Moff Rimmer's page

There seems to be a little bit of missing information with the "Big Bad" at the end. Anyone care to fill in the blank?

There seem to be a number of changes to the rules surrounding "Slow Progression", but I'm not finding enough clarification from an "official source"... (And this seems to be one of the most recent threads about it -- from 4 years ago...)

Is it possible to now receive 1/2 a Prestige Point from an adventure? There's nothing that I am finding in the Version 8.0 of the guild guide that suggests that you have to round down to zero.

Thanks for the information, but I'm still wondering about this...

Getting ready to run part 2 of the Dragon's Demand for PFS and I'm not sure that I'm understanding something.

Am I supposed to run the actual auction or just the combat portion?

If I run the auction, do they keep the items bought at the auction?

Normally, if the Chronicle sheet states something like "You did X in the game and now get this awesome boon...", then if the player(s) did X, then they get the boon. "Day at the Auction" states something like that -- "...you bid on and won an exceptionally rare item...". The problem that I have with this is that just above that it states "Choose one of the following boons and cross the other off..." Which kind of makes it sound more like the player did (but didn't really) do the thing in question.

Does the GM get both boons? :)

From the sound of your post, I assume you are only running the sanctioned portions of the module. If so, the fourth chronicle sheet does not apply.

I get that, but I still would like to know better how that's supposed to work.

Moff, the purpose of the 4th chronicle is to reward groups for playing the entire module by giving them some extra gold,xp, and prestige.

Ok, so they get XP and Prestige as well? That wasn't very clear. Do they get the full 3 XP, etc for the 4th sheet? And just to be clear, PFS characters CANNOT be used when doing the Alternate method -- but that also means that anything goes -- all this is happening outside the character that these sheets would be applied to. So I can run this with a group of friends, they can literally make any character they want without regard to any PFS restrictions and at the end, I hand them a stack of Chronicle sheets that they can then apply to any PFS character they'd like (assuming it's the same one) and this happens all at once. So they can literally apply four levels to one character all at one time. Am I understanding that right?

Getting ready to run part 2 of the Dragon's Demand for PFS and I'm not sure that I'm understanding something.

Am I supposed to run the actual auction or just the combat portion?

If I run the auction, do they keep the items bought at the auction?

Normally, if the Chronicle sheet states something like "You did X in the game and now get this awesome boon...", then if the player(s) did X, then they get the boon. "Day at the Auction" states something like that -- "...you bid on and won an exceptionally rare item...". The problem that I have with this is that just above that it states "Choose one of the following boons and cross the other off..." Which kind of makes it sound more like the player did (but didn't really) do the thing in question.

Does the GM get both boons? :)

And I still don't get the 4th Chronicle sheet. If the players/GM go through the "non-sanctioned" scenarios, they're supposed to get this sheet. But there's three different "subtiers" and by the time the players complete the whole thing, they should be well past these levels. So do they get all three? As they reach those levels? Or do they only get one of these gold rewards?

It just doesn't seem all that clear to me...

This was interesting...

Quote:

In the morning your level 6 kineticist wakes up and you can invest 3 burn into your flesh of stone (FoS). You now have 3 burn (3xlevel Non-lethal damage) and your FoS goes from 3 DR/Adamantine to 6 DR/Adamantine. Because you are level 6, your Elemental Overflow (EO) size bonus kicks in and you gain a +2 to your DEX and your CON, effectively negating 1 of the 3 burn you got while increasing your accuracy and damage. Your EO also gives you +2 to attack and +4 to damage because you have 2 burn.

This seems a little contradictory -- Don't you still have three burn? But your total "burn" allowed has been increased by 1?

Correct. Burn isn't "used" as much as it is "totaled".

Burn: You start the day with zero burn and you must "accept" burn through the cost of your abilities. Paying the burn cost *is* accumulating more. Typically a player would be cautious about too much burn because then they have to use "gather energy" to use anything more than their basic blasts. The non-lethal damage taken through this cannot be healed by anything other than sleep or mechanical equivalent. No Mythic feat, no alchemist/druid shenanigans, Nothing. Just natural sleep.

Gather Power: Yes, in fact it seems like the recommended balance of the ability is "casting" your abilities tends to be a full-round action unless you want to burn through your Burn in the first encounter.

Elemental Overflow: Literally the opposite of all of that. Since Burn is accumulated and not spent, Elemental Overflow is a perk that makes having more burn useful.

Other things: By accepting X point/s of Burn you expend some of your pool (In an inverse way, because it's actually increasing) you can create alternate effects that aren't related to your blasts.

This is helping a little bit.

