sprawled out

glad you like it! i really don't want to get into a big back-and-forth about this, but it seems to me God could've done something to get him out of the original dilemma--but then, that wasn't part of His plan, was it? God needed joseph in egypt, so that zzzzzzzzzz....sorry, i dozed off.

tapes?

i don't mean to derail, but why is it that God gets off the hook? blame the Corps, but don't blame God? we make excuses for God all the time (e.g., we walked out from under His hand of protection, we didn't listen, etc., etc.), but if He let our pure-hearted intentions to love and serve Him be used and abused, maybe He did let us down.

last night, in honor of your birthday, i shot an elephant in my pajamas.

36 years!? man, that IS worth celebrating. (but gingerly--you don't want to hurt yourself!) :P

if we're so smart, how come we all got suckered? :P

gee, i thought that's what i was doing. the three points in that sentence summed up what seemed to me to be the foundation for what you believe, i.e., your doctrine. it was logically flawed to me. so i asked you to clarify. but you don't see any blanks to fill in--which pretty much answers my questions: "I believe what i believe because i believe it. don't confuse me with the facts."

i almost never ate at emporia when we were there. i remember geting up to the front of the line for breakfast, looking over the day's menu and saying "It's a bad day for eating." if it weren't for snickers--and understanding friends who would give me their food if it was something they knew i could eat--i'd have starved to death at emporia!

i could ask a million questions about the things you wrote, bliss, but let's just start with this one sentence. it seems to me that you make these massive leaps of "logic" and phrase them as though they were statements of simple fact. how does "i then know he can do whatever he wants" follow "since i believe there is God?" aren't you making a pile of assumptions to get from one statement to the other? the same with the next part. how does it follow that god can do WHATEVER HE WANTS so he wouldn't leave us without a witness? i don't see any logically progression here. not a lick. they're all just assumptions that you've decided are true--which is your business--but they're no more logically sound than "since i believe in radio, i know that concrete is my friend, and therefore, chickens are tasty and glum." can you fill in the blanks for me?

WHAT rights and privileges do we have??? and where's that other forum, joe?

gee, thanks for remembering, dooj! :( $1.50??!! you had $1.50?!

happy happy!!

you guys are really funny. but waysider has it right--whatever his last words were, they were undoubtedly lifted from someone else. anyone know what bullinger's last words were? or stiles'? in that light, maybe his last words were "What he said," or "Ditto," or maybe, in a [final] moment of honest clarity, "I wish I'd said that."

i LOVE this! remember how adamant they/we were about note-taking during pfal? "it's all in the syllabus," they'd say. i had a HUGE fight with my first class instructor about that very thing. HA! and i never had the slightest intention of ripping it off, like pp, i mean, vp did. (that two-faced @#$%^&!)

hmmm....as i said, Esty, you should poke around this forum a bit if you have a problem with my characterization of ol' vp. what i said was both direct and and accusation. nothing evil about it, if it's true. you need to do your homework, my friend.

yikes. now i know what you twi 2 folks are talking about. it seems those of us who left before that were the lucky ones!

i think you need to poke around this site a bit. "dr." w was a liar and a thief. it's all here, EP. do some digging, if you really care about "the Truth."

brewer and shipley rocky and bullwinkle dazed and confused that's all i can remember.

i get that the grateful dead is an acquired taste--for the most part, you either get it, or you don't (i was dragged to a show in 1971, and learned to appreciate it, thanks in part to an anonymous deadhead who plopped down next to me with a SHOPPING BAGFULL of some funny-smelling herb.) however, taste or not, bob weir is among the finest--and most under-appreciated--guitarists i know. i'm not interested in where he is now, particularly, but back in the day, he took rhythm guitar to a whole 'nother place. download "not fade away/going down the road feeling bad" from the 2nd live album (skull and roses), and listen to his work in the jam that connects the two. (most people tend to hear garcia's lead work, and don't get what's going on behind it. but they're easy enough to separate if you put on headphones--they're on opposite sides of the stereo spectrum.) and while you're there, keep focused on his guitar through the end of "going down the road." then tell me if you've ever heard anyone else handle the rhythm part like that. really. go ahead. you'll see. i swear!

great clip. from "the making of sgt. pepper," i think. which, by the way, was released FORTY YEARS AGO this summer. yikes.

i appreciate the apology, EP, but i didn't need one. i didn't feel you were "out of line" at all--you're free to say whatever you want here, as far as i'm concerned. and i'm free to disagree. :D

thanks, WW. but honestly, i'm not frustrated. i'd just had enough of the self-righteous religious bs that's been popping up on these CES-related threads. making themselves out to be so spiritual and jesus-like, while shucking and jiving like pharisees. i thought they could use a reality check--not that i really believe it'd do any good. it's been an education for me, though. and it's confirmed that my running from the proto-CES 20 years ago was a smart move!

fine with me, EP. take your ball and go home.

is that paranoia or delusions of grandeur? yo, EP, you ain't jesus. huh? i know the quote, but don't get why you used it. you want to dance on my grave? nice! i'm not. at all. all i'm saying is that there seems to be a contradiction between what jesus is said to have said and what his followers experienced. personally, it doesn't matter to me. but i thought it should to you. cryptically dropping a scripture like that does no one any good, Esty. do you really want to communicate? then COMMUNICATE, don't obfuscate. (for communication's sake, that means: "1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy. 2. to make obscure or unclear. 3. to darken.)

not really, EP. you completely dodged my comments. didn't address a thing. seemed incredibly weasel-y to me. honestly, i don't know what the deal is with the ces-defenders who have been coming around lately, but i'm not terribly impressed.