GentleGiant's page

Besides being a wicked awesome blog post, it also accomplished another thing.
I just put a whole bundle of things in my next order, care of "It Came from the Basement." :-D

I think the biggest problem with putting the minis out at the same time as the AP would be spoiling the adventures. If the players can see what they'll be up against in the AP, I think it creates a problem.
On the other hand, you do need the minis for the AP, so...
Maybe some kind of survey would be in order? To find out how long after the release of an AP people actually start playing it?

The VOIP chat system in Global Agenda also works pretty well. I haven't had any problems with it and you can tweak a lot of things (voice input/output level, Push to chat or voice level activated etc.).

Finally, I believe that villification of or disagreement with a conservative journalist does not constitute an intentional lie. That is what I asked for. Telling me there's a whole documentary about Fox lies doesn't mean anything to me. Michael Moore wins Academy Awards for documentaries so full of lies he doesn't even bother to dispute it. If I can find this documentary online, I'll check it out and look for actual purposeful lies so I can stop dismissing the claim.

If your expectation is for me to examine jsut the facts and 'take off the blinders', you have to be willing to do the same, yes?

It's a bit frightening how deeply you appear to have drunk of the Kool-Aid. I don't think anyone will argue with you that Michael Moore is biased, that's a far cry from saying everything he makes is filled with lies.

But the documentary is called Outfoxed, you can watch it here:
Outfoxed on Google Video

To get this back on track, I want to ask you about something else you wrote. You wrote that you "parent as closely to what the Bible says in principle as I can" - what does that mean exactly?
The Bible says to stone disobedient children...

As far as complete disregard for the facts, the number of examples of the center-left media massaging or ignoring material facts is legion. Got one from Fox News? Not saying they aren't there. I am just saying it's very en vogue to trash the network without knowing of any examples. So..I'lltake authentic examples, but I've played this game a few times, and never without the offering being really lame.

Dude, there's a whole documentary about how Fox News distorts the truth.

And while it's a comedy show, The Daily Show often points out the misinformation that comes out of Fox News. Seriously, take off the blinders. :-)

We have more people in prison as a percentage of the population than any other country in the world. Many of those are for drugs or other fairly minor offenses. It doesn't seem to be helping the problem here.

What works in Japan doesn't necessarily work here and vice versa.

The problem is that drugs still exist within the prison system, so you don't really solve the problem.

GentleGiant wrote:

I'd like some input from those who also believe it's okay to use corporeal punishment in raising their kids.

I prefer incorporeal punishment. Sicking a ghost on the kids really scares them into going straight.

Corporeal: Of, relating to, or characteristic of the body.

Corporal: 2. an obsolete word for corporeal

;-)

I'd like some input from those who also believe it's okay to use corporeal punishment in raising their kids.
Because of very bad arthritis, I can't use my hands properly to spank, nor hold any instruments of spanking to the desired effect.
So I've developed another way of "spanking" - since what I CAN do is turn a dial.
So I've set up a device that can administer jolts of electricity through small pads. I've tested it so that the amount of pain is similar to what regular spanking with my hand or another instrument would be.
I hope you can agree that it's quite ingenious, plus it has the added effect that I can't ask them to choose the belt or branch themselves, but they CAN choose the wire and pad colours.
So, in lieu of a "proper" spanking I electrocute my kids to the same effect.
Clever, huh? :-)

GentleGiant wrote:

Well, women have been able to serve on the front line in the Danish military since 1988. As fighter pilots since 1992.

We have lost one woman in action in Afghanistan (IED - June 1st 2010).

Times, they are changing. Don't Sweden and Norway have female infantry, too? It seems vikings like warrior women.

I also heard something about the Irish having a gender neutral military.

Yes, they can serve in combat roles in Norway and Sweden too. Don't know about Ireland, though.

More info here:
Wikipedia: Women in the military

Well, women have been able to serve on the front line in the Danish military since 1988. As fighter pilots since 1992.
We have lost one woman in action in Afghanistan (IED - June 1st 2010).

I think (hope?) that Gary meant general religious stuff that doesn't pertain to Mr. Cain directly.
So I hope I'm not diverging from the topic with this.
If Cain is concerned about Muslim Sharia laws, shouldn't he also be concerned with Judaism and Jewish courts? They also exist in the US and are used, just like many Muslims want to with Sharia, in the Jewish community when some settlements are to be brokered and don't directly contradict US law.
Examples from e.g. the UK would be Sharia law being applied in inheritance settlements, divorces (if all parts agree - although this can be a very grey area) and similar instances.

