| |
Main
Date: 31 Oct 2007 14:58:34
From: Bill C
Subject: Lance goes slumming.
|
Looks like he's given up on dating Mom, or an equivalent, and is now
looking for little sister.:
http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/notes#1
Lance Armstrong dating one of the Olsen Twins?
Ashley Olsen has a new, older man. The 21-year-old twin showed up to
the Rose Bar at the Gramercy Park Hotel Monday night with Tory Burch's
ex, Lance Armstrong, 36. Our bar spy said, "They came together with a
group of friends. Ashley drank red wine, sat on his lap and they were
making out all night. They left together around 2 a.m." Armstrong has
been spending more time in town since he bought a home here. Another
source said, "He tried to make Tory happy when they were dating by
buying a place here, but she couldn't deal with him not actually
living in the same city, so they broke up." Olsen's rep didn't return
calls. -- NY Post
I posted the whole Fox bit because if you go to the Post site you get
assaulted with pop-ups and crap.
Wonder how long before he moves on to Britney? Think Sheryl is saying
'Thank God! I got out of that disaster."?
Bill C
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 05:51:00
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 7, 7:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> >> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
> >> without killing the woman?
>
> > Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
> > you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
> > massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
> > to be effective at inducing abortion.
>
> Silphium was a close relative of Fennel and grew in Libya. It has been
> extinct for centuries and claiming abortifacient qualities for it seems to
> ignore the fact that it was in general use as a seasoning used by most of
> the population of the eastern Mediterranean and excuse me but they didn't
> seem to have any problems reproducing.
>
> For the uninitiated, the natural rate of miscarriage is about one in five.
> That makes it pretty easy to claim that some "herb" or another, acupressure
> or massage caused a miscarriage. Statistically they can demonstrate a
> connection between caffeine and miscarriage rates. But that's pretty
> meaningless when you discover that almost EVERYONE uses some form of
> caffeine or another so the sample rates for those having miscarriages that
> do not use caffeine are vanishingly small.
Thanks, Tom, for falling into the trap. You've now just proved to all
of us that before 1800, no matter its efficacy, people spent a great
deal of thought and effort investigating methods for controlling
births, both before and after conception.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:19:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194529860.917135.8410@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 7:31 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
>> >> without killing the woman?
>>
>> > Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
>> > you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
>> > massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
>> > to be effective at inducing abortion.
>>
>> Silphium was a close relative of Fennel and grew in Libya. It has been
>> extinct for centuries and claiming abortifacient qualities for it seems
>> to
>> ignore the fact that it was in general use as a seasoning used by most of
>> the population of the eastern Mediterranean and excuse me but they didn't
>> seem to have any problems reproducing.
>>
>> For the uninitiated, the natural rate of miscarriage is about one in
>> five.
>> That makes it pretty easy to claim that some "herb" or another,
>> acupressure
>> or massage caused a miscarriage. Statistically they can demonstrate a
>> connection between caffeine and miscarriage rates. But that's pretty
>> meaningless when you discover that almost EVERYONE uses some form of
>> caffeine or another so the sample rates for those having miscarriages
>> that
>> do not use caffeine are vanishingly small.
>
> Thanks, Tom, for falling into the trap. You've now just proved to all
> of us that before 1800, no matter its efficacy, people spent a great
> deal of thought and effort investigating methods for controlling
> births, both before and after conception.
So by calling your preposterous statement the BS it was I was somehow
admitting that abortants were USED?
Sorry, I thought you understood English.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 09:04:08
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 6, 11:56 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:45 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 8:30 pm, jean-yves herv=E9 <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
>
> > > It's a non-negotiable part of my contract that I never teach before 1=
PM.
>
> > I prefer finishing my teaching responsibilities early so I can ride in
> > the afternoon while Greg is working to pay my salary.
>
> It would be best for you to ride all day.
As it is, you only have to spend the afternoon working to pay
Chung's salary - the morning is yours. You really want to spend
the whole day working to subsidize his training rides and
rbr cadence advice?
Ben
I work harder because I know my work has a purpose -
taking Greg's money.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 11:17:52
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
rechung wrote:
>> > I prefer finishing my teaching responsibilities early so I can ride in
>> > the afternoon while Greg is working to pay my salary.
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> It would be best for you to ride all day.
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> As it is, you only have to spend the afternoon working to pay Chung's
> salary - the morning is yours. You really want to spend the whole day
> working to subsidize his training rides
As a taxpayer he should at least expect some results for his tax
money like success in Iraq or Chung winning some of his fatty master
training rides.
> and rbr cadence advice?
At least the red herrings are free.
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:34:19
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:47318319$0$3216$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> As a taxpayer he should at least expect some results for his tax
> money like success in Iraq or Chung winning some of his fatty master
> training rides.
It would probably give you heartburn to know that I'm probably paid a great
deal more than Chung and yet I'm being paid from public funding as well.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 10:56:59
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 5, 8:45 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 5, 8:30 pm, jean-yves herv=E9 <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
>
> > It's a non-negotiable part of my contract that I never teach before 1PM.
>
> I prefer finishing my teaching responsibilities early so I can ride in
> the afternoon while Greg is working to pay my salary.
It would be best for you to ride all day.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 20:45:06
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 5, 8:30 pm, jean-yves herv=E9 <j...@cs.uri.edu > wrote:
> It's a non-negotiable part of my contract that I never teach before 1PM.
I prefer finishing my teaching responsibilities early so I can ride in
the afternoon while Greg is working to pay my salary.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 20:39:33
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800 without
> killing the woman?
Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
to be effective at inducing abortion.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:31:31
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
<rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194323973.486182.248980@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 5, 7:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
>> without
>> killing the woman?
>
> Often, with herbal abortifacients (google up silphium or sylphium if
> you're interested), though occasionally mechanically, or with external
> massage: there are acupuncture and acupressure points that are reputed
> to be effective at inducing abortion.
Silphium was a close relative of Fennel and grew in Libya. It has been
extinct for centuries and claiming abortifacient qualities for it seems to
ignore the fact that it was in general use as a seasoning used by most of
the population of the eastern Mediterranean and excuse me but they didn't
seem to have any problems reproducing.
For the uninitiated, the natural rate of miscarriage is about one in five.
That makes it pretty easy to claim that some "herb" or another, acupressure
or massage caused a miscarriage. Statistically they can demonstrate a
connection between caffeine and miscarriage rates. But that's pretty
meaningless when you discover that almost EVERYONE uses some form of
caffeine or another so the sample rates for those having miscarriages that
do not use caffeine are vanishingly small.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 09:47:55
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 4, 1:15 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> >news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
> > > liberal said that.
>
> > If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
>
> Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
> divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
> weren't exactly Liberals.
"As a supreme if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of
private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label." --
Joseph A. Schumpeter
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 09:41:51
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 10:33 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
> Everyone knows
> there are problems with it, but fixing it would
> require a rational discussion of poverty and benefits,
> and politics makes that very hard to do.
"Politics" is not capable of solving any poverty problem, rational
discussion or not.
If you make a culture that "promotes" poverty cost less to the
practitioners of that culture, you'll get more of of that culture.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 09:31:17
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 6:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu > wrote:
> In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
>
> Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
sssssshhhhhhhhh.....
Don't wake him. We want him to be well rested when he wakes up and
has to give a lecture, paid for with generously supplied tax dollars.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 12:50:40
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1194283877.353345.283170@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com > wrote:
> On Nov 2, 6:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> > In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
> >
> > Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> > below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> > liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
>
> sssssshhhhhhhhh.....
>
> Don't wake him. We want him to be well rested when he wakes up and
> has to give a lecture, paid for with generously supplied tax dollars.
Good thing he did reply, otherwise I would have spent restless nights
thinking about that 125%. Certainly you'd want me to be well rested
when I wake up and have to give a lecture, paid for with generously
supplied tax dollars.
jyh.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 21:59:13
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>> sssssshhhhhhhhh.....
>> Don't wake him. We want him to be well rested when he wakes up and
>> has to give a lecture, paid for with generously supplied tax dollars.
jean-yves herve wrote:
> Good thing he did reply, otherwise I would have spent restless nights
> thinking about that 125%. Certainly you'd want me to be well rested when
> I wake up and have to give a lecture, paid for with generously supplied
> tax dollars.
Perhaps you should apply for a grant for a good coffee machine so you
can wake up properly and not look to rumpled during your lecture.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 23:30:45
From: jean-yves hervé
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <472f7611$0$3193$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Perhaps you should apply for a grant for a good coffee machine so you
> can wake up properly and not look to rumpled during your lecture.
It's a non-negotiable part of my contract that I never teach before 1PM.
