RickieVz
Oct 4, 10:14 PM
I'm wondering what the specifics about dropped calls in New York City would look like.
On average I get about 3-4 dropped calls every day. Every. Single. Day.
My roommate on Verizon has had one dropped call in the year that we have lived together.
I've had 4 to 5 calls daily. I'm tired. Happens mostly at home with 5 bars. Cell tower is about 3 blocks from my place.
On average I get about 3-4 dropped calls every day. Every. Single. Day.
My roommate on Verizon has had one dropped call in the year that we have lived together.
I've had 4 to 5 calls daily. I'm tired. Happens mostly at home with 5 bars. Cell tower is about 3 blocks from my place.
Mousse
Apr 25, 06:14 PM
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
Nope. Unlike Captain Kirk. God is a firm believer in the Prime Directive (http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive).:D
Anyhow, back on topic as why I'm religious? I don't see the need to reinvent the wheel. There's already someone who has perfected the moral system: Jesus. His moral system, IMO, is the best one. It's a hard system to follow, but if--big IF... no HUGE @$$ IF--everyone can follow that system of morals, the world would be a lot better place.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:37 AM
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt.
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
awmazz
Mar 13, 11:24 AM
I'm all for nuclear power. It's the cleanest
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
I guess it depends on your perspective of 'clean'. Yellowcake mining is one of the filthiest ugliest long-term polluting human endeavours ever invented. We have three uranium mines:
The Olympic Dam mine owned by BHP Billiton in Roxby Downs here has so far produced over 60 MILLION TONNES of polluting radioactive tailings waste in just 23 years of operation. BHP plans a $5 billion expansion of this single mine. Not more mines, just this one, a whopping $5 billion to expand just one mine. It's very profitable and will become more so as reserves deplete. People in the northern hemisphere are prepared to pay handsomely to shat their energy pollution in other peoples' yards instead of their own.
And then you have the other arseholes owners at the Beverly Mine going by the name of General Atomics who insist on using the ever so lovely even filthier acid-method known as 'in-situ leaching' mining technique, basically because they don't give a flying feck. Their radioactive particles, heavy metals and the acid used to separate the uranium is simply dumped into an aquifier and leaches into our groundwater. No commercial acid leach mine in the USA has ever been given environmental approval, yet here is an American company insisting on using it here as if our environment is their shareholders' own private toilet and spittoon.
The third mine owned by Rio Tinto has just been one environmental or health and safety breach after another. Even to their own workers, exposed to process water 400x maximum Aust safety standards in 2004. Then there was the 2 MILLION LITRES of tailings containing high levels of manganese, uranium and radium which leaked from a pipe. Then there was the contaminated water containing high uranium cocentrations released into the Coonjimba and Magela Creeks.
Depite having over one fifth of the world's reserves and the growing profitibility of yellowcake to the economy, the Australian govt has limited yellowcake mining to the three existing mines. Because it's just too damn filthy and polluting to open new ones.
Cleanest? Coal mining is much cleaner. Why should you consider there's a whole production line of pollution to get that 'clean' energy into your home, not just the painted white-for-purity nuclear power plant at the end.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
Then, you know what, you should have left at that. I can accept and understand that no two people will always agree. Hell, these forums are flooded with arguments, every single day, and that's fine. Go ahead and argue your point of view against mine. I can take it.
What I will NOT tolerate is disrespect. You had no business accusing me of self-hatred, since you know nothing of me. One does not need to hate himself/herself just because they disagree with certain things. Would it be fair to say you "hate" Apple because you don't think the new MBA's have a C2D processor? See my point?
Anyway...I'm done. Obviously people have very different views and this site, for me, is about relaxing and taking my mind off work and everything else. I'm not going to sit here and argue and debate with any one of you.
Ok, everyone needs to chill. And Darth Maul...back off Caliber. Your militant defense of morals is counter productive.
balamw
Sep 12, 07:30 PM
It's got USB.
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
Where? The pics I saw looked like power, Ethernet, HDMI and 5 RCA jacks for component out?