Quote:

We need a President that will change the climate. Herman Cain proposes a 9% Corporate Tax Rate, this would make it one of the most favorable in the world. It would bring new business to the US from both within and abroad. It would be a huge job creator.

I think Cain's plan is a myth on a few fronts.

First off while we have a high theoretical corporate tax rate, its so riddled wit exceptions, loop holes, and subsidies that the actual rate is far lower. GE got away with paying NO corporate taxes.

Secondly, taxes or not, paying an american 10 dollars an hour, his unemployment insurance, workers comp insurance, etc is NEVER going to compete with a Chinese guy making 1 dollar an hour and if your el cheapo hand crusher 6000 lops off his foot you can just toss him out in the street.

Businesses in China can also pollute to their hearts content. In America you need to pay to get rid of your factory waste.

We are NEVER going to beat china at being china. We do not WANT to beat china at being china. The entire reason we have a government in the first place is to AVOID becoming a bunch of slaves to whoever can amass enough money and the guns to go with them.

The scary part? This is exactly the stuff the Liberal parties (classic Liberalism, not US politics liberal) here in Denmark wanted to convince the population was the right way to go in our weeks old election. And telling them that the only way we could compete with China (and Eastern European countries, especially Poland) was to become like them (i.e. pretty much give up our well-fare system, strict adherence to environmental rules etc.) didn't seem to penetrate their thick skulls.

So it's not just US Libertarians and Republicans who think this way.

thejeff wrote:

lastknightleft wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

Being on the view. I'm gald he did well, I'll have to youtube it later.

I just did, and I think he did an excellent job, it's that kind of talk, and the fact that he held his own with women some of whom really disagree with his policies, that reminds me of why I like him in the first place. So yeah, he's a social conservative, but he is willing to put the constitution first, not his personal opinions on a subject.

Other than the religious freedom part of the Constitution.

Claiming communities have the right to ban mosques doesn't really seem like putting the constitution first.

You know a certain current president said he felt that communities had the right to ban firearms which to me is about the same level as saying that Herman Cain feels communities have the right to ban mosques. I disagree with both of them on those issues, but I'm not about to discount them whole cloth for it.

Why not ban both of them (religion and handguns), we have plenty of evidence that they are both extremely dangerous in the hands of a lot of people. ;-)

GentleGiant wrote:

One thing to also take into consideration is that a lot of your (international?) customers might not have any access to a local company that can print the vinyl maps/banners (at least not for a reasonable amount of money).

So some of us might be interested in a vinyl map offering from Paizo - barring totally prohibitive shipping costs (they do weigh more than paper maps after all).

Shipping costs for a rolled vinyl map would be pretty extreme... even moreso if shipped overseas. People already complain about the costs of shipping a book like the Core Rulebook overseas... I shudder to think what the reaction would be to shipping and handling costs on a several pound box that's about four feet long...

I feared that. However, if the other vinyl mats mentioned earlier (e.g. the ones done for WotC) are sold abroad, maybe it can be an option for you too - although you might not get that many direct sales from your webshop.

One thing to also take into consideration is that a lot of your (international?) customers might not have any access to a local company that can print the vinyl maps/banners (at least not for a reasonable amount of money).
So some of us might be interested in a vinyl map offering from Paizo - barring totally prohibitive shipping costs (they do weigh more than paper maps after all).

Discuss.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this tread, so it's just flame bait (and I say that as someone who's of the same opinion as your statement).

Let's not get the thread closed because of something like that. There are other threads for that subject.

In my mind, the biggest obstacle that Cain may have at this point is just fundraising and getting his message out. A news report that I read recently seemed to imply that he didn't even have a "professional" fundraiser in his team until after the straw poll results came in and they started raising serious cash. My sincerest hope is that he can have the funds to be a real competitor in this race. His book that's due to come out next week may also give him a nudge, or at least he might have enough name recognition at this point to sell a few of them.

On a related note, does it make anybody else sad that to really run for state-level or national office in this country, you have to raise a bajillion dollars first? Was it ever "Who's the best person for the job?" as opposed to "Who's the best rich person for the job?"

Damn, you ninjaed me by incorporating your last paragraph. I was about to respond to this (and your earlier post along the same lines).

Yes, it's really, really sad that "he/she with the most money usually wins" - it also speaks to the fact that the people with a lot of money in society can heavily influence elections (and policy in general through lobbyists, but that's another issue), by donating vast amounts of money to the candidate they like (yes, I know there are some restrictions, but they can fairly easily be circumvented).