A good coffee machine would not hurt, though. If I apply for that grant
I will make sure to write you in for some travel money so that you can
enjoy the benefits of your suggestion.
jyh.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 04:14:10
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 4, 6:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
> >>> liberal said that.
> >> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
>
> > Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
> > divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
> > weren't exactly Liberals.
> > Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
> > scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
> > Christ, in current Christianity either.
>
> You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
> You will be surprised at the answer.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We have, more or less. Both of us are grudgingly pro-choice, but her
take is that nowhere is abortion supported by Christianity.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 20:11:08
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
>>>>> liberal said that.
>>>> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
>>> Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
>>> divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
>>> weren't exactly Liberals.
>>> Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
>>> scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
>>> Christ, in current Christianity either.
>> You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
>> You will be surprised at the answer.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> We have, more or less. Both of us are grudgingly pro-choice, but her
> take is that nowhere is abortion supported by Christianity.
You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
about it.
Some might call that contradictory. I, however, have chosen to found a
new religion on your writings. I will call it Billianity, or perhaps
Billiousness. I will make BILLIONS, but first I will have to find a way
to get billions of dollars into the hands of the homeless schizophrenics
who are likely to be our only adherents.
And now, I am having a vision of the future! I'm seeing something ...
it's coming into focus ... It's the "Send" but...
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 05:18:09
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 10, 11:47 am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
> >> Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
> >> vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
>
> >>> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> >>> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> >>> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> >>> of humans.
> >> Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
> >> is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
>
> >> Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
> >> go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
> >> Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
>
> > They aren't. Both are ridiculous. The last thing the world needs is
> > more excuses to abuse people, unfortunately religion has been used/
> > misused that way forever.
>
> > For a good read:
> >http://tinyurl.com/249w64
>
> > The Bad Popes (Sutton History Classics) (Paperback)
> > by Russell Chamberlin (Author)
>
> Maybe I'll pick that up this morning when I go to Borders. My education
> in this is sorely lacking, mostly consisting of a few paragraphs from a
> Kurt Vonnegut novel.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Vonnegut was definitely more fun than parochial school and growing up
Catholic.
Bill C
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 13:45:54
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 9, 1:18 pm, Kyle Legate <lega...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> > Jeez, and all these years I thought Kyle was a goth.
>
> Fortunately, I can laugh at myself, no goth tendencies here. My musical
> interests are commonly reached through either a goth or industrial music
> background, and I came through the industrial route.
>
> > There is currently a tendency among people who ought
> > to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
> > 3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.
>
> http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/d/d6/Jesuspwnin...
A big chunk of the most intolerant, and activist, people I've known,
and had to deal with were hardcore evangelical, born agains. They are
everywhere in the US military, and have massive power behind the
scenes, routinely in violation of the rules and regulations. It's a
major problem.
I think this is another factor that was being missed in the divorce
discussion. Here in Mass. the people are much more tolerant of
"immoral" behavior, and more likely to discuss the issue where the
Bible thumpers I know were likely to have a fistfight, or beating, and
if not that, at least, end the relationship.
Bill C
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 04:34:10
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
>
> Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
> vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
>
> > That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> > and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> > workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> > of humans.
>
> Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
> is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
>
> Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
> go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
> Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
They aren't. Both are ridiculous. The last thing the world needs is
more excuses to abuse people, unfortunately religion has been used/
misused that way forever.
For a good read:
http://tinyurl.com/249w64
The Bad Popes (Sutton History Classics) (Paperback)
by Russell Chamberlin (Author)
11 Reviews
5 star: (8)
4 star: (3)
3 star: (0)
2 star: (0)
1 star: (0)
See all 11 customer reviews...
(11 customer reviews)
Bill C
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 08:47:13
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:16 am, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
>> Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
>> vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
>>
>>> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
>>> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
>>> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
>>> of humans.
>> Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
>> is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
>>
>> Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
>> go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
>> Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
>
> They aren't. Both are ridiculous. The last thing the world needs is
> more excuses to abuse people, unfortunately religion has been used/
> misused that way forever.
>
> For a good read:
> http://tinyurl.com/249w64
>
> The Bad Popes (Sutton History Classics) (Paperback)
> by Russell Chamberlin (Author)
>
Maybe I'll pick that up this morning when I go to Borders. My education
in this is sorely lacking, mostly consisting of a few paragraphs from a
Kurt Vonnegut novel.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 07:48:44
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 8, 9:23 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 8, 11:08 am, Fred Fredburger
>
> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
> Let's be honest here, every religious text is a mish-mash of what the
> current crop of leaders/politicians needed them to say at any given
> point early on, then once the books were mostly finalized they started
> on what it means to be "insert your favorite religion here", and
> whacking each other over power and control.
> Saqmae as secular politicians/leaders. Thunk the fault might be in
> the humans?
> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.
Jeez, and all these years I thought Kyle was a goth.
Jesus (the historical one, now) was a revolutionary.
Sometimes revolutionaries are radical redistributionists
in the name of justice; sometimes they're intolerant
maniacs, end-justifies-the-meaners, or murderers.
Sometimes they're all of these things at the same
time. However, they aren't generally people that
the fat cats ought to feel comfortable with, which is
why I made the original "longhaired liberal" joke.
(Of course I don't think what's-his-name was a liberal -
liberals aren't revolutionaries. But he wasn't a
Christian TV Network CEO either.)
There is currently a tendency among people who ought
to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.
Ben
In a counterinsurgency, God is not
necessarily on the side of the big battalions.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 16:07:46
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1194594524.146332.31430@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> why I made the original "longhaired liberal" joke.
I would have thought that you'd have known that Christ undoubtedly wore his
hair short as was the custom in those days. There was a religious group of
asthets that were called "Nasarines" or some such who wore their hair long
and somehow because Jesus was born in Nasareth he was mistakenly portrayed
with long hair by artists 800 years after his death.
> There is currently a tendency among people who ought
> to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
> 3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.
I see you haven't read the Bible either.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 16:05:35
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:13j9tiip9jmpa54@corp.supernews.com...
> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> news:1194594524.146332.31430@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> why I made the original "longhaired liberal" joke.
>
> I would have thought that you'd have known that Christ undoubtedly wore
> his hair short as was the custom in those days. There was a religious
> group of asthets that were called "Nasarines" or some such who wore their
> hair long and somehow because Jesus was born in Nasareth he was mistakenly
> portrayed with long hair by artists 800 years after his death.
>
>> There is currently a tendency among people who ought
>> to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
>> 3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.
>
> I see you haven't read the Bible either.
Umm, Jesus was born in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth for most of his
youth.
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 19:18:24
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> Jeez, and all these years I thought Kyle was a goth.
>
Fortunately, I can laugh at myself, no goth tendencies here. My musical
interests are commonly reached through either a goth or industrial music
background, and I came through the industrial route.
> There is currently a tendency among people who ought
> to know better to replace Kumbaya Jesus with
> 3-Star General Jesus. This is also a mistake.
>
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/d/d6/Jesuspwningwood.jpg
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 08:23:26
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 8, 11:08 am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 11:11 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 6:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
> >>> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
> >>>> Bill C wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>>>>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
> >>>>>>> liberal said that.
> >>>>>> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
> >>>>> Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
> >>>>> divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
> >>>>> weren't exactly Liberals.
> >>>>> Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
> >>>>> scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
> >>>>> Christ, in current Christianity either.
> >>>> You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
> >>>> You will be surprised at the answer.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> We have, more or less. Both of us are grudgingly pro-choice, but her
> >>> take is that nowhere is abortion supported by Christianity.
> >> You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
> >> with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
>
> >> Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
> >> about it.
>
> >> Some might call that contradictory. I, however, have chosen to found a
> >> new religion on your writings. I will call it Billianity, or perhaps
> >> Billiousness. I will make BILLIONS, but first I will have to find a way
> >> to get billions of dollars into the hands of the homeless schizophrenics
> >> who are likely to be our only adherents.
>
> >> And now, I am having a vision of the future! I'm seeing something ...
> >> it's coming into focus ... It's the "Send" but...- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Are you a cafeteria Christian, or just hard of reading? Christianity
> > refers to the totality of the religion. Maybe she and I missed
> > something somewhere. If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
> > evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
> > point me to them.
>
> Be not angry with me, O' confusing one. This Christ person you refer to
> is OK by me, especially in that he reminds me of you so much. He acts
> one way in one place and the opposite in others. This why his followers
> believe such a bewildering array of things. When one attempts to
> determine what Christ would have said, one merely needs to carefully
> choose the scriptural basis for that conjecture in order to obtain his
> agreement with YOUR OWN beliefs and actions.
>
> This is why Christ is great, indeed. But he isn't Billious.
