Bitter Thorn wrote:
I am. (And I'm DMing again. Yeah me!)
Are you in any games? (I keep thinking that I should invite you to ours -- and then we get another player.)
How's the job market for you?
Ok, so a little bit of a Christmas story time...
(A little back story...) Our "Entertainment System" has consisted of a rather small (20 inch?) old tube tv -- how old was it? -- it was so old that the tv only had one input jack in the back for the antenna -- I had to buy an adapter to plug in the DVD player, etc.
So, we felt that it was time to get a new flat screen. We shopped around and settled on a 46 inch LED Samsung TV. I bought it and smuggled the TV into the house the Sunday before Christmas. Wrapped it that night and put it next to the tree after the kids were in bed on Christmas Eve.
This was the last present that got opened. So my children (ages 6 and 11) unwrap it and then proceed to stare at it quizzically. Then my youngest says, in a kind of non-chalant way...
"Oh ... nice picture of the Savannah..." (The picture on the box was a picture of the tv showing a landscape scene. He thought that it was just going to be a framed picture and was ... less than enthused.)
But it didn't stop there. I said -- "No, it's a TV." To which my oldest then says...
"But ... we have a TV!"
Now that it's all set up, I think that they are happy about it, but at the time I thought it was quite amusing.
... but [Romney's statements] were not grounded in fact or anything really helpful to telling what his actual plans are. However, being slick, seeming sincere, even when you are a known liar, ...
Am I just too old? This just comes across as a bit like ... "I'm right and you're wrong because ... well because my dad's bigger..." And while I'm just quoting poor Bruunwald here, this attitude/opinion seems to be fairly popular.
And then we say things like "Idiocy as usual" as though being an @$$ makes you appear smarter.
First of all, If what Romney said was lies, then why didn't Obama correct the statements? If nothing else, that tells me that there is at least an element of truth to many (most?) of the statements.
But more than that, people who seem to defend Obama seem to do so with the same lack of truth/facts that they accuse Romney supporters of doing.
So, riddle me this Batman... What has Obama actually accomplished in the four years he has been in office?
Now I'm not as News savy as many people here, but here is what I see in my little corner of the world...
Healthcare -- Originally it was cited as addressing affordable healthcare. Somehow this changed and became a quest to force (not provide) healthcare to everyone. My insurance costs have increased. My deductibles have increased. And I know a number of smaller business people where this plan was crippling to their businesses. I have a good doctor friend who also doesn't see this as a helpful piece of legislation. (And I think I saw his head swell when he said that he liked the term "Obamacare".)
Dodd-Frank -- Ok, I'm in the Mortgage industry and have been for about 15 years. Predatory lending was a problem. A good chunk of the problem was outside of mortgage lenders, however, and I've seen very little written about that. (We had a real estate agent tell us that he would send us all his business if we ONLY put his buyers in option ARMs. We didn't get any of his business -- but you know he went somewhere...) Regardless, there are some good things in this bill -- but there is a LOT that is not good and actually ends up penalizing the borrower more than the lender. We still spend an incredible amount of time trying to explain to borrowers why we are not allowed to do certain things.
Those are two areas that I directly see that are being talked about. More than that, what has actually been done? And more than that, why do people continue to support and defend his mediocrity?
I didn't like Clinton at all -- but even I can see that Clinton actually did a good job in the position. Obama isn't Clinton -- not even close. So why do people defend Obama to this degree with little to no facts and very little good.
I paid more this summer in utilities than I ever have -- and I don't have AC. Unemployment is up. Taxes are up. The deficit is way up. We have not ended the wars he said he would end.
So what has he actually done? And why do people defend him so much?
(And for what it's worth, I don't necessarily think that Romney can deliver either -- I just don't see the same blind devotion/excuse making/enabling that I see in the Obama camp.)
Paul Watson wrote:
Thank you. (It's nice to know I've got a few atheists out there to help watch my back.) ;-)
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yeah. I thought you would appreciate that -- having had this discussion in depth with you. (Just wanted to point out that I didn't say it...
To be clear: atheism is not a religion. It is not a "belief" that the divine does not exist. It is a statement, proven by observations and backed by facts, that any given supernatural explanation for existence, life and the universe does not suffice in light of a natural existence.
I missed the "proof" that God doesn't exist. What lab was this done in?
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
I had this urge to have salsa and nachos for dinner. So, I poured a bunch of salsa into a bowl, added a bunch of sharp cheddar cheese, and then grabbed the sour cream. The expiration date was 14 OCT 11... :( ...and it sure tasted good! :D
My wife has been coughing and has had a sore throat for quite a while now. (Hopefully she's getting over it.) A week ago, she asked if we still had "that cough syrup in the cupboard". I looked -- sure enough it was there. "Let's check the expiration date to see if it's still good." Expiration date -- July, 1999.
So, uh, I should go to the store and get some new cough syrup then, right?
A bat would just tickle him, before he cast Pillar of Skittles on you. Sebastian can only be killed by bludgeoning him with the femur of an honest used car salesman that as been annointed in the blood of an ethical Congressman and rolled in chocolate sprinkles.
Justin Franklin wrote:
My wife found our son (3 at the time?) sitting on the floor in the kitchen surrounded and covered in white powder with brown marker drawn all over his face. When found he was trying, by hand, to put all the baking soda that was dumped out onto the floor back into the box.
Same son, was in timeout. Things were a little quiet -- too quiet. We go to check on him and found that he had found mommy's nail polish. It took us a minute to realize that it was just nail polish as his hands looked quite grisly.
Other son (again about three), loved (still loves) fruit. So much so, he broke two child safety locks that were placed on the fridge. One morning I woke up to a broken lock, he had taken out a whole cantelope, and was stabbing the crap out of it with a butter knife. In some ways, it was a little disturbing.