GregH wrote:

For that to work that 1% has to be really, really, really horrible.

You ever driven in California? ;-)

Especially when it rains, even just a little bit... *shudders*

GentleGiant wrote:

Anyone know his stance on evolution?

I'd say any candidate who doesn't believe evolution is true (and maybe even support the teaching of creationism) would be automatically eliminated in my opinion. They'd have a serious problem with accepting reality and I'd fear how they'd react to some situations in office.
So far it seems only Huntsman has shown to be "pro-evolution" - but the jury still seems to be out on Cain.
Although he does tow a strong conservative Christian line, so maybe one could make an educated guess. But maybe those who have followed him for a while can shed some light on the matter?

To my knowledge, he hasn't come out and said his views on evolution.

Not a big fan of HuffPo, but good breakdown on the candidates' stances on evolution here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/24/2012-election-gop-candidates-evolu tion-_n_934045.html#s333339&title=Herman_Cain

As for an educated guess, he's an associate minister, so I'm guessing he leans towards creationism. Not a certainty though! My cousin is a Baptist Minister as well (like Cain) and he believes in evolution. Shrug.

And my issue is whether the candidates want creationism taught as a "science." Take Gingrich for instance; he wants evolution taught as a science and creationism would be taught as a religion/philosophy.
Bachmann's ideas of teaching creationism right next to evolution in science class? Yeah... not so much.

Great catch though! Strange that no one has seemed to ask Cain about his evolution stance...

Yeah, the HuffPo article was also one of the first I stumbled upon and, like you said, gives a good rundown of the various candidates' stance.

Was Cain in the debate where they were asked whether they believed in evolution?

I'm sure as a Christian he believes God created the Earth.

I'm sure he does. That, in theory, has nothing to do with evolution, though. :-)

Anyone know his stance on evolution?
I'd say any candidate who doesn't believe evolution is true (and maybe even support the teaching of creationism) would be automatically eliminated in my opinion. They'd have a serious problem with accepting reality and I'd fear how they'd react to some situations in office.
So far it seems only Huntsman has shown to be "pro-evolution" - but the jury still seems to be out on Cain.
Although he does tow a strong conservative Christian line, so maybe one could make an educated guess. But maybe those who have followed him for a while can shed some light on the matter?

Just a heads up, Ron Paul will be on The Daily Show tonight. No idea what he'll be interviewed about, though. :-)

In order to achieve the multi-party and coalition system seen in Europe, Congress as we know it would have to be abolished and replaced with a Parliament. Then, we would not vote for a candidate at all, but for a party. You'd be free to vote for the Libertarians or Greens or whoever, but you couldn't choose individuals.

Not necessarily 100% true. Here in Denmark you can still vote for individual candidates, although they are still part of the party (unless they run as an independent). Your vote counts as a vote for the party, but the individual votes are then often used to figure out which candidate has enough votes to make the cut if the party has a limited number of seats.

E.g. if a party gets 8 seats, but has 15 candidates, it's usually the 8 candidates with the most personal votes who get the seats (but it is ultimately up to the party leadership to distribute the seats they get).

Whether or not you run for the PResidency, you're political career is over. Time to move on to a job in which you are completely removed from any further or continued poliical influence and aspirations.

You mean like lobbying, where you can still make use of all the contacts you made while in office? ;-)

That article is garbage. It starts with name-calling and then advances as if the name-calling was reasonable and justified and beyond protest. Partisan nonsense. I don't much care who the guy claims to have been, he has my beliefs, and the beliefs of people that I support completely wrong.

Maybe the guy is a liberal working for Republicans and jsut can't stomach the disagreement anymore. But no one believes in substantive differences between parties and philosophies and ends up parroting the same trite rhetoric of the folk across the aisle. The guy is mean-spirited and flatly wrong. And I don't see any remakrs of substance.

Aren't you just using the age-old trick of demonizing the "enemy" that was also mentioned earlier in this thread, just because you don't agree that the goals described in the article are true?

Whether it's because you truly don't believe they are true or because the "truth" is too embarrassing or uncomfortable to face?

Just one example: using the debt ceiling (routine yada yada) to manufacture a faux economic crisis? In case you, dear reader, also weren't listening when this guy errantly evaluated the position of tea party conservatives, our position is that racking up debt should never have become routine at all. Moreover, increasing the debt ceiling is a guarantee that no probelsm get solved, only that more debt is accrued. We are sometwhat tired of demogoguery and debt being Washington's solution for everything.