>
> As a result of this, liberals have a solid scriptural basis for
> believing Christ to have been more liberal than Howard Dean (Look up the
> word "judge" in a concordance, the Sermon on the Mount, and what did he
> have against those money changers?) while conservatives are certain
> Jesus regularly listened to Rush Limbaugh (pretty much anything the
> Apostle Paul ever wrote, and BOY! He really kicked those money changers
> ass!).
>
> Seriously, if you DO go to the trouble of looking up "judge" in a
> concordance you'll find plenty of support for the idea that Jesus
> thought we should mostly mind our own business and not spend time
> obsessing about what those "other" people are doing. Apply liberally to
> the abortion topic. Then think of all the picketing, crying, yelling,
> firebombimg etc. that's been done in HIS name over the last 35 years.
> What would Jesus say? How about: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the
> beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out
> the mote out of thy brother's eye" Matt7:1. But really, there are lots
> of choices here. Jesus repeated that line of thought several times. And
> maybe he would have said something completely different. Depends on
> who's putting words in his mouth.
>
> So Jesus probably wouldn't have "supported abortion" but there's a
> strong basis for an anti-anti-abortion stance that looks pretty Pro-choice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
Let's be honest here, every religious text is a mish-mash of what the
current crop of leaders/politicians needed them to say at any given
point early on, then once the books were mostly finalized they started
on what it means to be "insert your favorite religion here", and
whacking each other over power and control.
Saqmae as secular politicians/leaders. Thunk the fault might be in
the humans?
That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
of humans.
This is especially approptiate since it's being discussed in the
venue of discussion of competition. As long as humans are driven to
suceed, compete, gain wealth and power, that's not gonna fly.
Humans are animals, and want to be alpha males. Always have been,
even some of the females, anything else is nice dreams and pablum.
It's gilding the pig.
Bill C
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 22:16:16
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
> of humans.
Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion.
Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 16:03:54
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:E9adnavUJMauZq7anZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bill C wrote:
>
>> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
>
> Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are in
> vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
>
>> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
>> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
>> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
>> of humans.
>
> Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why is
> Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
>
> Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and go
> for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and abortion. Why
> is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
Hey Fred, name on socialist religious group that succeeded? Wow - the
MORMONS. Now what is it about their religion that is difference from, say,
the Shakers?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 08:44:31
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in
> message news:E9adnavUJMauZq7anZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Bill C wrote:
>>
>>> Gee, ya mean life isn't simple for rational beings?
>>
>> Rational is one thing. But it's unfashionable. Extreme positions are
>> in vogue this year. Much simpler, better sound bites.
>>
>>> That's why I laugh at Kyle's "Lets all love each other, hold hands,
>>> and sing Kumbaya." Great philosphy, wonderful goal, not really
>>> workable at any forseeable point in the near future given the nature
>>> of humans.
>>
>> Do you really see an end to homosexuality, abortion, adultry, etc? Why
>> is Republican Jesus easier to believe in than Kumbaya Jesus?
>>
>> Some choose to worry about the violence and suffering in the world and
>> go for Kumbaya Jesus; others decide to worry about faggots and
>> abortion. Why is one point of view any more laughable than the other?
>
> Hey Fred, name on socialist religious group that succeeded? Wow - the
> MORMONS. Now what is it about their religion that is difference from,
> say, the Shakers?
>
You're mixing religion and economics, but OK, I will play along. There
could be a point to that. You mention the Mormons. I'd add Bill's
"Kumbaya Christians" (I love that phrase). I've heard the American
Indians referred to as Socialists, they lasted for a while.
I'm not sure what you see as the difference, I just note that are all
about pursuing unattainable utopias. At least unattainable in an earthly
way.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 04:33:09
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 7, 11:11 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh > wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 6:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
> > <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
> >> Bill C wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
> >>>>news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
> >>>>> liberal said that.
> >>>> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
> >>> Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
> >>> divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
> >>> weren't exactly Liberals.
> >>> Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
> >>> scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
> >>> Christ, in current Christianity either.
> >> You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
> >> You will be surprised at the answer.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > We have, more or less. Both of us are grudgingly pro-choice, but her
> > take is that nowhere is abortion supported by Christianity.
>
> You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
> with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
>
> Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
> about it.
>
> Some might call that contradictory. I, however, have chosen to found a
> new religion on your writings. I will call it Billianity, or perhaps
> Billiousness. I will make BILLIONS, but first I will have to find a way
> to get billions of dollars into the hands of the homeless schizophrenics
> who are likely to be our only adherents.
>
> And now, I am having a vision of the future! I'm seeing something ...
> it's coming into focus ... It's the "Send" but...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you a cafeteria Christian, or just hard of reading? Christianity
refers to the totality of the religion. Maybe she and I missed
something somewhere. If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
point me to them.
I'd already thought of that a long time ago. Too much hassle. If you
want to go for it and send me checks that's cool. We'll roll in the
Livedrunk philosophy too I assume?
My favorite scripture is here though:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/
Bill C
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:21:43
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1194525189.374177.211670@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
> evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
> point me to them.
As far as I've been able to make out, these guys think that because Christ
didn't preach against something that couldn't occur, he was for it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 09:30:48
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:1194525189.374177.211670@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
>> evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
>> point me to them.
>
> As far as I've been able to make out, these guys think that because
> Christ didn't preach against something that couldn't occur, he was for it.
Or: if he didn't say something, you shouldn't say that he did.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 08:08:44
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 7, 11:11 pm, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
>> Bill C wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 6:56 pm, Fred Fredburger
>>> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote:
>>>> Bill C wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>>>>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
>>>>>>> liberal said that.
>>>>>> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
>>>>> Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
>>>>> divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
>>>>> weren't exactly Liberals.
>>>>> Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
>>>>> scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
>>>>> Christ, in current Christianity either.
>>>> You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
>>>> You will be surprised at the answer.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> We have, more or less. Both of us are grudgingly pro-choice, but her
>>> take is that nowhere is abortion supported by Christianity.
>> You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
>> with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
>>
>> Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
>> about it.
>>
>> Some might call that contradictory. I, however, have chosen to found a
>> new religion on your writings. I will call it Billianity, or perhaps
>> Billiousness. I will make BILLIONS, but first I will have to find a way
>> to get billions of dollars into the hands of the homeless schizophrenics
>> who are likely to be our only adherents.
>>
>> And now, I am having a vision of the future! I'm seeing something ...
>> it's coming into focus ... It's the "Send" but...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you a cafeteria Christian, or just hard of reading? Christianity
> refers to the totality of the religion. Maybe she and I missed
> something somewhere. If you feel there are scriptures, or any other
> evidence that shows Christ himself in support of abortion, please
> point me to them.
Be not angry with me, O' confusing one. This Christ person you refer to
is OK by me, especially in that he reminds me of you so much. He acts
one way in one place and the opposite in others. This why his followers
believe such a bewildering array of things. When one attempts to
determine what Christ would have said, one merely needs to carefully
choose the scriptural basis for that conjecture in order to obtain his
agreement with YOUR OWN beliefs and actions.
This is why Christ is great, indeed. But he isn't Billious.
As a result of this, liberals have a solid scriptural basis for
believing Christ to have been more liberal than Howard Dean (Look up the
word "judge" in a concordance, the Sermon on the Mount, and what did he
have against those money changers?) while conservatives are certain
Jesus regularly listened to Rush Limbaugh (pretty much anything the
Apostle Paul ever wrote, and BOY! He really kicked those money changers
ass!).
Seriously, if you DO go to the trouble of looking up "judge" in a
concordance you'll find plenty of support for the idea that Jesus
thought we should mostly mind our own business and not spend time
obsessing about what those "other" people are doing. Apply liberally to
the abortion topic. Then think of all the picketing, crying, yelling,
firebombimg etc. that's been done in HIS name over the last 35 years.
What would Jesus say? How about: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the
beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out
the mote out of thy brother’s eye" Matt7:1. But really, there are lots
of choices here. Jesus repeated that line of thought several times. And
maybe he would have said something completely different. Depends on
who's putting words in his mouth.
So Jesus probably wouldn't have "supported abortion" but there's a
strong basis for an anti-anti-abortion stance that looks pretty Pro-choice.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 10:15:28
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
> Some might call that contradictory. I, however, have chosen to found a new
> religion on your writings. I will call it Billianity, or perhaps
> Billiousness. I will make BILLIONS, but first I will have to find a way to
> get billions of dollars into the hands of the homeless schizophrenics who
> are likely to be our only adherents.
We the followers of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster will
crucify all you BILLious people for not following the one true
way of the GFSM.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 20:08:46
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Donald Munro wrote:
>
> We the followers of the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster will
> crucify all you BILLious people for not following the one true
> way of the GFSM.
>
May you be touched by his noodley appendage.
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 07:31:09
From: Kyle Legate
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Fred Fredburger wrote:
>
> You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
> with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
>
> Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
> about it.
