WhiteDove

Thesalonians is on sale on ebay right now. CLICK

Anybody know anything about this? Ana was 7th Corps and was in Glad Tidings /Way Productions Entertainment Local cleaning lady takes national acclaim By Lolita Ramos Corpus Christi Chronicle Sunday, December 16, 2007 CORPUS CHRISTI — A White Tornado took Corpus Christi by storm last night – it didn’t leave a dry eye, a heart untouched, or a booty unshaken. This whirlwind of talent came in the form of a petite cleaning lady with an enormous voice. This force of divine nature is called Ana Cooper. The perversely adorable Ana Cooper delivered her riotous viewpoints on life in this one-woman performance. Part parody, part stand-up and part message from beyond, Ana's comedy is surprisingly hip and brilliant: A woman with a housecleaning business has always dreamed of becoming a star. Her take on the burning issues of the day are outrageous and absolutely hilarious. So one day she decides to put this all in a show, and the Singin' Cleanin' Lady becomes a star! And that’s no joke. On the spot, Ms. Cooper signed with Warner Brothers to release the DVD of her show Shut Up and Clean! ,which opened last night at Club 21 to a packed, standing-room-only house. Among the audience members were friends Bill O’Reilly, host of Fox News The O’Reilly Factor and world-renowned drummer, Tower of Power’s David Garibaldi. The show is explosively funny and provocative -- not to mention that the singing is out-of-this-world. The tragedy of all this is that all command performances are already sold out. Lucky for me, I stabbed my uncle, left him bleeding and took his tickets. The rest of you will have to wait for the DVD.

Thanks you may not be but I am, I'll pass until I get some clairification.

I think if you look back through my posts you will see I have mentioned it previously. I was more concerned with the board liability than individual, as Mr. Squirrel pointed out I doubt that they want his acorns, I doubt they want Paws acorns either but they might settle for another site going away. Either way that is his decision to make. I have observed that he does watch the posts and I think he would prefer we do and say things that are factual. I doubt he needs the aggravation if we don't. Again he can speak for himself on that as well. Regardless that was secondary to what I said concerning people reading. There is the phrase You can be so heavenly that you are no earthly good. Another words you are not helping anyone ,because they don't relate. Speaking untruthfully has the same results I've seen and heard it from others who came here. Being truthful is also a personal attribute. I'd discuss you examples but why bother, it is obvious that the Queen is the Queen and that the President is the President and that Pawtucket runs this message board. We can know this from facts again which was the point.

No just waiting for a board issue to be clairified before proceeding.

Nothing wrong with that Excathedra I don't think there is a section choice for smoking ,non smoking selfish, non selfish here. Me I'm just over in the corner with a cup of tea watchin the wheels go round and round. I would love to respond to your question and in time just might however not today I'm waiting on some official input before I can do so.

Not everyone............ I think . And since it is no longer I'd say it was effectively eliminated I did not say it was done for free only done.

Some might say that ,then again some might say someone was trying to enlighten us.. Either way I think we can agree that they would not be interested in Mr. Squirrels stash of acorns they have bigger goals I'm sure. Wasn't there a site called Waydale? It seems it was effectively eliminated.

Well , some 45 pages later someone got the point ,and with The Way attorneys on the rampage would it not be just the smart thing, if for no other reason than that booth over there with Belle's (allegedly of course) gum under the table to just speak accurately.

Mr. Squirrel I wont engage in speculation with your theoretical stories but I will say this about your last line. I'm glad we have rights in the land in which we live equal ones at that for the most part. I'm glad you don't hold any office that would govern any of those rights. It's sad to think our young generation is dying for those rights for all when some think like you do about them.

I think if you look at this thread you will find your claim to be lacking . I have engaged several people in discussion . I think if you look you will see that I tried to answer each that responded to my words. at times that is difficult when there is one of me and many poting to or at me. Some respond more so they get more dialog. If you are feeling left out I'd be happy to discuss any points that you may have.

