GarthP2000

(Raf's response, mimicking Luke's response upon finding out that Darth Vader was his father.....) NNNNOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo...........!!! :D-->

Frankly, I see both versions as a kind of hell for freedom loving individuals: Either you are 'assimilated' into God's 'collective' (resistance is futile), or there are those who are 'cast out' to burn forever and ever, and for no more of a crime than 'not to believe'. (Wow! Gee! Some justice!) And of course, you have the John Calvin 'you have been pre-determined to believe or not believe, and you had no say so in the matter' variety of ((cough)) gospel. ... Gosh! So many 'higher truths', so little time. -->

How about axing Smikeol's PFAL Is God's Word posts? That should just about do the job right there. :D--> JUST kidding. ... (well maybe I am ;)-->)

Does that mean that EVERY word leads to meanings, ... actions, ... consequences, .... etc. ad nauseum? And how does your 4 line point discard what Raf posted? Or the points he raised, or the facts that he brought up? -->

Dave, Starved for attention and recognition, am I? Is that all you care to render me as? My good man, the reason for my repeated questions is because you wouldn't answer them the first time around, and I believed them to be honest enough questions to deserve being dealt with. Plus I find it kind of odd that the questions you only want to deal with are the 'friendly' ones, the ones that pose no challenge. (Kinda like the President, sorry to say) Sorry guy, but a real scientist/doctor/engineer can't have it that way. Plus my comments do relate to oxygenated water; as far as dealing with how you deal with others who challenge your views on the topic. See (and think about) my first post in this thread, and you'll see. Davey, stating "I've met fine doctors but would be surprised it more than ten percent of doctors in general are even honest let alone capable." IS portraying that 90% of the medical profession are quacks, because what is a quack but a doctor who is incapable and dishonest, hmmm? But I notice that even here you caught yourself and revise your position to say: Well, sort of. Now you seem to think your position redeemed in that you don't think of them as quacks, but ONLY as 'snake oil salesmen'. ... ((whew)) Boy that was close, huh? Sorry Charlie, no sale. So since God hates the lying tongue and feet that run to mischief, and since you are doing some fancy dishonest dancing on your own, even right in the middle of your last post here, ..... does that mean that God hates YOU? --> You knoew a lot about engineering and related topics, I'll give you credit for that (See? I can be fair). But I wouldn't DARE put your ((cough)) 'honest' medical knowledge and skills up against 99% of the medical community, including even many of the genuine quacks. Why? You'd lose, chief. ..... Badly ........ and so would your potential patients. :(-->

Please explain to us then why the numbers of those who actually do suffer at the hands of doctors don't statistically coincide with the work of this supposed other 90% who are supposedly quacks? Thanks for answering my question, even if it has been done in such a round-about, 'talk to another person to avoid directly answering the first' manner. (Which is kinda rude, doncha think?) And painting the whole (even 90%) medical profession with such a broad brush after getting lousy treatment from a few (thats right, a few) bad apples, is like blaming all engineers due to the flawed designs (and ones begging for lawsuits) of the few crackpots, ... wouldn't you agree? Oh, and from what I hear, engineers don't do so shabby in the $$$$ making department either. Plus engineers don't have the finacial burden of being required to have pricey malpractice insurance (like ALL medical doctors are required to have) to practice their trade. So you might calculate that into your 'anti-A.M.A.' formula while you're at it. Heh! Hate the medical profession do ya? Just wait till you have to require the services of a surgeon, ... then where will you be, hmmm? Kinda like the guy who damns all attorneys, ..... until he needs one. ;)-->

David, Thank you for totally ignoring/dodging my question. And yes Virginia, it was indeed an honest and valid question. But I guess that since you consider me to be 'vacuous', you seem to use that as an all-too-convenient (IMHO that is) excuse to avoid whatever challenging questions I throw your way. Tell me something chief, is that your example of godly integrity? --> Ya know, for someone who rips VPW a new one for having acted in such an arrogant and spiteful manner (as you depicted in your posts a few years back in Waydale re: your involvement with TWI and why you left), you seem to take so much after him in your posts here, particularly in your manner of dealing with 'unbelievers' (read, anyone who outright challenges what is taught, rather than being meek and only asking those questions that pose no threat at upsetting your apple cart; again, NOT an attitude to take here at the Greasespot Cafe) Oh and I don't think that Zixar was dismissing Henry's Law, ... just your usage of it. BIG difference. Really it is.