>
http://thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 19:03:10
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Kyle Legate wrote:
> Fred Fredburger wrote:
>>
>> You were talking about what Jesus felt about abortion, prefacing that
>> with "... theres not a whole lot of Christ, in current Christianity ..."
>>
>> Now you're using current Christianity as the measure of how Jesus felt
>> about it.
>>
> http://thepaincomics.com/weekly050504.htm
Yes, that's the guy.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:15:53
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
> > liberal said that.
>
> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
weren't exactly Liberals.
Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
Christ, in current Christianity either.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:56:43
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
>>> liberal said that.
>> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
>
> Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
> divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
> weren't exactly Liberals.
> Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
> scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
> Christ, in current Christianity either.
You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
You will be surprised at the answer.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:05:08
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh > wrote in message
news:LpydnUTecvKhwbPanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Bill C wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 4:06 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
>>>> liberal said that.
>>> If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
>>
>> Hey Ben how does that long haired "liberal" feel about abortion,
>> divorce, adultery, etc...seems that he, and especially his dad,
>> weren't exactly Liberals.
>> Of course my mother in law, who's a pretty serious amateur religious
>> scholar, and church officer claims that theres not a whole lot of
>> Christ, in current Christianity either.
>
> You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
> You will be surprised at the answer.
He had absolutely nothing to say about it since no one then would have
thought about abortions.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 00:13:16
From: jean-yves hervé
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <13it5jjdgm49bd0@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote in message
> news:LpydnUTecvKhwbPanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
> > You will be surprised at the answer.
>
> He had absolutely nothing to say about it since no one then would have
> thought about abortions.
You're kidding, right? About when do you think abortions date from?
jyh.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 19:20:33
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote in message
news:jyh-FDD44F.00131605112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <13it5jjdgm49bd0@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote in message
>> news:LpydnUTecvKhwbPanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about
>> > abortion.
>> > You will be surprised at the answer.
>>
>> He had absolutely nothing to say about it since no one then would have
>> thought about abortions.
>
> You're kidding, right? About when do you think abortions date from?
Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800 without
killing the woman?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 23:20:32
From: jean-yves hervé
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <13ivnbvajoihj25@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:jyh-FDD44F.00131605112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <13it5jjdgm49bd0@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote in message
> >> news:LpydnUTecvKhwbPanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about
> >> > abortion.
> >> > You will be surprised at the answer.
> >>
> >> He had absolutely nothing to say about it since no one then would have
> >> thought about abortions.
> >
> > You're kidding, right? About when do you think abortions date from?
>
> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800 without
> killing the woman?
I should add two things
1) By all accounts, we have lost a huge amount of information on the
various powers of herbs sometimes during the 19th and 20th century.
Abortion does not necessarily imply some kind of surgical intervention,
particularly if performed early enough. Some kind of abortive brew,
even if only, say, 30% effective, would still be a form of abortion.
2) The 19th century local "angel maker" had absolutely no technological
or medical advantage over her 6th century BC colleague. Before
sterilization, a scrapper is a scrapper, no matter what the century.
Bronze or bone works as well as steel for that purpose.
jyh.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:20:50
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote in message
news:jyh-F301F8.23203205112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
>
> 2) The 19th century local "angel maker" had absolutely no technological
> or medical advantage over her 6th century BC colleague. Before
> sterilization, a scrapper is a scrapper, no matter what the century.
> Bronze or bone works as well as steel for that purpose.
Save this - without artificial lighting and magnification there's no way to
know what to scrape and if you wait until it grows enough to see unaided
scraping it off generally leads to extreme bleeding and often death.
Contrary to popular belief, abortion never was and isn't now some simple
procedure without mortal danger.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 10:18:52
From: jean-yves hervé
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <13j504l9egpcaa4@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:jyh-F301F8.23203205112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> >
> > 2) The 19th century local "angel maker" had absolutely no technological
> > or medical advantage over her 6th century BC colleague. Before
> > sterilization, a scrapper is a scrapper, no matter what the century.
> > Bronze or bone works as well as steel for that purpose.
>
> Save this - without artificial lighting and magnification there's no way to
> know what to scrape and if you wait until it grows enough to see unaided
> scraping it off generally leads to extreme bleeding and often death.
>
> Contrary to popular belief, abortion never was and isn't now some simple
> procedure without mortal danger.
I don't know where you get your notions of "popular belief" from.
Nobody on rst has argued that "safe abortion" was common, or even
existed, before 1900. What we are objecting to is your writing that
Christ did not say anything about abortion because there was nothing to
talk about in his time. All evidence seems instead to indicate that
people have for a long time tried to terminate pregnancies. That the
techniques used at the time may not have been efficient, or were
lethally dangerous for the mother, does not change the fact that
abortion was fairly common in ancient times.
jyh.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 23:01:17
From: jean-yves hervé
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <13ivnbvajoihj25@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:jyh-FDD44F.00131605112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <13it5jjdgm49bd0@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote in message
> >> news:LpydnUTecvKhwbPanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about
> >> > abortion.
> >> > You will be surprised at the answer.
> >>
> >> He had absolutely nothing to say about it since no one then would have
> >> thought about abortions.
> >
> > You're kidding, right? About when do you think abortions date from?
>
> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800 without
> killing the woman?
Abortion was never a safe procedure, but there is plenty of evidence
that it has be performed for a very long time
<http://www.amazon.com/Contraception-Abortion-Ancient-World-Renaissance/d
p/0674168763 >
In the 6th century BC Solon wrote an constitution for Athens that
explicitly prohibited abortion without the father's agreement. I doubt
that he would have bothered including this if abortion did not exist
back then.
Note that I am not taking sides on the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" issue
(if anything, most days I would rather lean to pro-life). I am not
particularly bothered by the fact that the Gospels do not say anything
explicit about abortion. They don't say anything about the superman
position for the hour world record either, but hopefully there is enough
ethical guidance there for people to come with their own decision.
jyh.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:17:31
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote in message
news:jyh-19770B.23011705112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> In article <13ivnbvajoihj25@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>>
>> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
>> without
>> killing the woman?
>
> Abortion was never a safe procedure, but there is plenty of evidence
> that it has be performed for a very long time
>
> <http://www.amazon.com/Contraception-Abortion-Ancient-World-Renaissance/dp/0674168763>
>
> In the 6th century BC Solon wrote an constitution for Athens that
> explicitly prohibited abortion without the father's agreement. I doubt
> that he would have bothered including this if abortion did not exist
> back then.
Jean-Yves, surely you understand that folk medicine only very rarely works?
And usually there's no basis at all for the claims?
> Note that I am not taking sides on the "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" issue
> (if anything, most days I would rather lean to pro-life). I am not
> particularly bothered by the fact that the Gospels do not say anything
> explicit about abortion. They don't say anything about the superman
> position for the hour world record either, but hopefully there is enough
> ethical guidance there for people to come with their own decision.
We are pretty much of one mind there.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 10:29:20
From: jean-yves hervé
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <13j4vua9gorsq26@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "jean-yves hervé" <jyh@cs.uri.edu> wrote in message
> news:jyh-19770B.23011705112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com...
> > In article <13ivnbvajoihj25@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Jean-Yves - exactly how did they perform abortions before, say, 1800
> >> without
> >> killing the woman?
> >
> > Abortion was never a safe procedure, but there is plenty of evidence
> > that it has be performed for a very long time
> >
> > <http://www.amazon.com/Contraception-Abortion-Ancient-World-Renaissance/dp/0
> > 674168763>
> >
> > In the 6th century BC Solon wrote an constitution for Athens that
> > explicitly prohibited abortion without the father's agreement. I doubt
> > that he would have bothered including this if abortion did not exist
> > back then.
>
> Jean-Yves, surely you understand that folk medicine only very rarely works?
> And usually there's no basis at all for the claims?
"very rarely works", or even "does not work at all" does not matter.
The question is: Were people doing it, or at least trying to, in
ancient times? The answer to this is obviously yes. That on top of
that it may have been extremely dangerous when it worked is also besides
the point: abortion has been with us for a very long time. Similarly,
astrology is a bunch of horseshit, and it does not work at all, yet it
would never occur to me to say that people do not consult astrologists
because I know that there is nothing valuable to get from them.
jyh.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:39:21
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <jyh-FDD44F.00131605112007@news.lga.highwinds-media.com >,
jean-yves hervé <jyh@cs.uri.edu > wrote:
> In article <13it5jjdgm49bd0@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.Huh> wrote in message
> > news:LpydnUTecvKhwbPanZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > You should ask your mother-in-law what Christ had to say about abortion.
> > > You will be surprised at the answer.
> >
> > He had absolutely nothing to say about it since no one then would have
> > thought about abortions.
>
> You're kidding, right? About when do you think abortions date from?
