doojable

I saved some tiramisu for you, Strangeone...

Over? Well it depends on how you look at it. Our plans for next year are already being made - why don't you join us?

Or?... oar?...ore? ... whore? What kind of d'oeuvres do sharks eat? Do they go well with mojitos?

Sharks can do automatic writing??? Is there a special category of debbil spurts for sharks?

Bumpy.... darlin'... The answer was simple. If even one ex-TWI cultist person doesn't quote scripture all the time - then not All do so. So.. the answer is "no."

Hey! At least I didn't call you another whining squalling woman...

Heheheheheh...wretched woman!

I thought you said you were in TWI.... do you always use Bible quotations, when convenient, to substantiate whatever secular point you wish to make? You've answered your own question.

It is entirely probable that had we all fully known vp's manner of life - that many of us would have left much earlier than we did. On a different note... The whole "flesh" subject ... Rascal is referring to works of the flesh. Johniam is referring to flesh and blood. I'm sure someone besides me sees this. But John called Rascal dense... He also told Ham to take a remedial English class. Yes, he got called a liar. I'd say there's enough blood in the water for quite a while... Did anyone ask for gravy?

Acts 13:22 - and when he (God) had removed him (Saul) he raised up unto them David to be their king to whom also he gave testimony and said I have found David the son of Jesse a man after mine own heart which shall fulfill all my will. This refers to when David was called - as a boy. Also - scripture says that David fulfilled all God's will. It does not say that David NEVER went outside the will of God. It does say that, at times, God was displeased with David's behaviour.

They may be outlawed....

There were cherries?

We had virgin margueritas... didn't we? I forget. :B)

For reference: Galatians 5:13-26 13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.

I stand corrected on Jacob's sons... that was a quick point made mostly from memory. Regarding the following: More double standard. There once was an article GSers could read called 'Why it's not an affair'. It made the point that if a man with prominent authority hit on a woman, then that woman could not possibly give meaningful consent, therefore, it is rape. I don't necessarily agree with all that, but David had more authority than any minister today. How could Bathsheba say no to him? I said nothing about drugging; I said that IF VP raped anybody, then so did David. If today's definition of rape was in place when David was king, then he raped Bathsheba and that's just the one that's in scripture. He was king for 40 years; he had 19 kids by almost that many wives. Ya think he never did anybody else like he did Bathsheba? Ya think he never felt entitled? I'm not referring to the concept of rape as an abstract construct. I'm also aware that this logic gets used to define sexual harassment. I never implied a double standard. I'm no expert on logic- but I'd call that a strawman argument. From Wikipedia Let's make this simple. If a man wants to have sex with a woman but he has to drug her in order to do so...THAT IS RAPE. (Ask any cop...It's why it's called "date-rape.") You keep taking drugging women out of the scenario. I'm curious as to why. I don't see how you can equate vp and David. There are many points in which they are dissimiliar enough as to negate any real analogy. You're assuming of course, that vp also fit into the category of being "after God's own heart." I'd call this another strawman... but I'll let you defend that theory in another thread.

The roux is made with flour and butter, I think. The gravy can be made with any liquid. I've used broth or homemade stock. It's not as creamy, but it is still good. Roux

I didn't need a physical to enter in '79.

Johniam - your consistent inablitity to keep things in context continually astounds me. No such claim about "no Christianity in PFAL" and "Christianity is a scam" was made here. Sometimes you come across as someone who just has to justify their own actions and belief while eliminating the guilt that you feel because you just don't see anything wrong with what lots of other folks say is wrong. So...just how many women have to say that VP raped THEM before you believe it? How many will be enough for you? 5? 10? 50? 100? You have the luxury of calling it hearsay because you never met any of these women. Hearsay legally applies to a case where a claim is made and the accuser cannot be cross-examined. You seem to be covering your willful suspension of belief with the fact that you have not met even one of these women. I wonder... why don't you contact a few right here on the board. If you were honest, you'd take the opportunity to "cross-examine." I've not even gone digging and I've seen more than ten women here that have first hand information. You equating David's adultery with VP's drugging and raping betrays your obvious bias. There is no evidence that Bathesheba resisted David. There is no scripture that states that David drugged Bathesheba. Just HOW do you get drugging and rape out of that. [bTW RAPE was a big deal in the old testament - remember Dinah? (Gen 34) - her brothers cut the perpetrator's member (AKA -d1ck) off, IIRC.] I could be wrong here - but I was taught that Shechem raped her then found he was in love with her. There is the record of Tamar being raped by Absolom. (2 Sam 13) Once again, the rapist was killed. I'm not advocating murder here - but it does go to show that rape is not to be taken lightly. I also found this: Deut. 22:25-28 "But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. 26"But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. 27"When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her," But you and others keep blaming the women... hmmmm So that's your argument? No one murdered VP so he must not have been that bad... Check your history books, a lot of evil SOB's grew to be old, evil SOB's. So...giving occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme - EVIL. Murder, rape, idolotry - not so bad. What a scary thought...

I can even understand a general checkup for staff - IF the person was going to be covered by a group insurance plan. But only tests to check for STDs... that is highly suspicious.

New Yorkers talk that way... sometimes. BUT they don't all think that way. dooj from da City ;)

Hey Mr. P - It's unorthodox, but my doctor told me to give a half dose of Children's Benadryl before bedtime. (I forget the exact amount.) It not only made them drowsy, but it also alleviated the discomfort of teething.

I have to make this last observation.... Sage? Sage! So now Jesus Christ is a sage???!!! Not Saviour? Not Lord? So the DrunkenDrambuieKing is really lord of all? The curtain just got pulled back a bit further.

"We" is only a first person plural pronoun. It does not necessarily mean "we all or "all of us." You keep using this as an argument - but it's weak. You stubbornly refuse to see that the "we" are whoever fits what Rascal is saying. Or do you always include yourself whenever the word "we" is used? dooj - We went to the doctor yesterday. Johniam - What?! I didn't go! Don't include me in your activities. You see, I'm sure there are people in your life that use the first person plural pronoun. I bet you know exactly what they mean. Or do you really spend your days defending yourself against being included in every activity where a person is talking about himself and others?

Surgically...?