Awww come on Steve. You know you wanna let loose. ;)--> Dmiller, I got the central idea about theft from a company, so with all due respect to you -- Please. Don't even go there. But he put a rather intense focus on those damn paper clips. Its like focusing on the small things almost at the expense of the larger overall theme. Kinda like the pharisees putting all their emphasis on the washing of pots and stuff, almost to the ignoring of greater matters -- that kind of thing. Maybe he wasn't going that far, but it sure sounded like it. And then you have John Lynn's 'year probation' a couple of years back over some ((cough)) 'sexual indiscretion' -- which wound up beinng no more than a broken engagement or mild inappropriate touch or something. Ie., going overboard about avoiding 'the appearance of evil'. Even stealing paper clips, while theft, sure as hell isn't 'evil'.

Bad moon on the rise?? --> Hell, and all these years I was thinking that it was "Bathroom on the right"

Dr. David, Perhaps you can tell this alleged vacuous individual one thing, ... if you would stoop to my lowly level, O Lord. (Note heavy yet well deserved sarcasm here) Do you seriously believe that doctors and the A.M.A. are indeed untrustworthy and/or incompetent as a whole? That, by and large, all they ever care about is money, and screwing over the patient, with nary a benefit except in once a great while? To where you can speak of things medical, and because of this perceived untrustworthiness/incompetence on the part of the medical community as a whole, you're word should receive the higher regard/respect by default? ... And without any questions/challenges whatsoever? Do you seriously believe all that? Because that is indeed the impression I get out of you over these posts that you have given here. If so, then yeah, I can definitely see where Zixar has just cause in putting to question the safety to human life of your proposals/endorsements. Because just about everybody who has portrayed the entire (or even most) of the medical community as such buffoons, and they themselves have THE viable alternative to doctors, hospitals, et al usually are the ones who have even more people *die* on them as a result. Either because the needed procedure of testing and retesting of unknown medicines have been short cut, or they act real shady, evasive, and even 'offended' when their snakeoil--errr 'alternative' solution is challenged. Now oxygenated water most likely isn't the *danger* that some people make it out to be. But the way you have been acting? Especially here in a message board posted to by people who have been FAR more screwed over than could happen in your wildest dreams? ..... And you wonder why you're being 'picked on'?? (poor Dr. David, being persecuted along with all the other faithful Christians. Would somebody please play us a dirge on his violin? :(--> (snif)) Thanks but no thanks, but when it comes to the practice of medicine, I'd rather trust a doctor far more than I would ever trust you. 'QUACK' sez the Aflack duck.

Steve, Interesting, ... as this is basically what they teach as well. (Heck, I remember hearing a John Schoenheit teaching about 8 years ago where he really went off about stealing paper clips. I kinda thought "Whoa, John boy. Get a life.") ... which, after reading your arguments here, clearly fall into the 'strain at a gnat, swallow a camel' category. I mean, come on guy. Getting all 'spiritually' bent out of shape out of their usage of the word 'partner'? Want to know how many mainstream Christian organizations (as well as orgs in other areas of life) use that word in getting financial and other means of support? So, uhmm, ... how many small things do you continue to do that might be an indicator of an 'error of heart' as it were. Because you look deep enough, you're going to find it in just about ....... everybody. ..... Was that 'available' you just said? Huh?? See? -->

Yeah? ... Well, how do you know that they weren't lying to you when they told you that, hmmm? -->

Yeah! That's it! Like that's all we live for!! ((insert wicked chortling here)) ... -->

Oh, NOW he gets involved and says "Geee, is there anything wrong?" :P--> Bad PR can be a *real* good motivator. -->

Hey St. Steve the Apostle, Ya know, there are other things worse, more vile, more *heinous* than entering into a partnership with C.E.S. ..... Ohhhh, like, ... getting a parking ticket, for example.

to further clarify, what I meant by "and sometimes the targets of his posts had a 'what the hell was _that_ for' feeling afterwards." deals with the intensity of his posts rather than the clarity of them.

How does being "straight out" agree with that? Ie., he didn't exactly dance around the disagreement with you when he said 'Can't you READ?'. Ie., His approach is quite direct and blunt. And you reacted to that. as you did.