B
Groovey
Aug 29, 06:03 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
Something like that. They probably put pretty much weight on iPod's battery issues together with their sales amount. Waiting for that green-colored "Limited Edition Greenpeace iPod".
Something like that. They probably put pretty much weight on iPod's battery issues together with their sales amount. Waiting for that green-colored "Limited Edition Greenpeace iPod".
Zunjine
Apr 15, 12:53 PM
I know, right? You can't blame the Catholic Church because some of their chosen leaders like to diddle children. Sickos are bound to be found even in the most pristine of institutions.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Agreed - no one blames the Church for the existence of pedophiles. They blame the Church for a massive, systemic coverup lasting decades during which known child abusers were allowed to abuse thousands and thousands of Children who had been placed in the care of that same Church.
I don't want them to burn in hell - they need only confess their sins and ask for forgiveness anyway. I want them to rot in jail.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Agreed - no one blames the Church for the existence of pedophiles. They blame the Church for a massive, systemic coverup lasting decades during which known child abusers were allowed to abuse thousands and thousands of Children who had been placed in the care of that same Church.
I don't want them to burn in hell - they need only confess their sins and ask for forgiveness anyway. I want them to rot in jail.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:57 AM
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
Who cares about fair?
I'm going to tether til they change my plan, and when they do, cancel with no ETF, and use the money I would have spent paying the ETF on clear spot 4g+.
dextertangocci
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
What is up with that price???:confused: :eek:
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
Is it a mistake?!?!?
It is SO cheap!
rasmasyean
Mar 13, 10:45 PM
That's a pretty short sighted idea. Even if that were an effective way to stop a tsunami do you really think it's very wise to drop radioactive waste on all of our problems?
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
Well they shot a lot of nukes at Bikini Atol and that was near the islands where they can observer it. It didn't "create a tsunami" either. Maybe some small waves and such only and they fired off a lot of nukes there. Of course there will be some degree of radioactivity increase, but think about how much damage a tsunami like this does. It's a tradeoff.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 01:04 PM
I do not believe it is the fear of death ... I have never met a religious person that spoke of the fear of death ... it is the afterlife that gets them all giddy.
Why do they believe in an afterlife in the first place? Because the thought of the end of their existence is too much to handle. They've been born into a world that already has the concept of an afterlife, which was invented by early man.
Why do they believe in an afterlife in the first place? Because the thought of the end of their existence is too much to handle. They've been born into a world that already has the concept of an afterlife, which was invented by early man.
tigress666
Apr 9, 11:59 AM
I am firmly against poaching executives. They should always be deep-fried.
Bah! Stir-frying is better! Healthier too.
Bah! Stir-frying is better! Healthier too.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 02:43 PM
It lies at the supposed heart of Joseph Nicolosi's and NARTH's work. It's nonsense.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
"There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence". Anything outside that, obviously barely qualifies as evidence. Not wishing to get bogged down in a tired to and fro about semantics or anything...
So what? That's exactly what he is. He bilks money from deeply conflicted people who feel ashamed of themselves. When the Surgeon General of the United States releases a report saying that "there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed", then you can be assured that those on the opposite side of the argument have a bill of goods to sell.
Let me ask you an important question. Is there any evidence, testimonial or reasoned argument that would lead you to change your mind?
Is there any reasoned argument that would change my mind? I don't know, but I do know two things: One, ad hominem attacks are fallacious. Two, there's no argument anywhere in the post I'm now answering.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 07:24 PM
There is no evidence that sexual attraction/orientation can be changed by anyone, not even the individual.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
As I said, Dr. Spitzer disagrees. Please watch his video, CalBoy. I've already posted a link to it in the post where I mentioned Focus on the Family.
Mord
Jul 12, 04:12 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
likemyorbs
Mar 25, 11:11 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
Is voting also a privilege? Marriage is most definitely a right. Hence the reason why the supreme court will soon find it unconstitutional to deny is to same sex couples, just as they did in 1967 with interracial marriage. Loving v. Virgina, white man wanted to marry a black woman, didn't work out well for him at first because of the "racial integrity act" of 1924. The RIA of 1924= Defense of marriage act today. It will be struck down as a violation of civil RIGHTS.
