No, but it is protecting yourself with a credible and undeniable threat of violence.

That is preposterous and you know it. If you were prosecuting a defendent that you had had provable acrimony with before this case, the defense would make a motion to strike you as the prosecuting attorney because of an obvious conflict of interest that would cloud your better judgment. What unequivocal evidence have you proved?? You've shown absolutely nothing.

Cool, it's the best of both worlds.

How blindly obtuse can you be?? I'm glad you find it so funny that dozens of teenagers were placed in the way of a potentially deadly explosion, yet you find it a damnable offense that a group of people don't want specific dogs in their community.

Show me where I said we should take our guns away, you dumb fuck. I only said that if you use a gun you are more likely to be killed, you then jumped to the conclusion that I am against private ownership of guns. Actually, I have no problem with it. If you get shot because you had a gun in your home, that's a choice that you made that had dangerous ramifications, and you paid the price for it. I'd like to see your source for the 2.5 million successful defensive gun uses, surely that wasn't provided by the NRA. Does shooting at a pack of coyotes going after sheep count as a successful gun defense? Are you really dumb enough to believe that nearly 1% of all Americans fire a gun at someone else to defend themselves every year?? To you have any idea of the sheer mountains of paperwork and litigation that would involve, if in fact it were true, which it no doubt isn't??

Yep, that it is. Nothing like firing a round of shot over the head of some asswipe who doesn't get it when you put the first round in the chamber.

No, Mr. bunnytrdr. Just a guy relentlessly chasing down truth, justice, and good pie wherever that pursuit may lead.

I don't know why I even posted on this dumbass thread. I guess I've just had a bellyfull of the shallow naiveté laid down by some people in an attempt to present themselves as wise and informed.

My biggest concern right now is coming up with the proof necessary to demonstrate that Tony G. actually has redefined the position of tight end in the NFL.

FAX

O.K. Mr. Fax, as you wish.

I believe, that it was a confluence of events, of which Tony G happened to be at the center of, that redefined the position. ;)

That's a pretty interesting thought, actually. Thanks.

I've looked at the stats and, so far at least, am unable to find anything that would reasonably confirm that he did, in fact, redefine the position from a performance standpoint. At first, I thought that he would have had a longer ypc average which would be reflective of greater athleticism, but that's not the case. He's only near the top in that category. Then, I looked at size in the position, but nothing stands out there either.

I hate to admit it, but I think Mr. milkman may turn out to be right about this. Unless, of course, I can construct a compelling argument around your theory.

FAX

Hey FAX, where in the New Testament does Jesus talk about homosexuality?

I didn't talk about lots of things. I never addressed a whole host of sins, directly. The Old Testament teachings are pretty clear on it already. Because I neglected to address it doesn't mean I approve. Afterall, I only lived 33 yrs. Why should I have been redundant? Whatever I didn't change, stayed the same. Regardless, Paul cleared it up in his letters--in case anyone had any doubts.

Good for Schori, progress is slow but it will happen.:thumb:

Quite a thread.

:clap::clap:

So I'm confused Jesus. Should we follow what the Old Testament says or not? If we're supposed to follow everything in the Old Testament except what you directly challenged, then I think we're all in a lot of trouble.

We had a good conversation going on last night, is it worth looking back 3-4 pages to keep up?...