Raf

Satori, I've been trying to figure out how to say that for years and years. Thank you for your post. On the difference between forgiveness and absolution, I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Manny Ramirez got the Series MVP. I think the whole team deserves it. This was history. AWESOME!

The Cards look like they're imploding, although they DID manage to get out of that eighth inning jam (bases loaded, no outs, but in the end no runs scored).

There are safeguards in place. The names of absentee voters are recorded before they're counted. If someone votes early, or on election day, their absentee ballot will be thrown away. Once you've voted, the computer system has you down. If I tried to vote again, I would be stopped as soon as I tried to check in.

Go SOX! 3-0 in the 6th. Meanwhile, South Park is a RIOT!!!

GeorgeStGeorge: Please check your private topics.

Any registered voter in Florida may vote early. The advantages: 1. You don't have to make sure you vote at the right precinct. You precinct comes to you, so to speak. The technology is there so that when you arrive at the polling place, you are given a ballot that matches the one you would have received at your proper precinct. For folks like me, who do not KNOW the correct precinct, this is handy. You DO have to show up in the right county, though. 2. Ostensibly, its purpose is to cut the lines on election day. I don't quite understand this, as the lines on early voting days are longer. But c'est la guerre. 3. It makes it easier for those who will not be in town on Election Day but don't want to deal with the hassle of an absentee ballot (which, it turns out, has been QUITE the hassle here in Broward County). 4. Fewer and fewer states and municipalities recognize election day as a "day off," and the number is even lower for private businesses. On one day, you may not find the time to vote. But over a two week period, it might be easier. One major drawback: Once you've voted, it's just like casting the ballot on Election Day. You cannot change your mind.

And just by coincidence (or is it?) the moon turns to blood tonight.

Why isn't "no way in hayl" one of the options? "You eat pieces of s**t for breakfast?" Happy Gilmore

UNCLE!

True, malefactor does not mean robber. However, as ol vic pointed out, ALL robbers are malefactors, so the fact that they used two different words does not negate the possibility that the same people are being discussed. Allos does not mean heteros, tis true, but GOP and Republican are synonyms. As seen on the Actual Errors thread and list, Wierwille's definitions of allos and heteros are provably false, again blurring the distinctions between the robbers and the malefactors. Wierwille highlighted the use of the word THEN in discussing the four crucified to show that two people were crucified at the same time as Jesus, and THEN two people were crucified afterward. Only by accepting THEN as meaning "after all that we have previously discussed" can one come to the conclusion that four were crucified with Christ. If one reads that verse as saying "at that time," or "around that time, giving less concern to the chronology than to the actuality of the events, one can easily conclude we're talking about the same people. I agree that these positions are worth considering, and I considered and held them for more than a decade. After careful thought, I've discarded them, not as the rantings of a small town preacher turned cult leader, but as the well-intentioned but mistaken attempts to harmonize scriptures that appear to contradict each other. Alternative explanations of the apparent contradictions make more sense to me.

Rather than get into a doctrinal debate, I refer you to http://www.christianheritageonline.com and the related article, which seeks to answer your questions on this.

I think close examinations of scripture reveal, at the very least, the first three doctrines to be in error. In each of the four gospels, only two others are mentioned being crucified. In each of the four gospels, only three denials are recorded. Not one gospel records more than three denials. The difficult must be interpreted in light of the clear, not vice versa. It's clear there were three denials and not more. And the notion that one may be born of the devil's seed, irreversible, is simply unbiblical. God is able to save to the uttermost those who believe. If there exists a category of people God cannot save, then there is something beyond uttermost, which is silly. If there's something beyond uttermost, then THAT is the uttermost, and God can save them. For this reason, I reject all three of those TWI doctrines. I was never exposed to the fourth.

It should be noted that in the Greek, there's a definite article before the word "faith" the first time (both times, actually). If this were English, that would support what George is saying. Further study, if honest, can only help, so study on.

Go Sox! I'll say here what I've said before: The Sox had better win: if they went through the trouble of humiliating my Yankees the way they did, only to LOSE the World Series, I'll be more ticked off than ANY Bosox fan.

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. BTW: I would have been torn if the Astros were meeting the Sox, but now it's no contest. Go Beantown!