I am a firm believer in that you are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you dont force your opinion on others.
So someone doesnt like the idea of gay relationships, attacking him for this isnt going to change his opinion. And just makes you a cretin.
When someone's opinion is a direct attack on your civil rights, then they should be attacked.
manman
Mar 18, 01:56 PM
But that doesn't make it ok to be dishonest and steal things now does it?
I can maybe get behind the whole 'dishonest' thing, but... seriously. If I have an iphone and an ipad, and I decide to surf some sites or stream music through pandora on my ipad using tethering instead of doing those exact same actions on my phone, I'm now 'stealing' that data even though it would have been the exact same usage?
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
I can maybe get behind the whole 'dishonest' thing, but... seriously. If I have an iphone and an ipad, and I decide to surf some sites or stream music through pandora on my ipad using tethering instead of doing those exact same actions on my phone, I'm now 'stealing' that data even though it would have been the exact same usage?
I realize there are other scenarios you could bring up that would be more like 'taking advantage' of the system, but me personally- if I'm using the data in a way I feel is no different than I would be using with my phone, I don't have any bad conscience about it whether it's allowed or not.
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:39 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
miles01110
May 2, 09:11 AM
lol
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
10 years and finally a malware attack.
Still unreal.
:D
Actually there's been malware for OS X since it was introduced. There is malware for every operating system.
Nothing can defend against user stupidity.
Stage
Mar 18, 06:49 PM
The DRM has nothing to do with ITMS's business model.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
DRM has everything to do with the iTMS business model.
Apple sells music only to sell iPods. People are locked into their iPods because their iTunes music can't be played on any other brand of player.
Apple killed the Harmony file functionality because it is important for the product lock in that all downloadable music on an iPod be Apple dependent. Harmony files can be played on other devices and don't lock a customer into iPods.
Apple doesn't give a rat's butt about DRM in a philosophical sense, what they care about is a captive market of iPod users with hundreds and hundreds of dollars worth of iTMS files permanently locked to iPod music players. These people have to be customers for life or throw away their music investment. This is why DRM is evil. From a copyright perspective, consumers have full legal right to play their music on any device they want. Apple doesn't want you to be able to exercise those rights (neither does Microsoft.)
By controlling access to your legally owned content, each company expects to leverage your investment in music to their own advantage. DRM to these giant companies is just a leash on their customers.
Support legal alternatives to DRM'd music, like http://www.mp3tunes.com/
DRM is literally a corporate tool to control you and your future purchases. DRM is not your friend.
Finally, boy was Apple silly to send plaintext non-DRM'd music to iTunes. Talk about hubris. The so-called hack that let people "steal" Napster to go files involved recording the stream in realtime in a different CODEC. The iTMS hack involves downloading the original files and no transcending.
Personally, I don't see this as stealing since people have to pay Apple and Apple normally sends the DRM free music anyway. The hack simply cuts out the final step. It doesn't strip any DRM.
However, this is a major breach of security for Apple, that a home-brew front end can access their music store. Apple, will have to move on this big-time with everything they have. But it will require a major shift in their infrastructure to permanently fix.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:30 AM
So there is no big
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
BUT
?
Really?
;)
You are just being disingenuous. I think you just did not quote the part that says it is only OK with the Catholic church if gay men and women do not give physical expression to their gay "inclinations".
Makes it sound like leprosy�
All I'm doing is trying to argue that sure, there's plenty of stuff in there you're going to disagree with. And that's fine and I'm sure you'd have a lot of compelling arguments to refute the points.
But it's not *hateful*. I don't see how a rational being could find that hateful. That's just something that shuts down discussion and mischaracterizes an opponent.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:53 PM
As in he hopes since you have the view of people should not infringe on your rights, that you should hopefully not infringe on others....such by opposing gay marriage
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
Oh, that wasn't very clear, or maybe I'm being obtuse lol
I don't see how gay people marrying would infringe any of my rights.
I value the freedom of expression and speech a lot.
0 comments:
Post a Comment