So things like the overflow -- if I use an amount of burn using a number of talents -- the more passive abilities -- like overflow and the earth based defensive ability -- they actually increase in ability without expending anything?

Pay Burn to activate an ability.

Suffer nonlethal damage.

Recover nonlethal damage by resting.

If this is true, then how does "overflow" work? Do you only get "overflow" when you use burn? (And related to this, the defense abilities?)

Also, so then I can only use abilities that cost 1 burn until level 6? And I use it and then it's gone?

Do I only gain the non-lethal damage when I use an ability with burn?

each point of burn is 1 non lethal damage per hit die. so at level 7 1 burn is 7 non lethal.

burn cannot be removed EVER in anyway until you rest for a night. so you will have permanent non lethal damage till you sleep.

Not sure that helps.

"Burn cannot be removed EVER in anyway until you rest..." So it isn't used even on talents? So if I have 4 burn, I can continually use talents that require 4 burn all day? And never gain additional non-lethal damage?

I'm reading the description and I'm reading the description and I'm just not getting this...

Burn --
"For each point of 'burn' she accepts, she takes 1 point of non-lethal damage." I get the "...non-lethal damage...", but not sure what "accepts" means in this case. Based on other threads I've read, it sounds kind of like a sort of "pool" of points that I would be able to fill up and use from. So, would I take the damage as I "fill up" the pool? So, in theory, I could basically start the day with one point of "burn" stored all day and essentially be down my level in hp all day. And if I never use that "burn", I'm still out those hp, right? (I think that part of my confusion comes from their limitation on how much burn they can accept each round -- which kind of feels like it's something that's being used rather than stored.) And I don't get the hp back once the burn's been used, right? Once the burn's been used, can someone heal the non-lethal damage? (Or can they heal it while I have burn in my "pool"?)

Gather Power -- If I haven't "accepted any burn" yet, can I still use a 1 burn blast wild talent using Gather Power as a move action?

Elemental Overflow -- So it sounds like this is some kind of additional effect while I have at least some "burn" in my pool. (Although "...at 16th level with 7 points of burn..." -- that's like 112 non-lethal hp of damage right to begin with? ouch.) What if I use my burn for some other ability, does the overflow go away? (or is it reduced?) Are there other "passive" benefits to having a pool of burn but not used?

Things like "Flesh of Stone" -- ..."By accepting
1 point of burn, you can increase the DR by 1 until the next time
your burn is removed..." Not sure what the "next time my burn is removed" means. If I've "accepted" 1 point of burn, does that mean that as long as I have the 1 point of burn in my pool? Or am I using the burn to gain this ability?

Thank you for any clarification you can provide.

Mrgh.

I haven't been around in quite a while and come across this. It's nice to see that some things don't change...

...and playing in a somewhat different Serpent Skull game.

It sounds like there's a story there you need to tell me over a beer. ;-)

I'm actually taking people through Serpent Skull as well.

Someone here at the office bought me a new mug for Christmas. It's a rather large Superman mug with just the shield on it. I was looking to see if it was microwavable (it's not) and saw this warning message...

"Not intended for children under age 12"

??

Because hot chocolate mugs for 10-year-olds are DANGEROUS!!

Just thought it was odd...

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Celestial Healer wrote:

Welcome back, Moff!

I've been in "Ultra Lurk Mode". Still check things out periodically, but not as much as I used to.

Are you still in any games here in the Springs?

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?

Welcome back, Moff!

I've been in "Ultra Lurk Mode". Still check things out periodically, but not as much as I used to.

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...

But it didn't stop there. I said -- "No, it's a TV." To which my oldest then says...

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.

Seeing as the economic situation you're so quick to blame on Obama began during Bush's reign, it seems only logical to me to compare it there.

No.

What I've been trying to do this entire time is try and figure out why people continue to think that Obama and Tywin poop gold. And the answer I continue to see is that it's because Obama's poop is a slightly different color than Bush's.

Are you really blaming the Great Recession on Obama and absolving Bush entirely?

Absolutely. [/sarcasm] What are you talking about?

I love how you completely ignore that the vast majority of the jobs lost while Obama was president were lost during the first few months of his term. You know when his policies had had the least time to work, if they'd even been implemented. And you ignore that while Bush's average unemployment wasn't bad, it was in the process of tanking when he left office. If you counted just the first 6 months of Obama's term against Bush, the statistics would look entirely different.

I love how people completely ignore what I write. That's awesome.

I'm trying to figure out why Obama supporters are using (specific) statistical data to compare Obama's progress with Bush's.

I can beat my 6-year-old in chess. I'm not sure what statistically that proves with regards to how good I am.