You've been around here long enough to know that Tom isn't a "details" kind of guy.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 06:29:00
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
> Divorce rates are highest in the South (sometimes "Bible Belt") and lowest in the Northeast.
Of course they are. Have you ever gone through a Maine winter without
some company?
tf
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 06:50:57
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 5:53 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 11:47 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage,
> > as it happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to
> > stop listening to you complaining about the Volvo drivers
> > and femtards, because it's really nice up there.
>
> > Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Never said it wasn't beautiful up here. It's even better if you
> believe in the one philosophy allowed here, as you do. If you don't
> thik Mass. has poverty problems then you needed to get out of your
> Mercedes SUV and look around, especially since you were in Berkshire
> county.
> Let's talk pre and post the liberal 1960s revolution here, and then
> the pendulum reversal with Reagan in 1980:http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
> 1960 - 2.2 / 1000
> 1970 - 3.5
> 1981 - 5.3
> 2001 - 4.0
> This pretty well covers the cycle of expanded Libweralism and the
> counterswell.
> Here's the poverty stats:http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
> 1959 - 8.7%
> 1960 - 8.2%
> 1970 - 5%
> 1981 -5.3%
> 2001 - 4.4%
> Pretty well blows a hole in your argument. My argument is that
> society, and groups of people, reflect what it values. This applies
> across the board to all subjects.
> You don't kneejerk quite as hard as Tom does.
> Bill C
Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
liberal said that. However, the Massachusetts poverty
rate is quite low compared to the nation. So is
the Mass. divorce rate.
What I said was that divorce (and other problems that
screw kids up) are more highly correlated with poverty
than with liberalism or femtards. This isn't knee jerk,
it's established fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/31/walking_the_walk_on_family_values/
Divorce rates are highest in the South (sometimes
"Bible Belt") and lowest in the Northeast. This is
attributed in the second article to, in the South:
younger age of marrying, lower income, lower education,
and fewer Catholics.
I think the fact that divorce went up in the 60s and
70s has to do with both declining social stigma, and
more importantly that it became easier for women to
work and be economically independent. On balance,
that was a good thing in the long run.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:06:29
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1194072657.800613.158520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill, the poor are always with us. Some longhaired
> liberal said that.
If only you had a clue what "liberal" means.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 06:33:16
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 9:22 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 7:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
>
> > > Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> > > below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> > > liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
>
> > It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
> > programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
> > considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
> > "near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
> > *not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
> > the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
> > person family in Mississippi.
>
> It'd probably be pretty hard to sort out what the actual dollar amount of income
> qualifies one as being "in poverty" if you had to do it as a location specific thing.
> Just a few miles could make a huge difference - living in Redwood City versus Palo
> Alto, for example.
>
It doesn't have to be that complex, in the sense
that you don't necessarily need (or want) to have
different criteria for, say, Headstart in Redwood
City and Palo Alto. However, you might want to
have different criteria between the Bay Area and
Ohio. You could index it on a county by county
basis. The information is generally available.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17orshansky.html
The poverty line measure was never intended to be
an all-encompassing prescription. Everyone knows
there are problems with it, but fixing it would
require a rational discussion of poverty and benefits,
and politics makes that very hard to do.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:04:41
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote in message
news:1194071596.260311.85300@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> The poverty line measure was never intended to be
> an all-encompassing prescription. Everyone knows
> there are problems with it, but fixing it would
> require a rational discussion of poverty and benefits,
> and politics makes that very hard to do.
The problems are plenty. While you want to help victims of poverty, many of
them are in that condition from their own actions and no matter what you do
you can't get them out of it. And if you make the rules so general that they
don't have to help themselves you manufacture another underclass.
Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. Maybe he had a better idea
about the human condition than most social workers.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:17:43
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1194071596.260311.85300@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> On Nov 2, 9:22 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 7:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> > > > In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
> >
> > > > Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> > > > below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> > > > liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
> >
> > > It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
> > > programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
> > > considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
> > > "near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
> > > *not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
> > > the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
> > > person family in Mississippi.
> >
> > It'd probably be pretty hard to sort out what the actual dollar amount
> > of income qualifies one as being "in poverty" if you had to do it as a location
> > specific thing. Just a few miles could make a huge difference - living in
> > Redwood City versus Palo Alto, for example.
>
> It doesn't have to be that complex, in the sense
> that you don't necessarily need (or want) to have
> different criteria for, say, Headstart in Redwood
> City and Palo Alto.
Oh, I know - I was sort of exaggerating the specifics to make a point. But you
know that the cost of living in various areas of a greater area like "the San
Francisco Bay Area" can vary fairly wildly (particularly housing). And since you
lived in Santa Cruz for a time, you should recognize the accuracy of that (it is
surprising how expensive it is to live ove there - as much as living right in SF).
But having one for the SF Bay Area that's different than that of Knoxville, Iowa
would seem to make sense.
> However, you might want to
> have different criteria between the Bay Area and
> Ohio. You could index it on a county by county
> basis. The information is generally available.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/us/17orshansky.html
Thanks for the link, Ben.
> The poverty line measure was never intended to be
> an all-encompassing prescription. Everyone knows
> there are problems with it, but fixing it would
> require a rational discussion of poverty and benefits,
> and politics makes that very hard to do.
If by "very hard to do" you mean "nearly impossible", then you're quite right.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 22:43:39
From: CowPunk
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 10:12 pm, rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
>
> > Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> > below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> > liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
>
> It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
> programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
> considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
> "near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
> *not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
> the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
> person family in Mississippi.
Wow! I'm amazed someone would even WANT to know that? Here in Texas
we just call them Po and Mo Po.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 21:12:50
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 7:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu > wrote:
> In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
>
> Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
"near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
*not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
person family in Mississippi.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 03:47:40
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1194063170.977431.113950@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> > In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
> >
> > Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> > below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> > liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
>
> It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
> programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
> considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
> "near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
> *not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
> the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
> person family in Mississippi.
Thanks. I am simply amazed at the amount of stuff I learn just by
reading rbr. :-)
jyh.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 14:10:17
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
jean-yves herve wrote:
> Thanks. I am simply amazed at the amount of stuff I learn just by reading
> rbr. :-)
Its a rbr patented LIVEDRUNK genetic algorithm approach to learning
where you learn about completely unrelated fields using a randomized
curriculum. Where else can you learn about the theory behind currency
fluctuations and the size and consistency of whale shit.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 21:22:53
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1194063170.977431.113950@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:24 pm, jean-yves herve <j...@cs.uri.edu> wrote:
> > In article <1194025759.428078.215...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > rechungREMOVET...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
> >
> > Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
> > below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
> > liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
>
> It's a programmatic level that determines eligibility for many Federal
> programs, like Headstart. Those below the Federal poverty line are
> considered "poor" while those below 125% of the FPL are considered
> "near poor." BTW, although the FPL varies with family size it does
> *not* vary by geographic location (except for Alaska and Hawaii): it's
> the same for a four-person family in California as it is for a four-
> person family in Mississippi.
It'd probably be pretty hard to sort out what the actual dollar amount of income
qualifies one as being "in poverty" if you had to do it as a location specific thing.
Just a few miles could make a huge difference - living in Redwood City versus Palo
Alto, for example.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 19:31:01
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 1:30 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1193982394.645257.96820@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > People who don't care about something also don't post about it.
>
> So, Henry, you're telling us that you really care for Bill?
Shithead -
He said he didn't care about LANCE. I called him on it.
Just calling a spade a spade.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:01:14
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194057061.473683.106630@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 2, 1:30 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> "Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1193982394.645257.96820@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > People who don't care about something also don't post about it.
>>
>> So, Henry, you're telling us that you really care for Bill?
>
> He said he didn't care about LANCE. I called him on it.
>
> Just calling a spade a spade.
Me too.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 11:03:38
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 12:28 pm, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
>
> I might use this followup to point out your inability
> to correctly apply statistical analysis to make your
> point. I might opine on the futility of engaging in
> political discussions in this forum. I might make a
> snarky comment about the relationship between political
> orientation and willingness to engage in anonymous gay
> sex in a public place, to illustrate that private
> sexual mores do not always follow public pronouncements.
>
Hey Bob
I agree with all of that pretty much. I'm not the stats expert here
Chung is and we've already gone round and round, and I learned a
shitload from him, and researching to be able to discuss it. I still
know very little on the subject so I'm sure that the data could be
used better.
I don't think that the point is that tough to make though. At a time
when there were a much higher percentage in poverty there was less
divorce. I wouldn't even toss his argument that monetary
considerations are a factor. I'd grant that they are a huge factor,
but that's riding on the baseline of a seriously diminished respect
for marriage, and a decreased social stigma to divorce. The
institution was trivialized, and vilified, and it seems to make sense
that when feminism was at it's most radical, and strongest, in the
late 70s, the divorce rate was at it's highest.
