that tech school you claimed to have attended? Give me one good reason why I should tell you. Because if you don't then your claim has no credibility, and I will be reiterating that fact for as long as you post in this group. Then neither do any of yours for, as Twisty is so fond of pointing out, USENET is an anonymous service. Very little about anyone is verifiable. Being a ham puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage, as my name and address can be obtained from my call sign. But any personal information beyond that is revealed by personal choice at your own risk. As long as guys like Twisty can be a continual disruption and can safely hide from the consequences behind his cloak of anonymity, I feel no obligation to provide any more of my personal information, just to satiate your credibility issues. Remembering what happened to Dennis O, when his place of employment was found out, is further incentive for me to remain quiet about those aspects of my personal life. If you can't handle that, Tough. How would a simple call to the administration of this alleged academic institution to verify your attendance get you fired from your present job? Or did you get your job by lying on your resume like you lie in this newsgroup? You never attended any sort of post-graduate education, Dave. You probably took a high-school shop class and glorified it with your imagination. Who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Is this a loaded question? Not at all. Bush and the Republicans ignored the voices of the vast majority of Americans when they tried to meddle in the Shiavo case. If they were not acting on behalf of the majority of Americans then what was their motive? IOW, who does the majority party represent if not the majority? Principles, Character, Morality. Most of which the majority posses and agree with. Apparently not, since the majority didn't agree with the "principles, character, morality" that the Republicans attempted to impose. So who does the majority party represent if not the majority? And why are you having such a difficult time answering such a simple question? Where does the Constitution require, or even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the government? Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious influences should NOT play any role in the government? You claimed that the Constitution included words that defined this country to be a Christian state. Where does it say anything of the sort? I never made any such claim. But I'm sure you've misinterpreted one of my past statements and think I said it. You most certainly did make that claim, and more than once: "The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian people with their religious inspired morality contained within its wording." "A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine, even if the 1st amendment decries that there is no 'official' state sponsored religion." "You who claim to support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were all religious people), yet now advocate that we go above and beyond the definitions called for in the constitution..." Need more examples? I did say that the constitution was written by religious, God respecting people, most of whom were Christian. No, you said they were -all- Christians. Need a quote there too? How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights? It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights". That's absolutely correct, Dave. Of course it is, I said it. It's matter of tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the Constitution. The government has no right to do such. The government cannot prevent people from practicing their religion as they see fit, even if their religion includes a definition of marriage that's different than your's. The only thing the government can or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when dealing with secular issues. You can call it a "civil union" if you want. They can call it a "marriage" if -they- want. That's -their- right. It's not -your- right to prevent them from exercising -their- rights. From a secular point of view, they have the right to live in sin, but no true Christian church would recognize such a union. And the law doesn't require them to do anything of the sort. It only requires that you respect their -legal- rights. And if they choose to exercise their right to freedom of expression by calling their "civil union" a marriage, or if their religion formally recognizes homosexual marriage, then you have no right to prevent them from exercising their rights. It's a very simple concept, Dave. Why is it so hard for you to understand? And any institution that would, cheapens and tarnishes that institution. Then that's the choice of the institution, not the government. You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government, then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing hypocrisy. I agree, the government should not impose upon any religion. How does gay marriage impose government upon religion? By forcing universal recognition of gay marriages as legitimate, which they are not in the eyes of God. Where, in the Constitution, does it require that any law must be viewed as legitimate in the eyes of God? And even if it did, who exactly would make that determination? God's legal representative? I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage is not exclusive to religion. But it started there. So? Christmas and Easter originated with Christianity but eventually merged with pagan festivals. Why aren't you bitching about that? The Sabbath is on Saturday but the Christians worship it on Sundays, despite the first of the Ten Commandments. Why aren't you bitching about that? The Bible embraces slavery, but it's now illegal in the US. Why aren't you bitching about that? You aren't bitching about those things because you are only concerned with homosexuality. You are a bigot, Dave. And a hypocrite. It may have been formally defined under religion, but I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. Regardless, the concept of marriage is not only secular but universal. By necessity, not by choice. And the secular definition of marriage simply adopted the religious definition of marriage in order to define the civil rights that married couples would gain. Creating a new definition of marriage, that is not endorsed by the church, is not acceptable. Yet it already exists, like it or not. Think of it as similar to a copyrighted trademark. The church has "licensed" the term "marriage" to the government to use for civil purposes, as long as they abide by the terms of the license. Unless the church decides to condone a gay union (Not likely), then the government has no right to apply the term "marriage" to a secular gay union. The church has a "copyright" on marriage? ROTFLMMFAO!!! Dave, marriage outside the sphere of religion has been socially recognized for many, many centuries -- perhaps even longer than religion! Like I said before, I have no problem with the government creating a gay civil union, with the same civil rights and responsibilities given to married couples, just don't call it marriage. That's not your choice. Deal with it. And as I have pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage is, at best, poorly defined. But it has been widely accepted in this country for hundreds of years. Marriage is only recognized in the secular arena, due to the additional legal rights and responsibilities that couples get. Before the complexities of secular society necessitated such civil recognition of marriage, the only thing a couple needed to do was have the marriage blessed before God at a church service. That was all that was necessary to legitimize a marriage. Times change, Dave. You can either change with the times or spend the rest of your life in a bitter depression. I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with gay marriages. You don't want homosexuals to be able to walk down the same street that you do. You are a bigot. Ah, you're back to making unfounded speculative assumptions and then drawing an erroneous conclusion based on those unfounded speculations. That's yet another example of your poor logic. You never could stick to the facts Frank. But your liberal demonization tactic doesn't work on me Frank. Labeling me will not change the very real legitimacy of the issue. Why not? You slap the "liberal" label on me all the time. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