I would not be opposed to their display in such circumstances, as I have stated earlier in other threads. If the motivation is to show that the American legal system has historic roots, then I concur: there are things in the Magna Carta that don't apply to the American legal system. There are other legal foundations of our system, and the 10 commandments definitely fall into that category. In the Roy Moore case, this was not what was happening. Roy Moore put that monument up as an act of personal worship to God. Removing it, he said, was disobedience to God. This was a clear crossing of the line. Other incidents are far, far less clear.

You can't, any more than you can prevent a judge from praying before he makes a decision. But if he makes a decision based solely on Biblical principles, regardless of the law involved (or against the law involved), he'd be overturned: and rightly so. There are some "separations" that are not reasonable. Telling a man he can't pray before making a decision is unreasonable. Telling a government not to tell me who God is, whether I can have another, whether I can take His name in vain, and what day to worship him is NOT unreasonable.

Not true. The first commandment names God. The second forbids the worship of graven images. The third forbids the taking of Yahweh's name in vain. The fourth establishes the holiness of the Sabbath. None of these commandments is remotely secular; posting them is an explicit acknowledgement of the God of Judaism (and, according to their creeds, Christianity and Islam). Government does not have the right to post these. We do. Is it in your living room yet?

I see what you're saying, but I really think Pat threw them for a loop by surrendering the domain name. I think they would have liked nothing more than to bankrupt him, but once he surrendered the name, they had little choice but to accept. The were in a bind after that. My contention remains that this whole process cost Pat a lot more than it cost TWI. Pat's victories are actually not victories at all: they're non-losses. 1. He doesn't have to pay TWI's legal fees. 2. He doesn't have to account for and repay any money that came in as a result of his use of the domain name (not that there WAS any, but it's the principle of the thing). 3. Pat doesn't have to pay the "treble damages" sought by TWI, an amount impossible to figure out without going through trial/discovery/etc. It's in items 1 and 3 that he saved his web sites. As he said, those were his only assets. So once he gave up the domain name (how many of you see this coming?) he was able to save his assets. Pat's losses: 1. The cost of securing and maintaining the domain name over five years. 2. The domain name, and any right to reclaim it. 3. The Way of Christ as a name, and any right to reclaim it. 4. His own legal fees. The actual legal fight was over 2, with 3 as a backdrop. The threat, if TWI was victorious, is that it would have cost Pat so much that he would have no choice but to shut his sites down. Although TWI never sought that specifically, Pat is correct in that it's reasonable to assume they salivated over the prospect. I guess I was distinguishing between TWI's motives and its actual legal position, and Pat was not. Someone told Pat that TWI was after the Web sites, but for some reason Pat never saw (until time to settle) that the best way to keep those sites was to close the door he'd opened with this trademark infringement stuff. On all the trademark and domain issues, Pat lost. Yeah, it could have been a HAYULL of a lot worse. Bottom line: he ended up doing exactly what Long Gone and I advised from the beginning.

I spoke up during the game, but haven't said anything since... "Hell Freezes Over" pretty much captured it. Who would have thought after the Saturday night spanking that Boston would have anything left? Congrats to a team that earned it. And good luck in the series. I'll be pulling for you: it's time to reverse the curse. I would hate to see you beat my Yankees only to lose the friggin Series.

The debate is over by fiat then. Pat is right because confidential informant man told him so. Paw, Eagle, get ready for your lawsuits. We're next! Pat, seriously: do I think TWI wanted to see your web sites shut down? Yeah, they'd love to see us all shut down. The difference between us and you is that you gave them an opening they could fly Ambassador One through. Settling the case closed that opening. They've got nothing on you now. You disarmed their only weapon, which is PRECISELY what Long Gone and I have been trying to tell you since TWI filed suit. These are things you KNOW I told you from the beginning.

Doesn't matter. At some point in the process PR Computer Services owned the server lease. Once it did, it became liable. Check.

Duh is right, Pat. DUH! PR Computer Services owned the server lease... DUH! PR Computer Services was thus just as guilty of the trademark infringement as you were as an individual. Pat, I refuse to continue this battle of wits with you until and unless you arm yourself.

That's wishful thinking Abi. PAT HAD NO MONEY. They would have gained nothing, and it would have cost them more, if TWI had continued to pursue the case after they already got what they were looking for. Screwing Pat over financially was obviously NOT on their agenda. I believe both parties were wise to settle the way they did: TWI was wise because to pursue a lawsuit after you've achieved your main objective is folly. Pat was wise because he, belatedly, recognized that twi should have the domain name in question and the legal problems went away the day "the day" that he surrendered the name.