Funny, where were you during the 8 years of Bush's Presidency, where the surplus was turned into a massive debt?

The Tea Party movement didn't even exist before that pesky socialist Obama came into office, despite Bush being the one who pawned off the country to China in the first place. Where are the protests against Wall Street for f+@~ing things up so much that they had to be bailed out?

Now, a reasonable discussion about what Tea Party people actually believe, that would be great. I promise not to link any articles wherein someone posing as a former liberal accuses the president of being a spy sent from Kenya or similar nonsense. And I promise not to ask for the whole party to be accused of treason.

What exactly do the Tea Party people believe?

In keeping government out of their MediCare?
Trickle down economy, which still hasn't worked?
Lower the taxes on the rich, because they all have the hope (pipe dream) that one day they will be rich too and enjoy the benefits of lower taxes?

Matthew Morris wrote:

Anyone know who Michael Morris is?

Just wondering since the administration's negotiating with terrorists was well known

(I'm being kind and not even including Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn in my lists)

I remember when Bush or someone underneath him attempted something similar. I'll try to get links later on.

Don't forget the comradery many Presidents, high ranking politicans and officials have had with a whole slew of dictators. Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi just to name two.

Gworeth wrote:

I would be worried if I experienced my right to vote was being limited. I would be worried if no news-agencies found themselves able or willing to question the government and/or the authorities. I would be worried if the people who are to govern me openly (more or less, some might say arguably)that only their party had the right to govern the country. I have no issues with parties that claim that they could and would do it better than the others, they are entitled to think so.

I, too, would worry if I experienced my right to vote being limited. However, it is not. I can't speak for all hundred-million-plus eligible voters in this nation, but I can speak for myself and for my peers, and it is not.

I guess you're not in one of the districts where flyers with false information was distributed or where the Republicans run false Democrats on the ballot.

Actually I thought I was addressing it from the PoV of a conservative.

My point with arguing with the article isn't 'they're worse'. My point is that the article writer throws out a 'sure we suck, but we're not as bad as them' argument, ignoring the problems in his own nest. I can run down the litany of problems in the Republican field. I don't pretend my guys are 'lilly white' but the very things the writer accuses the Right of, he gives a pass on the left.

The author IS a conservative. So he's not saying "they're worse" since he's not coming at this from the Democrats PoV.

What part of this did you miss?

Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.

Evil Lincoln wrote:

Well Matthew,

I'd like to point out that the tone of your posts reminds me of nothing more than the article you're refuting.

The content: fine. The tone: in this context, somewhat hypocritical. I'm not attacking you, I'm asking you to meet the moderates halfway here.

Lincoln,

I'm more than happy to meet moderates half way. But I'm tired of being called a baby eating racist greedy white guy by people besides my ex-wives.

And not a single person has called you that in any way, so either you're having hallucinations or it's a strawman.

Also, with regards to the baby eating... I didn't know you were an atheist.

How about we limit ourselves to discussing the substance of the article, then?

Getting baited into attacking each other's stereotypes is a trap.

I don't care where the article was published, I read it, and parts of it hold up with my independent opinion culled from many sources, none of which is MSNBC or Fox or CNN or any of that.

Talk about the article's words. Let's not be dismissive, except of further partisan behavior. Many of the posters thus far are not on a side, or at least are attempting to remain unbiased.

I agree. I posed some questions about some of the things mentioned in the article and got drawn into a non-productive argument with Matthew.

I hope he'll be able to discuss the substance and I'll do my best to refrain from making any comments on what he does or does not think.

Judging by the syntax and nature of the challenge given, i think GG might be missing a "won't" in his last sentence, MM. At least I hope he is.

Actually I'm not, Matthew started out in his very first post dismissing the article because it was posted on truth-out.org, instead of discussing the actual substance of the article. His next post was more deriding of the source/sender instead of the substance.

Then he goes on to deride my questions as the MSNBC PoV (i.e. the "liberal" and thus easily discarded view), without providing any answers to the questions I posed.
So why should I expect that he'd discuss the substance of my latest link?

Why should I bother to talk with you when you have your pre-judged notions of who I am and won't let little things like facts get in your way.

See above.