I'll bet that if we look hard enough, we can find someone even worse than Bush to compare data with. That way we can make Obama even appear BETTER!! That would be teh R0xx0r!

Basically most of what I'm hearing is -- "Well, he's better than Bush..." And that's ... good?

He actually has created more jobs when you realized how many jobs were lost during the crash.

Kind of. I'm still not sure how he created the jobs (to include mine).

But what's interesting to me is how much the statistics compare Obama's performance in job creation with Bush's.

Mathematically/Statistically speaking -- The unemployement hit 10% in Obama's term. It hasn't hit that high since 1983. Under Bush, unemployment was generally pretty low. If everyone has jobs, statistically speaking, it's pretty difficult to have a significant increase in job growth. If everyone's employed, how do you grow more jobs?

So then why are we comparing Obama to Bush in this case? It's actually a lot like comparing who physically grew more last year -- me or my 6-year-old son. I'm fairly certain that my son had a bigger percent increase in growth than I did. In fact, I'd be pretty worried if that wasn't the case (for a number of reasons). Similarly, when unemployment is the highest it's been in almost 30 years, I would really hope that it would improve more significantly than for his predecessors and would be VERY worried if he didn't have a significant growth in that area.

And, again, not sure what he did to provide me my job.

Happily, a website exists to answer precisely this question. It's not complete, but there's enough there to handily dispel the idea that Obama hasn't done anything.

Cute site. The first thing that was brought up was that Obama "created" more jobs, blah, blah, blah...

I was laid off last year. I got a new job. It wasn't something that Obama created. Does he get credit for that?

But, you're right. I should be able to look for myself the data that is out there. Trying to figure out what all this unemployment and job data is really talking about. There are all kinds of "facts" being thrown out there, but what does it really mean?

One of the first questions that I've been asking myself is -- ok, so he's "created" jobs -- how many has he caused people to lose? Or are we just looking at one side of the coin?

A few articles that I found related to this...

Factcheck.org

Forbes (although not directly related to employment)

The United States Department of Labor -- and what's interesting here is that during the 8 years of Bush, the unemployment rate was generally between 4 and 5. Under Obama it was generally between 9 and 10. I've been under the impression all this time that unemployment was FAR worse under Bush -- but apparently I was wrong.

My comment about the utilities has to do with all this talk about how much Obama has put in to work on renewable, "green" energy. Since windmills will most likely not be powering my vehicle, I can only really assume that this is supposed to help me with energy used in my home and office. Since Obama has poured billions of dollars into this, and the net result is that my utilities have increased, my conclusion should be that ... it worked?

My comment about the health care -- the people I know are either having difficulty preparing for what's coming up or have decided that they cannot follow the bill when it does change for them and have prepared to fold up shop now. But you're right -- it's really more in anticipation rather than what is currently enforced.

... 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.)

(I haven't really been checking around here for some time. I was surprised to see this resurfaced.)

I wouldn't really call it "my efforts". I think that overall it's a struggle. It's not something that people really see in their lives and it's kind of an "out of sight, out of mind" issue.

Doing a quick search brings up a few recent articles...

One.

Two.

Three.

Four.

This really is an ongoing problem.

Here is a pretty good list of charities that are working on this from around the world.

A charity organization that I feel does especially good (difficult) work is .

[url=http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/there-are-more-slaves-today-than-at-any-point-in-human-history.html]There are more slaves today than there have ever been in human history.

So, to answer your question -- it's a fight that needs to continue to be fought.

Thank you for asking. I appreciate it.

You Tube Link

Warning -- language.

If you like that, the entire musical starts here... Holy Musical B@man

Just make sure you have a good supply of brain bleach.

Ross Byers wrote:

I removed a few uncivil posts, and quite a few replies to them.

Hopefully it wasn't one of mine. Apologies if I was inadvertantly uncivil.

At least one of mine was. And I was a little confused by it. I think it was because of the quote I was including...

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Kirth -- help me out. Am I missing something that I said or did?

You continue to misrepresent the guy's statement, which HE AND I HAVE CLARIFIED, to use as a strawman to punch.

Freaking stop it.

And I've as much as said that.

And actually, Meatrace's explanation of Swivl's comment helped me figure out what exactly Swivl was trying to communicate.

I'm just trying to figure out where ciretose is coming from or what he's talking about. He keeps referencing things that I didn't say. And even his last explanation doesn't make a lot of sense to me because it wasn't what I said. I was never talking about definitions of "divine" or even "God". If that's what ciretose wants to discuss, he can have fun discussing that with others.

Kirth -- help me out. Am I missing something that I said or did?