Hypocrites come from every political and philosophical stripe, Clergy
abusing children is the best current example.
As for gay sex, and I have no idea what that has to do with the
discussion, goes both ways. I'll match the Conservative liars with
Barney Frank and his friends. I'm not sure if the brothel in the
apartment was more disturburbing, or the fact that a suppoosedly
intelligent, educated Congressman had no idea it was going on, or so
he says. If he was Dan Quayle I'd believe him. I don't believe Frank.
There are tons of pros and cons that came out of the 60s Liberal
movement, just like anything else, but it's pretty damned tough to
find a Liberal to admit there were any negatives, and that any of it
had a negative impact on the country.
It's 50 - 1 here , not an accurate stat, just a guess, between left
leaning folks and people who will make conservative arguments so most
of the time I make the conservative, and living where I do, it's
thousands to 1, literally.
Morons on the left, on the scale of Coulter are common here in Happy
Valley., just as nasty, and willing to act on it.
I occasionally talk to Tom, and enjoy it, but there are other very
liberal, notice the small "l", on rbr that I really enjoy discussing
things with, and learn a lot from.
I still owe Howard a response to, a response to a discussion on press
freedom, responsibilities, and accountability. As has been proven here
regularly you cant have an actual discussion when one side is set in
stone, and wont even think about a different viewpoint, or evidence.
Doesn't seem to matter if it's cycling, doping, religion, global
warming, or politics. Way too many people happily slam anything
conservative, across the board, while refusing to even consider that
the Liberal agenda may have had negatives to it, and vice versa.
> But that's not what I'm going to do. What I'm going to
> do is ask if anyone thinks Jenna is pregnant. I think
> she is. Did anyone else notice that the picture
> accompanying the article in the WaPo where she flatly
> denies being knocked up does not show a clear view of
> her midsection?
>
> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/09/28/PH200...
I know I didn't do it. Wouldn't mind the chance, but being tied to
that family would go WAY beyond "drama". I'd definitely be the left
wing, eco-wacko, scumbag son-in-law in that situation. I'd probably
enlist in the Foreign Legion before being trapped. I don't think
they'd appreciate having bicycles, and motorcycles and parts
everywhere.
>
> Feed your inner troll.
>
> Bob Schwartz- Hide quoted text -
>
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 10:49:19
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 2, 5:53 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Let's talk pre and post the liberal 1960s revolution here, and then
> the pendulum reversal with Reagan in 1980:http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
> 1960 - 2.2 / 1000
> 1970 - 3.5
> 1981 - 5.3
> 2001 - 4.0
> This pretty well covers the cycle of expanded Libweralism and the
> counterswell.
> Here's the poverty stats:http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
> 1959 - 8.7%
> 1960 - 8.2%
> 1970 - 5%
> 1981 -5.3%
> 2001 - 4.4%
> Pretty well blows a hole in your argument. My argument is that
> society, and groups of people, reflect what it values. This applies
> across the board to all subjects.
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 22:24:47
From: jean-yves herve
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1194025759.428078.215000@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:
> http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/poverty.png
Just curious: What's special about 125, as in "Percent of population
below 125% of poverty level"? Is that your own estimate/guess of the
liveable threshold or some kind of traditional metric?
jyh.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 05:53:53
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 11:47 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
wrote:
>
> BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage,
> as it happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to
> stop listening to you complaining about the Volvo drivers
> and femtards, because it's really nice up there.
>
> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never said it wasn't beautiful up here. It's even better if you
believe in the one philosophy allowed here, as you do. If you don't
thik Mass. has poverty problems then you needed to get out of your
Mercedes SUV and look around, especially since you were in Berkshire
county.
Let's talk pre and post the liberal 1960s revolution here, and then
the pendulum reversal with Reagan in 1980:
http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
1960 - 2.2 / 1000
1970 - 3.5
1981 - 5.3
2001 - 4.0
This pretty well covers the cycle of expanded Libweralism and the
counterswell.
Here's the poverty stats:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
1959 - 8.7%
1960 - 8.2%
1970 - 5%
1981 -5.3%
2001 - 4.4%
Pretty well blows a hole in your argument. My argument is that
society, and groups of people, reflect what it values. This applies
across the board to all subjects.
You don't kneejerk quite as hard as Tom does.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 16:28:50
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 1, 11:47 pm, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage,
>> as it happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to
>> stop listening to you complaining about the Volvo drivers
>> and femtards, because it's really nice up there.
>>
>> Ben- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Never said it wasn't beautiful up here. It's even better if you
> believe in the one philosophy allowed here, as you do. If you don't
> thik Mass. has poverty problems then you needed to get out of your
> Mercedes SUV and look around, especially since you were in Berkshire
> county.
> Let's talk pre and post the liberal 1960s revolution here, and then
> the pendulum reversal with Reagan in 1980:
> http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html
> 1960 - 2.2 / 1000
> 1970 - 3.5
> 1981 - 5.3
> 2001 - 4.0
> This pretty well covers the cycle of expanded Libweralism and the
> counterswell.
> Here's the poverty stats:
> http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html
> 1959 - 8.7%
> 1960 - 8.2%
> 1970 - 5%
> 1981 -5.3%
> 2001 - 4.4%
> Pretty well blows a hole in your argument. My argument is that
> society, and groups of people, reflect what it values. This applies
> across the board to all subjects.
> You don't kneejerk quite as hard as Tom does.
> Bill C
I might use this followup to point out your inability
to correctly apply statistical analysis to make your
point. I might opine on the futility of engaging in
political discussions in this forum. I might make a
snarky comment about the relationship between political
orientation and willingness to engage in anonymous gay
sex in a public place, to illustrate that private
sexual mores do not always follow public pronouncements.
But that's not what I'm going to do. What I'm going to
do is ask if anyone thinks Jenna is pregnant. I think
she is. Did anyone else notice that the picture
accompanying the article in the WaPo where she flatly
denies being knocked up does not show a clear view of
her midsection?
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/09/28/PH2007092802173.jpg
Feed your inner troll.
Bob Schwartz
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 17:11:24
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage, as it
> happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to stop listening to you
> complaining about the Volvo drivers and femtards, because it's really nice
> up there.
Bill C wrote:
>> If you don't thik Mass. has poverty problems then you needed to
>> get out of your Mercedes SUV and look around
An astrophysicist in a Mercedes SUV ? Must be getting some kickbacks
from the intelligent design crowd.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 22:46:34
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 1:37 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 4:31 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 9:34 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > It's not that I "care"
>
> > Dumbass -
>
> > That is a lie.
>
> > thanks,
>
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> I care about Lance's love life about as much as I care about yours,
Dumbass -
People who don't care about something also don't post about it.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 14:30:15
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Kurgan Gringioni" <kgringioni@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1193982394.645257.96820@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> People who don't care about something also don't post about it.
So, Henry, you're telling us that you really care for Bill?
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 03:47:38
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 10:34 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
>
> I'll duck now, ahead of time. I agree with you. It's not that I
> "care", it's that people amuse me, and given the large contingent who
> sanctify Lance and everything he does, I was amused.
> He's human, and has done lots of good things, and some questionable
> at best, just like anyone else.
> Looking at the stats though, the family problem is a growing one, and
> my personal opinion is that it's come from the war on "traditional"
> values, and the family unit waged by the feminists, free love, left
> types, who also promoted drugs for everyone including kids, because it
> would "expand their conciousnesses".
> Now to piss off the other side, I think that you could see some of
> the most effective reversal of this trend coming from gay marriages/
> unions. They've had to fight so hard for the ability to be a "family"
> that most of the people I know place massive value on it, and being
> functional and stable while being attacked constantly. It's really
> amazing how conventional, and traditional the reality of these
> families can be, especially in today's society where roles aren't as
> well defined.
That explains why there are more broken families and a higher
rate of divorce in Massachusetts, home of liberal femtards,
than in Texas, where people have real values. Oh wait, there
aren't and the divorce rate is higher in Texas. Femtards don't
break many families - you know what's correlated with messed
up family units? POVERTY. And that is what helped make
LANCE the man he is today, both for better and for worse.
Another thing about gay families, I suspect, is that gay and
lesbian people who get married or have kids not only have
to be extra dedicated to it, but they're probably better off
economically on average, which should add to their stability.
Obviously, the best thing we could do for America's kids, on
average, is to encourage well-off gay people to have more
of them. If only LANCE had had two daddies simultaneously
rather than three serially ... Well, he'd probably be a
well-adjusted mechanical engineer and we'd all be talking
about whether Contador was the one who could finally
dethrone Jan Ullrich in 2008.