For one thing, I know HCW longer than you do Satori, and he also has the same 'says what he thinks, and too bad if you don't like it' attitude. And no, it isn't that he suddenly developed an 'attitude' towards you either. Sorry, but there is Yet Another Plot discredited for the trash bin. I knew him when he posted on the now-defunct Trancenet (Trashnet as some of us affectionately called it). And true to form as you have experienced, he was the straight out kind of guy who would state outright what he felt about something, or somebody, and sometimes the targets of his posts had a 'what the hell was that for' feeling afterwards. Yet, he was, and still is from what I can see, a fair minded kind of guy, so maybe after he reads more of your posts that are factually based, he'll reconsider. But I don't think he'll give you that opportunity with posts like the ones you directed at Catcup.

Ya know, this quote does far more to remove faith/religion from the 'actually proven and verifiable' category than many people even realize, yet when talking about how true their belief is, they act as tho' it IS The Indisputable Truth. The only way it can be indisputable is if it IS proven! And actually, there are/have been many atheists will listen to any explanation that proves a god. Note the word in bold tho': proves. Failing that, then yes, no explanation is possible. And the challenging questions shall continue. That it isn't proven can be shown by how many people react when their belief is challenged. Lacking the proof to silence the challenge of the 'naysayers' (everybody boo and hiss), they then fall back on emotional outrage, intimidation by hellfire/'greasespot by midnight' threats, bible quotations that are used as tho' they will silence the questions by their very quotation, knee-jerk responses of thinking that God will smite them for their unbelief, and other like responses. Dave's 'science-esposed-as-though-it-is-a-kind-of-faith' tactic helps illustrate my point. Look at his reaction when challenged about his oxygenated water proposal. It was VERY much likened to a 'defending of the Faith' kind of response: Calling some of us 'Naysayers', not giving any serious thought as to the validity of an opposing view (as tho' it just cannot be), treating us as 'enemies', dealing with Zix like a kind of 'Osama' as a result. Any REAL scientist act that way, and its a very high likelyhood that not only his theories would be laughed out of the auditorium, but he would as well. (And yes, there are scientists who also have a 'stick up their nethers', and who also wind up having their credibilities shot as a result)

Speaking of 'going right by you', if you can't see the malevolence (thanks for the spelling correction, by the way :)-->) in your post to HCW, then welcome to the Oldies act-alike contest. (In which case, I think you won :-) It just goes right by you. And you don't see it. ... ... Or maybe you just don't care to. In which case, that would definitely fit with malevolence. Get a grip. You have nothing on Catcup 'using' that stalking situation, thereby 'using' her offspring, except your own POV. Or HCW being 'coached', again except your own POV. The reasoning of why you have this wish to demean them like this does 'go right by me', as I see no rationale nor benefit to it. So in that respect, you are right.

... and then you have to go and blow it. --> Repeat after me -- "Malvolence is NOT to be confused with principle". Come on, you can do it.

... all of this, without one shred of either evidence, having been there or known the individuals involved, or anything else solid to go on. You're losing your touch my man. You're losing your touch. ((grins)) Yep, and when you got it, you flaunt it! Thanks for the compliment, tho'. ... See, you can be nice.

See, this is one reason why I, for one, never take Satori/QQ seriously when he pontifartificates about 'principle', 'moral superiority', and so on in the political threads. (Yeah, yeah, Sat, I know. Because I'm a 'liberal' I can't talk about principles? Yah! Right! :P-->) He whines and gets 'morally outraged' about the (supposed) 'cruelty' and 'lack of compassion' as shown by the Democrats/liberals, yet when he/other staunch conservatives show the same behavior, he either has an excuse/denial, or he just doesn't give a flying f**k. Actually, his example just encourages me to be more proud of my liberal beliefs without apology. And as far as credibility goes, Catcup beats you by a mile, chief. Too bad you are blind to that fact. :(-->

And on we go into ... The Twilight Zone! (brought to you by Penta Water) ;)--> Gadzooks, Zix! The man is onto us!!! We have now descended into the status of ... enemy (insert music from an opening episode of Perry Mason here) :o--> But, but, Bible Dave, even after you have determined that Osama bin--err, Zixar and I (and others) are your enemies, you still wish ill upon us. --> So please, with your oxygenated and engineering mind put to biblical interpretation, could you please explain this 'apparent contradiction'? ..... Or you gonna pull a 'Smikeol' on us and dodge the question by denying any such contradictions? -->

Ahh Plots, you know that after they are married, men *never* tuck their shirt in, .... and the women know that. :D-->