Raf

Oh, you were defending pineapples? My bad. I thought you were defending crap. :)--> I will kiss a lady even after she's had pineapple on bread, mozzarella cheese and tomato sauce. No problem. She just hasn't eaten a pizza, that's all. She's eaten something. She may have enjoyed it, and that's all well and good. But it wasn't a pizza.

Thomas, you poor, sad man... I don't care HOW many people think crap on pizza is acceptable. The moment you put crap on a pizza, it is no longer a pizza. Look, if you enjoy it, that's your prerogative. Just don't kiss anyone after lunch.

R2 is not a problem: who understands anything he says anyway? Having Anakin be 3P0's "father" was too silly for words. A nine year old programs a droid fluent in thousands(?) or languages? Hell OOOO! But I'm okay with Chewie showing up. After all, Ben Kenobi did seem to go straight to him at Mos Eisley in Ep 4.

Some things seem rather inconsistent between the first trilogy and the current one. Will Amidala survive? Don't know. She should, according to the snippet Steve! is quoting. But there are other things that don't make sense either. Kenobi told Luke that his father was already quite a pilot when they met. I doubt the lucky fluke at the end of Phantom Menace makes a 10-year-old slave who's never flown anything before "quite a pilot." "Your father's lightsabre. He wanted you to have it when you were old enough." Will that quote pan out? I doubt it, myself. Ah, who knows. I'm still trying to figure out how hiding Luke on Tatooine with the same surname is an effective way of keeping Vader from finding him. :)-->

Can we agree on certain ground rules, here? If I put hydrochloric acid on a pizza, is it still a pizza? If I put crap on a pizza, is it still a pizza? If I put sausage on a pizza, is it still a pizza? If I put pepperoni on a pizza, is it still a pizza? Okay, no on the first two, yes on the second two, right? Okay, so there IS a line. Can't deny it; you've already admitted it. Now we must determine what goes on what side of the line. Mushrooms? That goes on the sausage and pepperoni side of the line. Shoe leather? That goes on the acid and crap side. Pineapple? Definitely on the shoe leather/acid/crap side of the line. That's all I'm saying. But I am saying it.

Yessir. Did I do that one already?

"Nuuuuuuude women. Nuuuuuuuude women. Cloooooowns welcome. Cloooooooowns welcome. Nuuuuuude women. Clooooooowns welcome."

Amazon Women on the Moon! I was trying for an echo effect, but there's nothing I can do there. :)-->

Welcome, Clearwater...

No more cheating! It's cheating! Ghostbusters?

The moment you put glue on it, it's not a pizza.

Twister Carey Elwes (sp?) The Princess Bride

Well then.. Lord of the rings: The Two Towers Brad Dourif One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

What the Hay, You've completely missed my point, on a number of levels. First, you've justified an interpretation of the verse using linguistic acrobatics instead of a plain reading of the texts. If you want to convince yourself that your right cheek is of a different kind than your left cheek, be my guest: I've nothing to say about that. Frankly, I have no time whatsoever to discuss it. But even if allos means "another of a different kind" in that case, it's not the presence of a confirming case that establishes Wierwille was right about the definition: it's the presence of contradicting cases that proves he was wrong. There are plenty of cases where allos is clearly "another of the same kind," not "another of a different kind" as Wierwille said and originally wrote. That means he was wrong. I have no problem with him being wrong about this. It is one of the farthest things from a big deal that I could imagine. Even Mike wouldn't care about Wierwille being wrong about this! That's how irrelevant it is. But more importantly, you addressed a point I was not making, in any way, shape or form. Wierwille said and wrote that "allos" is "another when more than two are involved." There are multiple Biblical references to show that he was flat out wrong in that definition. Remember that Wierwille's argument on these definitions is that their sharp mathematical accuracy and scientific precision help prove what he was saying about the four crucified. But any argument on the four crucified that relies on Wierwille's definitions of heteros and allos is utterly discredited.

Field of Dreams? Shoeless Joe never did finish paying for the Black Sox scandal...

Other: allos when only two are involved... Matt 5:39; 12:13; 27:61 Mark 3:5 Luke 6:10, 29 Not comprehensive, this list. Heteros used as other when more than two are involved: Matt 12:45 Luke 3:18; 4:43; 10:1; 11:16... You get the idea.

By jove, I think I've got it![/font]

We love you, Chas!

I've been looking at the Strong's Concordance entries for "other" and it's almost amusing. Allos (243) is FREQUENTLY used when only two are involved. Heteros (2087) is FREQUENTLY used when more than two are involved. Am I the only one who didn't check this for years? (Truthfully, I stopped caring about that definition when I read Bullinger and learned the same/different kind distinction, but I never went the next step of trying to verify or refute the "only two/more than two" definition).

-->

happyhappyhappyhappyhappyhappyhappy BIRTHDAY!

Viggo Mortensen Psycho Anne Heche

True, but do you really want to go through 20 Jerry Lewis and Dean Martin movies and 40 Abbott and Costellos?

I think I owe you both a cup of coffee. Welcome to the Cafe. And to freedom.

Chas, We were messing with you. :)-->