GarthP2000

VP musta told him. ... from beyond the grave ... by PFAL Approved revelation, doncha know. ;)

Methinks I see one big reason why Smikeol won't (can't?) see where he can be wrong. ... Not a very intellectually honest position to take, hmmm?Oldies, It's like they say; Dogs have owners. Cats have staff. B)

Thing about it is, Groucho, is that Smikeol's example can be (and has often been) practiced anytime and anywhere that anybody is this blind without critical thought when it comes to any religion, mainstream or fringe, the 'cult' label notwithstanding. 'False doctrine' really has little, if anything, to do with it. I've seen this kind of mentally goosestepping behavior in various Baptists, Catholics, Muslims, et al, whenever either their dogma is challenged with scientific fact, or anybody makes the personal desicion not to accept their 'god' or 'savior', or their favorite leadership is not followed. TWI provides but one small textbook example of this. Well now, Smikeol, as much as we'd all like to take the credit and glory in doing that, in all honesty, we just cannot. I mean, you get quite a bit of credit yourself in doing that as well. ...... as in the majority of the time. :lol: Belle, Has the amount of posts that you see shrunk considerably? ;) :lol:

Allan, Folks like you give the classic example of why I left the likes of TWI and fundamentalist Christians. And for that, I like to thank you. :lol:

Hey! And with all of his flatulant gas, he can assist with the all the natural gas production. Folks who live there might want to wear a gas mask tho'. :blink: :ph34r:

You folks *know* that Smikeol is getting quite desperate when he uses 1984ish, Orwellian, 'good is bad, and bad is good' logic in his posts. :blink: I just hope that he's all comfy in that padded cell of his. ..... and when did mental institutions start giving internet access to their maximum security patients? :huh:

I wonder if THAT would be a real pizza according to Raf. ... mebbe if it didn't have pineapple on it, ya think? :D ....... Back to our regularly scheduled thread. B)

Good one Hammy. Another related concept to question might be: Why is it that all of humanity (the descendants of Adam and Eve) are/should be 'born dead in trespasses and sins' and 'at enmity with God' based on JUST the actions of Adam and Eve? Ie., its just a curse actually, and with no good reason for why it must go beyond Adam and Eve and on to their descendants. You ever notice that no real solid explanation has ever been given for why that is so, and why that must be, hmmmm? At least from what I've learned over the years. Usually what I've been given is one of those "its one of those 'spurchel' concepts that is beyond your understanding, so you have no place to question it" variety scam answers. And one that I have accepted for many a year, ... until recently. Do you think that these 2 questions are related?

I've read some of his social/political views on his blog also. There is some significant difference from the standard TWI 'approved' viewpoints. So either 1) He'll be browbeaten into submission in a few short years time to conform ('renew his mind' that is), or 2) he'll break away/get M&A'd in about the same amount of time. My bet is on the latter.

... Yeah! And He just might send you to that really firey place because of that difference of Opinion too. Makes ya feel all warm and cozey inside for that, huh? :huh: :wacko: :blink: (sarcasm mode off)

:lol: :lol: :lol: Good one, Raf!! ... It did to me too. B)

If he were, if I were heading on my way up, I'd say "Let me back down from this 'return' NOW!!" while desperately grabbing for the nearest solid object before I get too high up. I suppose I'd rather take my chances with some 'antichrist' and his government than with Smikeol's version of the Return. :P :D

Good point re Ralph. (I'm re-editing my post, it seems. ... Ooopsie! Another 'misuse'.) ;)

Well, at least I have enough honesty to admit to my writing foibles and to making them, and I would hardly call it my 'first instinct'. It does show that your 'first instinct' to insult those you are biased against might serve as an argument in actual favor of the limitation, ya think. ;) (You really need to stop taking your political opponents so personally. Drives up the blood pressure) And I have given the reason why I see the logic as to why such editing limitations might be in place. And 'chilling effect'? Really now, I don't think we're talking about censorship here, nor any demonstratable harm because of this new wrinkle. I have taken note of other practices that do far more harm that you seem to dismiss with nothing more than a "It's regretable that such and such happened, but ..." Strict guidelines? Not knowing what she wrote until after she wrote it? I take it that she never uses a word processor, nor does drafts before the final version goes out? (That's what later articles that addresses previous ones are for in newspapers and magazines are for, because once the article goes to press, you can't exactly 'call it back') "Be prepared to defend that position" O-kay. It was just an opinion, that's all, and not one that 'must be defended on principle!' Gad, how many times has *that* term been basterdized. I'm glad to see that you 'happily tolerate' my 'misuses'. Nice try at a guilt job but, .... sorry, no sale! Does make me laugh tho, so thanks. B)

Driving buses? DRIVING BUSES!?!?! Now THAT'S crossing the line!!! I mean, joining the military, being teachers at our kids schools, even getting married, ... that's almost intolerable enough, ........... but driving buses?!? I mean, that was Archie Bunker's job, fer Christ' sake! Is there no other sanctified place for a Truly Manly Man alone to get a job if not for driving that bus? ((sob)) :( Now they want that Last Bastion of Testosterone Masculinity too. ... Bus driving! :blink: :D <_<

Actually, in a way, I can see the reasoning behind the '2 hour limit and then your revising time is up' logic. And this is coming from a poster that several others here perhaps don't particularly care for what I post (or how :D), and I can understand that. And perhaps one such as me would be one of the biggest benefactors of the unlimited time to rush back and 'wipe clean' and put forth a ahh, less controversial version of what I have previously posted. And then there is the 'Preview post' function that is helpful in editing as well. That being said however, perhaps this isn't so much a 'censorship' function, but more like a 'make sure you know what/how/why you are going to post what you do while you still can' type function. Now we all know that the spoke word, once hurled, cannot be withdrawn, or edited at all from the second it leaves your mouth. Here we're given a 2 hour 'reprieve'. Be that as it may, I don't think that its anything major one way or another. Works with me just fine.

It's cuz they got nuthin' better to do, and they need to get a job. B)

..... Yeah, so stop driving so fast so you can see where your going already. :D

CM, Wish I could help you out with the DLL prob :(, but thanks for the addy to the GeeksToGo site :). That is a real treasuretrove of helpful info. B)

Hhmmm. Now that's a new one, homosexualoty. Is that where you have sex a lot? ... Or sex on a lot? ... A parking lot? ... Or (wishing you had) sex with Lot? ... That does cover quite a lot. Calling Dr. Suess! Calling Dr. Suess! :lol:

Keep in mind that most cultic beliefs that are ((cough)) 'disproven' only look that way thru the doctrinal lenses that you have learned from your church. No doubt the Mormons, et al, view your beliefs with the same dismissive POV, and even the Catholics (if you're a Protestant) no doubt view Protestant beliefs as heretical, and visa-versa.

Mike. Actually, it is because the font size is (most likely) set in the style sheet that is on most web sites nowadays. Many times the paragraph font (the one that has the content of an article rather than the title) is preset to Arial, and about 10-12 font size or to some other oft-used setting. Some browsers can work their way around this, but (for now) IE can't.

Sorry. Can't do that either. MWUAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha........ :D

It sure debunks the theory that 'godless' people are less moral, that's for sure. B)

A-Yup! And after that, your foo-pahh then remains for ALL posterity. :D :o ........ ... Uh ohh. ... Better check some of my earlier posts. :blink: