i stumbled across this search hit:.
http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:krnl_hsym5uc:www.csinews.net/pdf/commencement_2002.pdf+walter+reyes+jehovah%27s+witnesses&hl=en&ie=utf-8.
within this 'file' there is this acknowledgement: (it is not allowing me to 'copy'[stand by, i will try to fix it]...please open the link and scroll to : 'special dolphin award').. it's just that a few things stated there got my goat, so to speak.. skally.
JW or not 9/11 or not, its a piss poor shot to use this womans death to further your desire to run down the WT for your own aims, just because she was
Very big-hearted of you. Giving someone a break just for dying. The WT certainly doesn't hold to that kind of behavior.
Ever been to a WT funeral? Oh, they just LOVE it when a member dies, they get to drag in a whole bunch of people who wouldn't otherwise get to hear their message and then preach to them for an hour or so.
Aw, geez, you clipped the best part where I planted tac nukes all over Iraq in little shells painted in bright colors for the investigators to have springtime fun looking for....
.
Edited by - Xander on 5 February 2003 17:1:47
the saddam hussein interview.
at the weekend, the veteran labour politican tony benn travelled to baghdad to meet and interview the iraqi president.
tonight we hear why - according to saddam - iraq has no interest in war and possesses no weapons of mass destruction.
they said if the US attacks, they will regret it and go away in bodybags. That can only be done if he has WMD.
Really? Iraq is so backwards they won't be able to kill a single US soldier without WMD?
Read his quote again:
tell them that the Iraqis are brave too.Tell the British people if the Iraqis are subjected to aggression or humiliation they would fight bravely. Just as the British people did in the Second World War and we will defend our country as they defended their country each in its own way.
Granted, what he says and does may well be different, but this doesn't SOUND like a quote that would be made by someone hiding behind a shield of WMD. It sounds more like something one would say if they expect to go down fighting on principle.
In any case, another interesting quote:
It seems that this argument has appealed to some US administrations especially the current one that if they control the oil in the Middle East, they would be able to control the world. They could dictate to China the size of its economic growth and interfere in its education system and could do the same to Germany and France and perhaps to Russia and Japan.
Not something I had really thought about. If the US does occupy Iraq, and tries to remain friends with the Saudis and Kuwaitis....
Well, that could solve our China and NK problems at the same time, now, couldn't it? But, *we* wouldnt' do something like THAT, now would we.....
(not saying I agree, but it is an interesting angle to consider. I guess we'll find out for sure round this time next year.)
kay - nuff of the doom,gloom, flame wars & down right negativity - lets discuss women's lingerie!.
with the day of love coming up , i have a few questions for you folks (guys & girls - could get interesting).
seriously though, ladies, do you feel comfortable buying & wearing lingerie?
Do you view receiving lingerie as a "gift", or as a "hint"?
I've never bought any for the wife for this very reason. Although she has no problem buying sexy things for herself and wearing them - see comment below - I don't think there is any way I could buy something like that for her without it seeming like a 'hint'. Which is actually an interesting concern for me, as Valentine's Day *IS* coming up, as is her birthday (2 days before)...and she has made quite clear that, starting from my birthday/christmas, this year we will be doing the gift giving thing.
Uhhh...what do you BUY an adult for their birthday? Or Valentine's Day? Without it seeming either like 'a hint' or 'boring'? *eek*
Guys - do you really see it as a "gift" if your woman buys & then wears such items for you? And what are your preferences - the "nasty" attire or the "soft & subtle" type stuff? Inquiring minds really want to know!
Oh, definately 'gif't'. Yuppers, indeed. I've had some very nice surprises coming home from long business trips.
Dunno bout the nasty, though, but that's just me. Nothing beats a sexy teddy, IMHO, so....
after watching powell today, i'm more convinced than ever.
i think that those oppossed to the war will not be swayed at all, but i also think that most of those who were trully sitting on the fence will be convinced.
convinced of saddam's violation of un resolution 1441, and convinced of saddam's connection with terrorism.
You missed the point of my post. Re-read it again. Slower, this time.
after watching powell today, i'm more convinced than ever.
i think that those oppossed to the war will not be swayed at all, but i also think that most of those who were trully sitting on the fence will be convinced.
convinced of saddam's violation of un resolution 1441, and convinced of saddam's connection with terrorism.