I'm a small government Conservative (DO my job for 2 weeks, you will be too). I also know that putterings of either party aside, Medicare, Social Security and likely Medicaid won't exist, or be functional by the time I'm old enough to collect. Guess what? I'd cheerfully forfit the amount I've paid into the system if a) Steps were taking to save it for the 50+ who are expecting it and b) If it would mean my Godkids have a chance at not being broke by it. I try** to avoid hyperbolic statements when making generalizations about 'the other side'. Heck, as much as I joke about our hosts being 'Hippy Dippy Tree Huggers' I'd buy 'em a beer if they ever get back to Columbus.

I'd like to reply to this by providing a link that both describes some of the tactics from the original article and also comments on what you write here:

Robert Reich Debunks 6 Big GOP Lies About The Economy
Now, if you stay true to the rest of what you write in this thread, you'll dismiss it based on the sender instead of the actual message.

Or some of us feel that your "making a mountain out of a mole hill." As such, we prefer calm, reasoned, insightful, discussion rather than say "throwing fuel upon the fire." Which seems to me at least, to be the "order of the day."

So you're saying that it's a mole hill that both parties are beholden to their capital masters instead of representing the people?

It's a mole hill that the GOP held the country hostage with the debt limit vote?
Or some of the other numerous legislation that would benefit the American people they have voted against.
Or are you just so ingrained in the party that you think these are sound tactics and nothing out of the ordinary?
All in the name of spiting Obama.

I'm going to be out of touch for a couple of months, but I wanted to make an open apology before disappearing for a while. Hopefully when I come back my head will be in a better place, and I can engage and disagree in a more reasonable way.

OTD, thejeff, and LazarX, sorry for posting in angry douche mode.

Take care y'all.

Stay safe BT, hope you get to clear your head!

Which is better is better than colluding with business to screw us over, no?

I would rather stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto (for instance) while an uncaring and impartial government watched, than have to stand with my fellow peasants against Monsanto, aided and abetted by the government. (aka what will continue to happen if President Obama is re-elected or if Romney/Santorum/Cain/Perry/Bachman is elected.)

The problem is, when it really comes down to it, that no single President can really fix these things. It requires a major campaign finance reform and a complete overhaul or abandonment of corporate lobbyism.

Guess who's going to vote for these things? The very people who enjoy the benefits of them.

Or maybe, just maybe, vote for someone that both parties seem to want to vilify. Someone the media on both sides is ignoring. Someone who has been a lone voice in the wilderness for 20 years, trying to show how the government in collusion with these massive multinationals and the lawyers are stealing the treasury dry.

You forgot: "Who isn't also a far out religious nut and doesn't believe in evolution, despite being a doctor."

And you're absolutely right, are you going to organize a campaign to get Ralph Nader or Mike Gravel to run again? :-)

No pure -ism can work on its own, that's why things run best with a mix of several, both capitalism and democratic socialism.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Because under the constitution the states can pretty much do whatever the hell they want except print money deal with Indian tribes and collect tarrifs on things crossing state lines.

The list is quite a bit longer than that. For starters the constiution says that states:

May not use religion as a requirement to hold public office. (Article 6 not the 1st amendment)

Which is why it's ironic that several states* still have laws against non-Christians (or non-believers, depending on how you read it) holding office and are thus unconstitutional.

* Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee

Ron Paul might state that he's a strict constitutionalist, but how can anyone be sure when his own Statement of Faith contains nuggest like these:

… I have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate.

It is God Who gave us life. As He is free, so are those He created in His image. Our rights to life and liberty are inalienable.

…

I am running to Restore America Now, and by that I mean that it’s time to protect and promote the basic God-given rights inherent in the promise of America.

…

We must stand for life — not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.

(emphasis mine)

Also, how is it okay to be against government mandated discrimination, but okay with it if it happens on a state level?
Will the US really work if it's "reduced" to a collection of "kingdoms" with their own separate laws and as little as possible federal oversight?

The Orc Boss has +1 att/+3 dam for his power attack (with his weapon used 2-handed I presume). It should be -1 att.
The Skeletal Champion has the right -1 att. modifier for his power attack, but has the +3 dam. modifier as if he uses his longsword two-handed, even though he has a heavy steel shield.

GentleGiant wrote:

Might be a bit of an odd question, but here goes:

What's the font used for the "handwriting" on the character sheet?

I believe that font is called Peter.

Any idea where it's available from? I can't seem to find it (if it's the right one).

Might be a bit of an odd question, but here goes:
What's the font used for the "handwriting" on the character sheet?

Since someone already mentioned Meet the Feebles, I have to put another Jackson movie in here:
Bad Taste!
Low budget, over the top violent and... well, it has to be seen. :-)

Also:
Braindead.
Zombies! Also by Peter Jackson.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

GM Goblin King wrote:

Undercut by the Chinese. The freemarket solution is to treat our workers like they treat theirs, then we can compete!