I agree Linda and have said just that a gazillion times. But it does not make it true either on the other side of the coin. It could also be accuratly said Unproven does not equal true It's true to you because you have first hand information to rely on . To the public who don't have that benefit it is a best guess if it is true or not . I've cited the stories in the news of those who say their children have been kidnapped, everyone jumps on the bandwagon they just believe them, later it turns out quite different, they knew where they were all along, they put them there. A classic example of just making a guess at whether a story is true or not based on someone's version. Sorry I wont make that mistake.

: Now add to the mix another poster not involved with your daughters birth but simply likes your story and then declares it to be fact. They are not posting first hand accounts, they were not there. In fact though they may believe your story as the truth, it may or may not be true ,don't forget this is the anonymous internet. To repeat that story as a fact is now opinion. With the lawsuits filed The Allen's and January's there were limited people that can claim first hand accounts as you say. that would be two people . So for someone here to say that those stories are in fact true is an opinion they don't have first hand information they read it on the internet or may have heard about it. They really can't confirm it they can choose to accept it or not, based on a guess. Do they think its credible or not ,opinions on that may vary. Until such time as there was a guilty charge which there was not , although I may personally believe and agree that they were, it still is my opinion ,not fact. I would refer to it as such. Again I ask why can't we refer to things that we don't know of as fact as such? Why such resistance ? Why the need to have everything be negative when it has not been established? Why can't it be as Oakspear said neutral? He thinks it is mistaken I think it is dishonest speaking but that is my opinion not a fact

It may well be truth to you, it may be true period, I have no way to say either way, but what I can say is that it is not verifiable and as such can not be referred to as truth. While it may be truth to you for me it is unconformable. People say all kinds of things for various reasons which we have discussed at length before. Why is it that all other media seem to understand that it is wrong to refer to such things as fact?

It is unfortunate that is the case and I have said as much. It has nothing to do with my doubt or belief ,it's speaking correctly which makes for credibility. Regardless that does not give people the right to misrepresent things as verified truth when they are not. As I have pointed out whether in legal court, on TV on Radio in the newsprint and a variety of other places it seems that most people get that it is proper to refer to such opinions as alleged. Only here and by some very smart people I might add is it just ok to throw those same standards out the window and just say anything they think as truth. Sorry just because it is about the way does give one the right to change opinion to fact in an open forum.

. The statement you posted is an opinion much like others that have been posted theirs ,that's what this site is for. Only when people attempt to take those opinions out of that category and somehow they magically become truth is there a problem. I would say the statement you offered is an opinion not a truth. and that's the difference I don't have a problem calling it what it is. Apparently that is not good enough for some people they must have it be truth when in fact it is only opinion.

That does not say it makes they automatically guilty. It means they have a case one that needs proving. I think that is just what I said ........ Truthful opinions are the rule Rhino would you like it if I just said anything I felt about you. Doubtful........

This isn't that difficult Case in point tonight they are digging up the backyard in NC and gathering evidence of the missing marine girl. From the preliminary evidence it looks like they have found their man, my opinion would be they have,. But until they have a conviction the proper term in reference to him is alleged. Listen to anyone and they will refer to him as such. WHY because that is the proper term until some guilt is established ( that means more than an accusation by someone)with the establisment of guilt he will no longer be alleged. until then he is . Pretty simple.

We can pick at words all night long the point as I think most got is that you can't make statements of someone's guilt of a crime that has not had a conviction of said crime it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction. I shouldn't call you a thief if I don't have some proof that you are . GET IT I call it a burden of proof you want another word fine pick one, the point still remains you can't just go around in a public form and make accusations of crimes that have no foundation. Most reasonable people as I attempted to illustrate in a court system, in a news media system and others all agree until there is proof then the proper word for accusations is alleged.

Apperantly others in the know understand that it is not only in my opinion as you stated when I said . Apparently they also think that the word is alleged until proven An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but whose innocence or guilt has yet to be established. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified.

Ok then pick another word for you can't just make up claims without having some sort of proof................

. .Apperantly not, it seems others in the know seem to agree............. An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but whose innocence or guilt has yet to be established. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified. click

Was just clearing up the definition since someone mentioned it.