If Sadam uses even one of his stockpiled chemical weapons against the US, then the he will be proven a liar (yet again)
If Saddam uses even one of his stockpiled chemical weapons against the US (or, say, a group he sells said weapons to uses them against us) - THEN AND ONLY THEN are we justified in going to war.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but if we attack BEFORE we or one of our allies are attacked in this case....this will be the FIRST TIME IN US HISTORY that we were the aggressor. The *first time* that we initiated a war instead of retaliating for attacks against us or our treaty allies.
*That's* not something I want to see in my life. The world was changed for the worse when the US went from an isolationist period to a world player....I'm afraid of what will happen when we move from a 'world player' to 'agressor'.
Of course, that's what some of you have been clamoring for all the time. And, I guess that's what the American people want now.
I thought we were better than that.
Perhaps *I* was mistaken.
Edited by - Xander on 5 February 2003 14:5:59
this primarily goes out to other agnostics and athiests.
this week i got into two interesting conversations that i will admit that i was ill prepared for.
one was with a jw friend of mine who wanted to know why i thought jw's were wrong.
Well, the problem is that their faith REQUIRES them to believe it's the word of god (tm). If you can actually show that it came from somewhere else, it's obviously no longer the word of god (tm).
Many cannot accept that, so they pretend the world before the bible was written didn't really exist.
i really do hate them.. every now and then it does me good to make my views on the cult known as jehovah's witnesses known.
i didn't come to this view slowly or rashly, but over a period of some thirty years or more.
when i think of the futures i have seen shredded, the hypocrites i have seen looking down their twisted noses from the bottom of a pit while they thought they were on a pedestal of righteousness, the children i have seen tortured over issues they needn't have faced, the couples i have seen turn on one another and break apart over this phoney "religion", the children i have seen turn on their parents, brothers and sisters, the selfish things i have seen charlatans posing as christians do, the ignorance of the bible i have seen expounded with the tones and knowing looks of superiority, the tears i have seen shed by caring puppet-people trying to serve god honestly but being forced to do uncaring things by the strings pulled in new york, well....... have i mentioned i hates'em!!!!!!!!.
We hates them...dirrty little bethaliteses...they lies to us....they steals our bling...nassty bethaliteses...shouldn't trust them...
amazing with all the coverage of 'what went wrong', etc, no one has bothered to ask what columbia's mission was.. here is an article put up after the launch but before the disaster:.
http://www.eprairie.com/news/viewnews.asp?newsletterid=4411.
tidbits:.
You are wrong to say there is no such thing
Huh?
I never said that?
What I said is that Ozone is O 3 - it's a gas - a type of Oxygen molecule. It exists, among other places, as a layer in our upper atmosphere. Most gasses settle to a specific layer of our atmosphere, and some - like hydrogen and helium gas - are so light they float right out of the atmosphere.
It's not some magical barrier or made of carbon or anything - it's just another layer of the atmosphere. Because of the nature of the molecules it consists of, it's one that is particularly good at blocking certain bands of solar radiation - one of the most significant health risks astronauts have to face (but we don't, because we have an atmosphere of many layers protecting us, see?)
ozone filters out the infra red rays
Well, no, actually, ozone is primarily known for its ability to block out ultraviolet rays (completely other end of the spectrum).
Here is a (decent) site regarding ozone and the ozone hole:
heat escaping through the ozone
Sorry, but no reputable scientist would ever suggest that. Or rather, would ever imply that 'escaping heat' is a bad thing that lack of ozone is responsible for. Excess heat bleeds off the Earth through all layers of the atmosphere and into space all the time. As a simplified example of this - why do you think it gets so cold on the 'night side' of the planet vs the 'day side'. Now, imagine if the heat acquired during the rotation through the 'day side' didn't bleed off and kept getting piled on from day to day.
I'm sure you can see that a little heat bleeding off into space is not a bad thing (and certainly not something any particular layer of the atmosphere is responsible for 'preventing')
I don't have any evidence that the space shuttle produces the cfcs that are responsible for the break down of the ozone molecules
1) It's not chlorofluorocarbons alone that are responsible for the ozone depletion
2) Do you know what CFCs are? The shuttle doesn't release any.