You are taking positions, then backpedaling by saying "I'm not saying anything" which is silly and transparent.

Again, what position am I taking? I'm not backpedaling. Seriously -- I'm very curious as to what I said that suggests I'm taking a position in the overall debate at hand. At one point, I thought I was pretty clear in my position -- I said that I don't care.

I think your definition of religion is so broad as to have no meaning...

What exactly is my definition of "religion" as I have posted here?

(I don't recall posting a definition. So, please tell me what my definition of "religion" is.)

You can't prove a negative.

There, I explained why you are wrong in five words.

I never said you could.

Swivl (an atheist) said that the divine does not exist and that this fact was proven. I asked for evidence of this proof. I really wasn't asking for proof -- there isn't any. It was really more of a rhetorical question on my side. I'm not suggesting that you can prove a negative and I'm not asking people to try. I'm just asking people not to throw out words like "proven" and "facts" without being ready to back it up.

And actually, Meatrace's explanation of Swivl's comment helped me figure out what exactly Swivl was trying (in my opinion quite unsuccessfully) to communicate.

Moff Rimmer wrote:

ciretose wrote:

If you get the joke, you understand how ridiculous I view your position that the burden is on me to prove God doesn't exist.

This is not what I said nor is it my position. I really wish that people would stop assuming things I don't write or reading into things that are not there.

The only "position" I've posted here so far is that one person posted something that was blantantly false and two people have claimed I said something I didn't.

Generally writing walls of text indicates a position. But if you are saying you were not saying anything, I will take you at your word and just wonder why it took you so much text to say nothing.

Did you read my "wall of text"? What I wrote has nothing to do with philosophy or religion or any of that.

Actually I wonder myself why it takes a "wall of text" to point out that an Atheist stating that there is proof that God doesn't exist is wrong.

If you get the joke, you understand how ridiculous I view your position that the burden is on me to prove God doesn't exist.

This is not what I said nor is it my position. I really wish that people would stop assuming things I don't write or reading into things that are not there.

The only "position" I've posted here so far is that one person posted something that was blantantly false and two people have claimed I said something I didn't.

Moff, You're being needlessly and pointlessly insulting and condescending. I'm not the only one you're talking completely past.

Possibly. But it seems like, "when in Rome..."

People do not afaik define atheism as communism. They simply ascribe communism to atheism and vice versa at random and erroneously state things like it takes more faith to be an atheist. Its not part of the meaning of atheism, its a misconception about atheists.

I don't even care about this.

First of all, from your first post on this thread --

Most definitions of religion that I've seen call it a system. Atheism is, at most, one part: There is no god.

This sounds very much like we are talking about definitions. Not "lack of" definitions.

The title of the thread -- "Is Atheism a Religion?" sounds very much like we are talking about a definition or at least part of a definition.

Of course this is all in response to you and what you said.

As far as what I said -- "what 'Atheist' actually means" -- you put in place the words "lack of a definition". Do you seriously not understand the difference between these two statements?

There's 'semantics' and then there's this.

Fine -- how's this?

"Just like this thread was basically started because someone was annoyed at 'Christians' getting it wrong as to what ideas or concepts they try to attach to 'atheism' ..."

Better?

Moff Rimmer wrote:

I didn't say "lack of definition". I said "getting it wrong". How did you miss that?

Just like this thread was basically started because someone was annoyed at "Christians" getting it wrong as to what "atheist" actually means

The difference between what atheist actually means and the definition of atheism being..... ?

I haven't seen a wrong MEANING of atheism, just people attaching a lot of things to it that aren't there (like communism or faith)

I think I just wanted to repost this just because.

Anyone else want to try to point out the irony found here?

Happy Easter FawtL friends. (((hugs)))

What are you still doing up???? GO TO BED!

(For that matter, what am I still doing up.)

Happy Easter Fawtlites...

And good night!

I didn't say "lack of definition". I said "getting it wrong". How did you miss that?

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Just like this thread was basically started because someone was annoyed at "Christians" getting it wrong as to what "atheist" actually means, I get tired of watching people define what I believe or who I am who don't have a clue.

Nope, there was no annoyance over the lack of a definition, just an annoyance at the insistence that it was a religion.

Even though I am loathe to do this here, I feel that I need to say something.

First of all, while I agree that there is some confusion as to what "atheists" are and aren't there also seems to be some confusion over the same thing with regard to Christians. I also feel that (in many cases) people are trying to put the opposite of their view onto the other view.