Mmm-hmm. Tell it like is, Comrade GM Goblin!

Man, must be getting so close to Fall with all the strawmen popping up .....

Don't federally subsidize an industry you can't compete in then. Or did the fact the Chinese can undercut us somehow escape notice when they were handing out pallets of cash?

Are there any industries where they can't uncercut American industries?

GentleGiant wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

You're absolutely right, Obama hasn't accomplished anything in his time in the White House.

Well, except this list of, you know, stuff.

...none of which has helped our unemployment rate, or even slowed it's increase.

Nice list, but like everything else, it's form over substance.

See BigNorseWolf's post as to why there isn't more substance.

The Republicans clamour about Obama not doing enough for the economy* and then turn around and put a stick in the wheel of everything he tries to do.

Questions - no matter who gets the Republican nomination and if said person wins the election and gets a fairly free reign of legislation (backed by a Republican majority in Congress), what happens if the economy doesn't start to pick up soon anyway (let's give him/her a year in the WH before measuring whether any progress has been made)?
What happens if more tax cuts doesn't create more jobs (i.e. the rich hoards their money - as they're wont to do)?
Will we see more of the usual blame game or is he/she (they) going to man/woman up and take the blame for it?

* Well, what THEY think he should do.

The question is simple: Is he simply ineffective, or does he require another term to be given a fair shake?

You're absolutely right, Obama hasn't accomplished anything in his time in the White House.

Well, except this list of, you know, stuff.

One of what?

Poles... or was it a bison? :-p

Lots...

Look, I'd love to keep on replying to the things you wrote, but maybe it IS going out on a tangent.

I will reply here to two of the things you wrote. If you're interested in my answers to the rest we can take it elsewhere, agreed?

I assume you have some certificate on your wall that qualifies you to judge opposition to abortion, or maintenance of a faith shared by millions across the planet, as outdated.

I don't need a certificate to know that (the majority of) Christianity's view on homosexuality is outdated. Nor that it's view on what a woman can do with her own body is outdated.

Once again, volunteers, who are spending their time and money are FEEDING and CLOTHING people who have NOTHING. My point is that you can thank organized religion for billions of dollars and thousands of man-hours per year in disaster relief.

The price is "only" that they get to preach their belief to those they are "helping."

Also, many of the religious organizations are getting funds from the government (e.g. adoption agencies), thus when they shut down they clearly prove that they care more about the business and about their beliefs than about making sure children get a safe and warm home to grow up in (and remember, when they shut down they don't just deprave the same sex families of adoption, but also all the other families).

...and the first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdelene and another Mary. This is only corroborated in all four gospels. If you want an honest conversation about textual criticism, we can have it. Taking the adversarial stance doesn't make what you tink of the Bible more or less true.

Matthew 28:1: After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary

Mark 16:1: When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.
The two Marys, plus a third person, Salome

Luke 24:10: When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles.
The two Marys, Joanna, and "the others."

John 20:1: Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
Only Mary Magdalene

See, inconsistencies... Do you really not see those?

GentleGiant wrote:

Lots of stuff

Why are you hijacking this thread with your negative tangent?

What do you hope to achieve?
Why are you showing disrespect to the people on this thread who are genuinely interested in the actual subject?

I'm asking this, myself being a card carrying atheist.
You're hurting our image with antagonistic dialog.
Please show more tact, and try to show that atheists can be respectful and understanding. The best way to sell atheism is to live as one admirably, and with the air of enlightenment.

I will admit that it is somewhat of a tangent.

Showing disrespect? Antagonistic dialog? Sorry, but asking questions and questioning other people's assertions is hardly what I'd call showing disrespect.
If I'm hurting anyone's image, it's just my own and if it's hurt by me asking questions, then I'm fine with that. :-)
I AM actually a very respectful and understanding person in general, I just don't think blatant calls to religious authority should be respected since they are based on non-provable assertions.

Gentle giant

1.http://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-die.html

2.http://www.gotquestions.org/three-days.html

the answers are out there if you are willing to hear a different point of view. ?

crap I replied to this long awful thread!

It isn't exactly a clear and concise book when you have to jump through hoops to try and explain simple parts of it. And then excuse the supposedly infallible god by ending your explanation with this:

In the grand scheme of things, it is not all that important to know what day of the week Christ was crucified. If it were very important, then God's Word would have clearly communicated the day and timeframe.