Without kids, you wouldn't have nearly as many stories to tell.
Freehold DM wrote:
Pics or it didn't happen.
Oh, wait. It's already uploaded to your FB page...
BNW -- After sleeping on it, I think I'm done here. At least in "discussing" things with you. I'll try to explain why in the hope that it might help you in the future.
Here is one of the things you said that I really felt was, at best, VERY poorly said (and which you keep bringing up that I didn't understand)...
From what was written, you seem to think that the potential problem with the first statement is the phrase "bogged down" since you repeated it in the second statement. The problem really begins with the implied message that Christianity is nothing more than a simple set of "morals" given to us by little more than cavemen.
But you don't stop there. You go on -- thinking that you are sufficiently changing the first statement so that I won't be offended with the second statement. Which is (kind of) a nice way of saying that I superimpose my own morals over the Word of God -- which still comes to us from little more than cavemen. And for some reason you think that this is correct (which it isn't) as well as somehow being "civil".
For your convenience -- "Civil" -- adhering to the norms of polite social intercourse; not deficient in common courtesy. (From dictionary.com)
Once I figured out why I was posting/reacting the way I was, I have done my best to tone it down. You have not.
I have tried to explain to you that the Bible is far more than a simple moral guidebook -- to which you ultimately tell me that what I believe is impossible.
You have said that I have given you "malarky" and have implied that my thinking is "convoluted".
You said -- "That's what they are to me. How else do you want me to treat them?" How about as human beings? Especially in a "civil" discussion. Otherwise, you seem to be becoming the very thing you are preaching against. (Even discounting that it was a pretty dumb thing to say. I could say that about so many things as justification to being an ass -- "That's what you are to me. How else do you want me to treat you?")
You do not seem to be interested in any form of discourse. You seem to be far more interested in correcting what I believe (before you even know me) and in attacking the Christian faith.
So, farewell and good luck.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
To me, your question sounds like "are you expecting me to believe that you somehow taught yourself how to turn on the TV?"
lol (and I hate l33tsp33k.)
To some degree, perhaps. In many ways, I'm very much like you. "All I did, personally, was to make careful observations and attempt to draw correlations". I'm just not ignoring/discounting what came before me or how that might have affected/influenced who I am now.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
You earlier asked me which came first (birds or mammals), now you changed it to flying animals or land animals. Both questions are irrelevant. I already told you I'm not religious.
He's trying to prove that the Bible is false because of Genesis 1. Kind of poor logic -- especially since he doesn't see the "point" of Genesis 1.
As a counter -- I have science textbooks that are wrong. Therefore science is wrong?
Mac Boyce wrote:
I don't know. I worry about Texas.
Celestial Healer wrote:
That's pretty cool. But I have to ask...
What's the story behind the picture of the guy with the sign -- "Sex is better with wine"?
Btw...any expert opinions on whether or not a creature that can travel through earth can also go through metal? I'm the one who's supposed to make the ruling and it's my NPC, but I have zero clue, so advice is appreciated.
Technically, I believe that "earth" comprises of metallic substances as well as quite a bit of other "bits". On the other hand, I wouldn't want any creature with "earth glide" to be able to just walk through the massive iron door I have barring the last entrance to the massive treasure.
I guess that I'd rule it that it cannot go through worked metal. But if it's just wandering around a gold mine, it shouldn't have too much difficulty.
What the XXXX does this even mean? Let's stick out there the name of a president from 50 plus yeas ago, ask if the party X of today is the same as that president's party. Then strongly imply that the party of today needs to act like it did then. Then imply that party X doesn't have any qualified candidates.
Oh smack! Did I just break the Troll Formula?
Celestial Healer wrote:
Have you seen his pack...
Never mind. "How low can you go?"
Ashe Ravenheart wrote:
I don't mind giving people a little grief over this stuff. But, in all honesty, when I first read his post, my first thought was -- "What kind of sick, morbid company does CJ work for that they install a body bag in their work out room." Which was then immediately followed by -- "How exactly do you install a body bag?" It wasn't until after that that I knew what he was really talking about...
The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:
Hey Shiny -- You sound especially frustrated recently. Hang in there man.
Steven Tindall wrote:
See, now you're just talking crazy. When I play a wizard, I fully expect the party to make a howdah to carry me in it. Why waste a spell when the group can be made to work just as well?
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
The Jewish version of it runs Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you IIRC, which I find a little bit better, but it wouldn't avoid Kirth's masochist example.
From a Biblical stand point, there are two related verses. One in Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." And the other in Matthew 22:39,40 (and again in Mark) "And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
The first instance is smack in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount. Like much of that sermon, it in many ways simply says "Use you heads people!". The second instance, one of the pharisees tries to "trap" Jesus and he responds with this.
The thing that I find most interesting in both cases is that they are not meant to stand on their own. "...for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" and "...all the Law and the Prophets hang on these two..."
I see it in many ways as a "filter" of sorts. Sort of a way to help guide and/or interpret the Law. This really wasn't meant to stand alone.
Me: Your final price is capped at 105.
Ashe Ravenheart wrote:
Well, a lot of it is simply -- "Read the rules, people!" I've seen so many threads about how the summoner is broken. I'm playing one now. I then see some of the builds that these people have. And more often than not, they chose to ignore the rules as written. So, sure things get broken if you don't read the rules right.
Ezekiel is Old Testament.
Outside of that, I think that it was a vision. I could be wrong, but I think that it's pretty generally accepted that way. Ezekiel seemed to have a lot of odd visions. The vast majority (all?) were pretty much directed at Isreal at that time. "Dry bones" gives some pretty strong imagery. As does the description of them coming back to life. The dry bones was Israel then and them coming back was where Israel would be.