BTW, I was in Western Mass again recently (for a gay marriage,
as it happens, near Great Barrington), and I might have to
stop listening to you complaining about the Volvo drivers
and femtards, because it's really nice up there.
Ben
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:51:11
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 8:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
>
> I figure he expects to get into bed with both twins.
>
> --
> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Damn, you might be right. I hope Carmichael has his epo, viagra, hgh
plan set up for this.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 18:06:33
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1193964671.425552.11650@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 8:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I figure he expects to get into bed with both twins.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Press- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Damn, you might be right. I hope Carmichael has his epo, viagra, hgh
> plan set up for this.
> Bill C
>
Pretty soon we will all be hiring a CTS sexual performance coach and Lance
will be pimping his services with his new book It's Not About the Penis."
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 09:42:18
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Frank Drackman wrote:
> Pretty soon we will all be hiring a CTS sexual performance coach and Lance
> will be pimping his services with his new book It's Not About the Penis."
And Bicycling will have articles on how to make lactate threshold
intervals enjoyable.
And Pound and co. will have lots of fun categorising new PEDs.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 00:36:40
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article
<1193867914.297318.133790@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >
,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> Looks like he's given up on dating Mom, or an equivalent, and is now
> looking for little sister.:
> http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/notes#1
>
> Lance Armstrong dating one of the Olsen Twins?
>
> Ashley Olsen has a new, older man. The 21-year-old twin showed up to
> the Rose Bar at the Gramercy Park Hotel Monday night with Tory Burch's
> ex, Lance Armstrong, 36. Our bar spy said, "They came together with a
> group of friends. Ashley drank red wine, sat on his lap and they were
> making out all night. They left together around 2 a.m." Armstrong has
> been spending more time in town since he bought a home here. Another
> source said, "He tried to make Tory happy when they were dating by
> buying a place here, but she couldn't deal with him not actually
> living in the same city, so they broke up." Olsen's rep didn't return
> calls. -- NY Post
>
> I posted the whole Fox bit because if you go to the Post site you get
> assaulted with pop-ups and crap.
>
> Wonder how long before he moves on to Britney? Think Sheryl is saying
> 'Thank God! I got out of that disaster."?
I figure he expects to get into bed with both twins.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:28:34
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 7:25 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com > wrote:
> In article <1193953069.332420.312...@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:31 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 1, 9:34 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > It's not that I "care"
>
> > > Dumbass -
>
> > > That is a lie.
>
> > > thanks,
>
> > > K. Gringioni.
>
> > I care about Lance's love life about as much as I care about yours,
> > unless it's good reading like this:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/11/bondage.death.ap/index.html
> > A good tabloid story a day reminds you what a pack of screwballs the
> > inhabitants of the planet are.
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html
>
> Two wetsuits, Bill. Because one is just too vanilla...
>
> --
> tanx,
> Howard
>
> Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
>
> remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Awesome, and I've got to commennd the Reverend for keeping it to
himself instead of molesting the Altar Boys.
Thanks!
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:18:30
From: dustoyevsky@mac.com
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 5:58 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 5:53 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Maybe Bill lost his cable TV and doesn't get his daily dose of soap
> > operas. Something has to fill the vacuum.
>
> > Me, I just think Lance must like those apples.
>
> I like to read about dumbasses too! Isn't that a natural requirement
> for being a regular here?
>
> Nah, it's just that my desire to avoid the "drama" that comes with
> teen-25?? depending on maturity has overridden any urge towards a
> realtionship with any young stuff.
> It's like toddlers, fun to watch, fun to be around for a bit, but
> exhausting, and been there done that.
Lance is... 36. Think back...
Not exhausted yet. Not even close.
(But Ashley Olsen? Ewwwwww!) --D-y
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 15:58:43
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 5:53 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com > wrote:
>
> Maybe Bill lost his cable TV and doesn't get his daily dose of soap
> operas. Something has to fill the vacuum.
>
> Me, I just think Lance must like those apples.
I like to read about dumbasses too! Isn't that a natural requirement
for being a regular here?
Nah, it's just that my desire to avoid the "drama" that comes with
teen-25?? depending on maturity has overridden any urge towards a
realtionship with any young stuff.
It's like toddlers, fun to watch, fun to be around for a bit, but
exhausting, and been there done that.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:09:08
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> On Nov 1, 5:53 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
>> Maybe Bill lost his cable TV and doesn't get his daily dose of soap
>> operas. Something has to fill the vacuum.
>>
>> Me, I just think Lance must like those apples.
>
> I like to read about dumbasses too! Isn't that a natural requirement
> for being a regular here?
>
> Nah, it's just that my desire to avoid the "drama" that comes with
> teen-25?? depending on maturity has overridden any urge towards a
> realtionship with any young stuff.
> It's like toddlers, fun to watch, fun to be around for a bit, but
> exhausting, and been there done that.
For sheer drama, it's impossible to beat braless, middle-aged, outdoorsy
dog lady. Basically, it's the same drama you're talking about but it's
been ripened and spiced with a dose of righteousness that no 25 year old
can match. BMODL is to 25YO as a flamethrower is to a Bic lighter.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 14:53:58
From: SLAVE of THE STATE
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 8:09 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Looks like he's given up on dating Mom, or an equivalent, and is now
> > looking for little sister.:
> >http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/notes#1
>
> I believe LANCE's mom has had three husbands, none of which was
> LANCE's dad. I'm not certain about that. And I'm not going to
> take the time to find out for certain, because I don't care if
> it's been two or three or four.
>
> The point is that LANCE had no role modeling of stable
> relationships when he was younger. The statistics for kids like
> him are what they are, and they are pretty one-sided. I don't
> know why anyone would expect anything different. Or why anyone
> would give a shit.
Maybe Bill lost his cable TV and doesn't get his daily dose of soap
operas. Something has to fill the vacuum.
Me, I just think Lance must like those apples.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 14:37:49
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 4:31 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 9:34 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > It's not that I "care"
>
> Dumbass -
>
> That is a lie.
>
> thanks,
>
> K. Gringioni.
I care about Lance's love life about as much as I care about yours,
unless it's good reading like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/11/bondage.death.ap/index.html
A good tabloid story a day reminds you what a pack of screwballs the
inhabitants of the planet are.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 22:25:51
From: Marty
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1193953069.332420.312230@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 1, 4:31 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 1, 9:34 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > It's not that I "care"
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> That is a lie.
>>
>> thanks,
>>
>> K. Gringioni.
>
> I care about Lance's love life about as much as I care about yours,
> unless it's good reading like this:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/11/bondage.death.ap/index.html
> A good tabloid story a day reminds you what a pack of screwballs the
> inhabitants of the planet are.
"Personal Effects: One yellow metal ring intact on left ring finger, one
dildo."
What? No Livestrong wristband?
--
Marty
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 16:25:08
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1193953069.332420.312230@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Nov 1, 4:31 pm, Kurgan Gringioni <kgringi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 9:34 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It's not that I "care"
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > That is a lie.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > K. Gringioni.
>
> I care about Lance's love life about as much as I care about yours,
> unless it's good reading like this:
> http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/10/11/bondage.death.ap/index.html
> A good tabloid story a day reminds you what a pack of screwballs the
> inhabitants of the planet are.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1008072scuba1.html
Two wetsuits, Bill. Because one is just too vanilla...
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 13:31:28
From: Kurgan Gringioni
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 9:34 am, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> It's not that I "care"
Dumbass -
That is a lie.
thanks,
K. Gringioni.
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:34:40
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 11:09 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
>
> I believe LANCE's mom has had three husbands, none of which was
> LANCE's dad. I'm not certain about that. And I'm not going to
> take the time to find out for certain, because I don't care if
> it's been two or three or four.
>
> The point is that LANCE had no role modeling of stable
> relationships when he was younger. The statistics for kids like
> him are what they are, and they are pretty one-sided. I don't
> know why anyone would expect anything different. Or why anyone
> would give a shit.
>
> Bob Schwartz
I'll duck now, ahead of time. I agree with you. It's not that I
"care", it's that people amuse me, and given the large contingent who
sanctify Lance and everything he does, I was amused.
He's human, and has done lots of good things, and some questionable
at best, just like anyone else.
Looking at the stats though, the family problem is a growing one, and
my personal opinion is that it's come from the war on "traditional"
values, and the family unit waged by the feminists, free love, left
types, who also promoted drugs for everyone including kids, because it
would "expand their conciousnesses".