On Fri, 20 May 2005 07:52:17 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in : snip Ok, then explain to me the necessity of phys-ed courses? Those are the ones that I was referring to as "nonsense". The examples you gave above I totally agree with. It's interesting that you'd think I was referring to them as "nonsense". Considering that brain function is physiological, it is therefore dependent upon general health and wellness of the body. And I can tell that because you feel physical education is "nonsense" that you were probably one of those fat little kids that couldn't get your chin over the bar, or run a lap around the track without puking. And always the last pick for dodge-ball. Or is it that you don't like the idea of a liberal education because it's 'liberal'? A liberal Arts degree is basically useless if making serious money is one of your goals. Seen on a bumper sticker: "I have a Liberal Arts degree, Do you want fries with that?"_ Well if it's on a bumper sticker then it -must- be true! ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:34:45 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.h tm Philly is the scumbag capital of the country. They have nothing to be proud of in the last twenty five years. Jobs, crime, housing, education,..all past the brink. Medical care is the only thing that is even half decent in that area, and even that is a joke when all is taken in to consideration. I agree with you. Then again, Other than the fact that NYC has more money surging through it, it isn't any better. Agreed. I'm not a fan of cities anyway. Me neither. - "Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care about a pedophile that not only used his government office for cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for 'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get lost because West is a conservative Republican?" Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in the local news to events which are also occurring here. I was simply not aware for what you were referring. Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out on them. Except when those flaws belong to Bush, then those consequences go out the window and people like you blame the demos for his incompetence. Because those "flaws" were largely invented by the left leaning media. Get reality in your life. Failing to balance the budget,... the report by the Pentagon two days ago that "Iraq war not fairing as well as originally thought"......the lack of protection for the troops he sent in to battle underequipped and ill prepared.,,the list goes on and his failures have nothing to do with the demos, despite your hatred. There has been none to date which have been proven. Then show me the balanced budget. Tell it to the military sons and daughters and parents who have lost loved ones for the very preventable reason of not having proper protection, supplies and equipment. Now Bush is cutting bases in the US to pay for his tax cuts and failing (admitted by the Pentagon) war, the same thing you blasted Clinton for daring to entertain a few years ago, and he didn't even do it. Rathergate, is a glaring example of one such smear which got discovered before any real damage could be done. You are wired to focus on anything but repsonsibility. You seek abdication of the Bush failures through unrealistic self-denial, Then there is the more recent Newsweek gaffe about flushing the Koran down a toilet (How does one flush a book down a toilet anyway?). They have port- a-potty's in Gunatanamo, not toilets. Did you know that the gutless clowns at Newsweek had the nerve to actually blame the repercussions of their erroneous reporting on the Bush administration, for not denying it quickly enough? The BUsh administration began the phoney reporting with their bogus "press releases" when it was found to be nothing of the sort, but you are not surprisingly silent when the Bush party fails with the same tactics. They print a lie, and they blame Bush for not denying it, as the reason why those people .were killed in the protests. Unbelievable! Not as unbelievable as a homosexual prostitute circumventing general WH security protocol reserved for only those with higher clearance with zero explanation of how and why the security FAILED. But there is no character on the left side of the aisle. And it becomes more apparent with each passing day, and each further shrill speech a democrat makes. All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun. Chances are you would have cheated. I've never cheated on any assignment that I've ever done. I've never had to. Then why did you not provide the 2914 Stony Creek Rd address to the FCC as required by law? _ "Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that tech school you claimed to have attended? .Give me one good reason why I should tell you. Because you lost all credibility for all your claims for many valid reasons. What you think is irrelevant, It's not what I think, it's what more and more regs are conveying to you on a regualr basis. and contrary to your wild imagination, you do not represent the majority. Contrary to your claims that have been corrected by the majority of the regs, it is yourself that is of the most radical, hypocritical, and of a minority position that is usually incorrect. But I'll make a deal with you, I'll tell you every place where I went to school, when you give me your real name and address. You invoked your schooling of your own free will. Your personal obsessive mania concerning my personal life has nothing to do with your unsolicited claims posted by yourself in order to lend your hurt feelings and soiled ago an image of support. This is done only because of your need for validation. You can find no support on or of your own. Deal? Checkmate. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ |
From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Thu, 19 May 2005 09:11:20 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: You were wrong. Possibly, in an extreme case. Yea,,,the majority of times you are wrong are the result of your most extreme -and- uninformed positions. But I was using standard norms (Which is 4 years) to base my timeline on. If it's completed in less than four years, there is nothing standard about it. Not many people have what it takes (Both from an academic and emotional standpoint) to complete a true 4 year program in less time. It's happening all over America and is much more prevalent than you know. But even if I was wrong and Frank earned his degree a year earlier, it doesn't change much of what I put down on the timeline, Only by a year or so,,which makes a huge impact on your original claim. and doesn't change the suspicion that Frank has been a little too restless for the time that he had. Any suspicion is yours. Dave "Sandbagger" N3CVJ I'll wave a hand to your call this weekend. If you monitor the dial, you may even hear it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com