For example, I've seen quite a bit recently (here and a few other places) where people seem to strongly imply that "Christianity" is simply or solely a religion in place to explain the universe (or something like that). Just like this thread was basically started because someone was annoyed at "Christians" getting it wrong as to what "atheist" actually means, I get tired of watching people define what I believe or who I am who don't have a clue.

Is Atheism a religion? I don't care.

I was actually more interested in what he had to say regarding points I'd made that weren't addressed in his replies. All I saw were items I had felt I had already addressed, hence the reason for pointing upthread and feeling like I'm repeating myself.

Now here's the quote that I apparently took out of context --

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.

Ok, so "Atheism is not a religion." I think that's pretty clear.

So putting it all together, your statement here was essentially -- "Atheism is a statement, not a belief, that the divine does not exist and that this statement (that the divine does not exist) is proven by observation and backed by facts."

Which really is a pretty stupid statement.

I just wished it was understood from the beginning that I never even attempted to make a proof of any side, just trying to help establish what any side needs.

It's hard to "understand" this when it isn't what you said. Also, your attempt to "establish what any side needs" (in my opinion) stems from a false assumption of what Christianity is.

I wasn't looking for clarification. I wasn't looking for you to continue to comment about how the Bible makes for a poor science book. Which is pretty much all you did.

I wanted you to correct your erroneous statement.

I get tired of people (on both sides) making dumb statements and then jumping up and down saying that people didn't read the rest of their posts.

You very strongly implied (if not directly stated) that the ideas behind "atheism" (lack of the divine) were proven. I asked you to provide said "proof". You said to look back at your other posts which basically were posts about how Christianity has no "proof". So are you then saying that the "fact" that Christianity has no "proof" is your "proof" for Atheism? Do you not see the circular argument here?

In any case, I won't continue this discussion. I just wanted to point out that the idea that the lack of the divine was provable was at least a little bit silly. (And probably about as silly as people trying to "prove" that there is a God.)

Tiny Coffee Golem,

Having discussed religion with Moff before, he isn't saying that. He's challenging Swivl's statement that God had been proved not to exist, which isn't true because you can't prove God doesn't exist.

Thank you. (It's nice to know I've got a few atheists out there to help watch my back.) ;-)

I did not claim that god has been proven not to exist.

Actually, that's exactly what you claimed. So if there are misstatements, they were made by you.

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:

I'm a militant atheist, believe that anyone with a faith is irredeemably stupid, ...

Where's Kirth? I wanted to make sure he saw this.

Sorry -- I was too busy blowing up buildings. OK, no -- actually I was drinking beer and thinking about science stuff, which is of course equally heinous.

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?

I'm a militant atheist, believe that anyone with a faith is irredeemably stupid, ...

Where's Kirth? I wanted to make sure he saw this.

Solnes wrote:

trying to plan how to celebrate my... shudder 30th B-day. I want to do something fun! Maybe rent a hotel? Hit the local amusement park?

I'm closing in on my 40th, but it's not a shudder I have. More like an expression of "WTF?!? HOW DID I MAKE IT THIS LONG?".

Git off my lawn!!

Ahhh. Spring. 70 degree weather, flowers, trees are budding and ... SNOW?!?!

Hi James. I'm running Serpent Skull and wanted to use something a little different with the random encounters -- so I used some Skerath.

(Thought you might like that...)

SNOW!!

So, I think this should be the official FAWTL song.

The Eldritch Mr. Shiny wrote:

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Mister Moorluck wrote:

It's time to show everybody how we get our Irish up!

Like this?

No.

Indeed not.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's follow FAWTL general guides and not have politically slanted posts here.

That was political? I thought it was just fun. My apologies.

It's time to show everybody how we get our Irish up!

Like this?

Moff Rimmer wrote:

Irontruth wrote:

The 10 Commandments are often referred to, as is Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs and the Psalms.

The 10 Commandments are not in Genesis.

In addition, I can't think of any other place in the Bible that talks about the 10 Commandments as a whole. Individual commandments are quoted all throughout the Bible -- but even then not really as a reference to the 10 Commandments.

A) the quoted post does not •say• that they are in Genesis

b) umm.... Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5?

Hmmm. Perhaps I misread his comment. He was talking about how the Old Testament was referred to throughout the Bible and then went into the 10 Commandments.

Anyway, sorry I misunderstood the original post.

The 10 Commandments are often referred to, as is Genesis, Exodus, Proverbs and the Psalms.

The 10 Commandments are not in Genesis.

If the Bible is the Word, the Word is with God, the Word is God... then you can't pick and choose which parts to believe in.

It's ironic that you are talking about "pick and choose which parts" with this statement. You are misquoting John 1:1 here. And "the Word" in this case is not the Bible.