Now to piss off the other side, I think that you could see some of
the most effective reversal of this trend coming from gay marriages/
unions. They've had to fight so hard for the ability to be a "family"
that most of the people I know place massive value on it, and being
functional and stable while being attacked constantly. It's really
amazing how conventional, and traditional the reality of these
families can be, especially in today's society where roles aren't as
well defined.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 10:17:16
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 8:09 am, Bob Schwartz <bob.schwa...@REMOVEsbcglobal.net >
wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
> > Looks like he's given up on dating Mom, or an equivalent, and is now
> > looking for little sister.:
> >http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/notes#1
>
> I believe LANCE's mom has had three husbands, none of which was
> LANCE's dad. I'm not certain about that. And I'm not going to
> take the time to find out for certain, because I don't care if
> it's been two or three or four.
>
> The point is that LANCE had no role modeling of stable
> relationships when he was younger. The statistics for kids like
> him are what they are, and they are pretty one-sided. I don't
> know why anyone would expect anything different. Or why anyone
> would give a shit.
Bob has pretty much hit the nail on the head. If you can't keep a
stable relationship through all the trials and tribulations of
marriage how the hell could you expect your kids to?
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 15:09:01
From: Bob Schwartz
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Bill C wrote:
> Looks like he's given up on dating Mom, or an equivalent, and is now
> looking for little sister.:
> http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/notes#1
I believe LANCE's mom has had three husbands, none of which was
LANCE's dad. I'm not certain about that. And I'm not going to
take the time to find out for certain, because I don't care if
it's been two or three or four.
The point is that LANCE had no role modeling of stable
relationships when he was younger. The statistics for kids like
him are what they are, and they are pretty one-sided. I don't
know why anyone would expect anything different. Or why anyone
would give a shit.
Bob Schwartz
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 06:47:42
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Nov 1, 5:01 am, Ken Prager <pra...@ieee.org > wrote:
> In article <1193877250.043078.82...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
> > > he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".- Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
> > fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
> > going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
> > less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
> > reasonably functional human.
> > Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
> > fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
> > Middle age guys do stupid shit, and if he wants to go for it, good
> > for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
> > throw money at her too.
> > Bill C
>
> The (well known) rule for how young of a person you can date without
> being criticized is...
>
> Your_Age/2 + 7
>
> Lance needs to wait a few years on Ashley.
DUDE! That means I can date a 38 year old. THANK YOU!!
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 19:17:18
From: Fred Fredburger
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 1, 5:01 am, Ken Prager <pra...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> In article <1193877250.043078.82...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
>>>> he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".- Hide
>>>> quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
>>> fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
>>> going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
>>> less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
>>> reasonably functional human.
>>> Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
>>> fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
>>> Middle age guys do stupid shit, and if he wants to go for it, good
>>> for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
>>> throw money at her too.
>>> Bill C
>> The (well known) rule for how young of a person you can date without
>> being criticized is...
>>
>> Your_Age/2 + 7
>>
>> Lance needs to wait a few years on Ashley.
>
> DUDE! That means I can date a 38 year old. THANK YOU!!
>
Mary Kate + Ashley = 42.
So you'd be on firm ground if the 3 of you got together.
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 19:38:11
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh > wrote in message
news:Bc6dnSpQNdcvFbfanZ2dnUVZ_remnZ2d@comcast.com...
> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> DUDE! That means I can date a 38 year old. THANK YOU!!
>
> Mary Kate + Ashley = 42.
>
> So you'd be on firm ground if the 3 of you got together.
The problem with that is that I don't much care for women under the age of
35 or so and never did. It takes them that long to learn that they're not
God's Gift to Men though most of them carry that belief to their graves.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 04:03:07
From:
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
* "Tom Kunich" <***@yahoo. com > a écrit profondement:
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 09:23:18
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Davey wrote:
> Well, as Popeye said to Olive Oil when she asked "Does ya Luv me Popeye?"
>
> " 'Course I luvs ya. I fucks ya don't I? "
Even Popeye channels Ben Franklin.
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 17:34:10
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
> he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
reasonably functional human.
Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
Middle age guys do stupid shit, and if he wants to go for it, good
for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
throw money at her too.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 05:01:41
From: Ken Prager
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1193877250.043078.82350@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
> > he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
> fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
> going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
> less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
> reasonably functional human.
> Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
> fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
> Middle age guys do stupid shit, and if he wants to go for it, good
> for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
> throw money at her too.
> Bill C
The (well known) rule for how young of a person you can date without
being criticized is...
Your_Age/2 + 7
Lance needs to wait a few years on Ashley.
KP
|
| | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 06:27:03
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <1193877250.043078.82350@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
> > he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
> fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
> going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
> less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
> reasonably functional human.
> Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
> fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
> Middle age guys do stupid shit, and if he wants to go for it, good
> for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
> throw money at her too.
> Bill C
36 is middle-aged? Ah crap.
That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 17:33:49
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-56F330.23265831102007@news.telus.net...
> In article <1193877250.043078.82350@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
>> > he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".-
>> > Hide
>> > quoted text -
>> >
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
>> fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
>> going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
>> less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
>> reasonably functional human.
>> Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
>> fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
>> Middle age guys do stupid shit, and if he wants to go for it, good
>> for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
>> throw money at her too.
>> Bill C
>
> 36 is middle-aged? Ah crap.
>
> That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
> course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.
Err, Ryan - what 21 year old would go out with you unless you're related and
paying for everything?
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 09:22:20
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Err, Ryan - what 21 year old would go out with you unless you're related
> and paying for everything?
A very drunk 21 year old.
|
| | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 01:22:34
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <13iks3fgcjubhd5@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote in message
> news:rcousine-56F330.23265831102007@news.telus.net...
> > In article <1193877250.043078.82350@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 31, 6:59 pm, "Roger Zoul" <rogerzo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
> >> > he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".-
> >> > Hide
> >> > quoted text -
> >> >
> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >>
> >> Lets see he went from a competent, seemingly decent, responsible,
> >> fairly average person who stood by him when he wasn't sure if he was
> >> going to live, to a talented, career woman who I would say is slightly
> >> less stable, and maybe a bit nutty star, who on the whole seems to be
> >> reasonably functional human.
> >> Now it seems he's playing with a, very young, unstable person who's
> >> fighting a few less drug and alcohol rumors than her twin sister.
> >> Middle age guys do stupid shit, and if he wants to go for it, good
> >> for him, but I think he's an idiot. At least he's not gonna have to
> >> throw money at her too.
> >> Bill C
> >
> > 36 is middle-aged? Ah crap.
> >
> > That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
> > course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.
>
> Err, Ryan - what 21 year old would go out with you unless you're related and
> paying for everything?
Well, it's a theoretical problem, rather like me catting up.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| | | |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 23:38:29
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <rcousine-56F330.23265831102007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> 36 is middle-aged? Ah crap.
>
> That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
> course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.
I'd hope that your liquor cabinet is big enough for you to be buried in it.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| | | | |
Date: 01 Nov 2007 09:00:07
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> 36 is middle-aged? Ah crap.
>>
>> That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
>> course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.
Howard Kveck wrote:
> I'd hope that your liquor cabinet is big enough for you to be buried in
> it.
A Viking funeral.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2007 00:54:20
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
In article <47297991$0$2611$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com >,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> 36 is middle-aged? Ah crap.
> >>
> >> That said, if I was dating a 21-year old, it would be a bit unseemly. Of
> >> course, I'm also married, so my wife would (possibly literally) kill me.
>
> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > I'd hope that your liquor cabinet is big enough for you to be buried in
> > it.
>
> A Viking funeral.
Well, she'd probably set fire to my bike shed...
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"My scenarios may give the impression I could be an excellent crook.
Not true - I am a talented lawyer." - Sandy in rec.bicycles.racing
|
| |
Date: 31 Oct 2007 18:59:09
From: Roger Zoul
Subject: Re: Lance goes slumming.
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1193867914.297318.133790@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Looks like he's given up on dating Mom, or an equivalent, and is now
> looking for little sister.:
> http://msn.foxsports.com/rumors/notes#1
>
> Lance Armstrong dating one of the Olsen Twins?
>
> Ashley Olsen has a new, older man. The 21-year-old twin showed up to
> the Rose Bar at the Gramercy Park Hotel Monday night with Tory Burch's
> ex, Lance Armstrong, 36. Our bar spy said, "They came together with a
> group of friends. Ashley drank red wine, sat on his lap and they were
> making out all night. They left together around 2 a.m." Armstrong has
> been spending more time in town since he bought a home here. Another
> source said, "He tried to make Tory happy when they were dating by
> buying a place here, but she couldn't deal with him not actually
> living in the same city, so they broke up." Olsen's rep didn't return
> calls. -- NY Post
>
> I posted the whole Fox bit because if you go to the Post site you get
> assaulted with pop-ups and crap.
>
> Wonder how long before he moves on to Britney? Think Sheryl is saying
> 'Thank God! I got out of that disaster."?
> Bill C
I haven't been following LAs love life, but what's the problem? Perhaps
he'll keep moving until he finds who he considers to be "The One".
|
|
