LadyRaven

I agree with FA here, this is abuse. I could see things her way if you had all the help you needed and you just weren't doing as much as you could, but when you do the best you can and that is not good enough for her, then she is not good enough for you. Do what you need to do, get whatever assistance you need and can get without her. Maybe she will get fed up and leave. (oh, and make sure she's not taking advantage of you financially too, this happens a good bit).

I am very happy that Tel Aviv has the resources to waste on this project, I wish we did. I would not advocate using the funds that way, but if we had resources to waste the state wouldn't be looking at cuts all over the place.

There are people who pay 11$ per gallon for milk. That's when I'd give it up, quite frankly.

Are you trying to say that the UPC is not a christian organization, that is absurd. By the way I am not apart of the UPC, I Go to a ''Church of God'' which is a trinitarian pentecostal denom, but the UPC is not heretical it is christian, they just happen to believe differently than you do. By the way people have accuse this organization and that organization of being non-christian, and sometimes I agree, but in my opinion calvinism are less christian than any of them. Does the UPC teach the trinity? If it does not then it is heretical, not Christian and teaching a false Christ. This indicates the gospel that they preach is, scripturally, another doctrine. If it does and it embraces all other aspects of orthodoxy (like the virgin birth, etc) then it is one. That is the defining point. The Holy Spirit is not going to allow believers to embrace heresy for very long after they are saved, He will lead believers away from it. Whether you like Calvinism or not, or whether I like Arminianism or not, they both do, in their original forms, hold to orthodox Christian beliefs and therefore are both Christian in their original forms.

God can and does often save people who have little or know knowledge about any kind of doctrine. It is possible to be saved without knowing or understanding the truth about the trinity. However, once you are saved, the Holy Spirit will lead you to eventually at least apprehend that the trinity is truth (you dont have to get it, just affirm it) and lead you out of and away from any heretical teachings which deny the trinity. Any organised body which denies the trinity, however, is not Christian, no matter how many of the elect sit in it's pews. It is a heretical sect, a lie, and it is incumbent upon those of us who know the truth to make sure that everyone understands this. The Jesus they preach is a different Jesus, The Father a different father and the Holy Spirit a different spirit. Therefore the gospel they preach is a different gospel.

You know what they say... Common sense is an oxymoron....

I'd never heard of her until she was on celebrity millionaire... I dont care what she thinks any more than I care what Tom Cruise thinks or what Oprah thinks about politics. Just because they have a good deal of money and have made it big entertaining us does not mean they have any brain cells or that they have cells which are firing properly. (Not saying that any of these people are stupid either, but being successful in show biz does not indicate intelligence, just look at Paris Hilton)

Doesn't the F word and the S word sound vulgar to anyone else regardless of the meaning? It does to me. That's part of the make up of foul words - it SOUNDS vulgar to the ears...regardless of whether it's just another "word" for sex or whatever. I heard a word in another language once without knowing the meaning and I just knew it was foul. I was right. I was told by a co-worker not long ago that there was nothing wrong with the word nigger. That is was ok because it was stating a colour. Go figure that one. They would sound vulgar to us because they have been vulgar to us since we were...however old we were when we first heard them and had someone point out that they were. I mean, I could go into a lengthy discussion about the evolution of the *s* word, and I admit that in the American pronunciation it does sound harsh but so do many words which have similar origins which are not cuss words. As for the F-bomb ... to me...well...other than the fact that I see no reason for the existence of that word and other than the fact that meaning of the word has evolved into something which makes me sick and other than the fact that lately it seems that it's WAAAYYYY overused over and above all other cuss words --- doesn't sound any harsher than fork does. To Me. But I'm not the measure of profanity either. One day these words will be archaic and some other words will have moved into their place as active cuss words. As for the last word, once she says that word in the company of people who have been called that all their lives, she'll learn real fast. It might have (I've read plenty of differing accounts of the development of the word) meant a colour at one time, but now it's an insult and it might get you killed around here.

Umm....I must be somewhat dim tonight..... No matter what they mean - you can't seperate the sense of vulgarity from these words. Not to sound pious at all, but I make a point of NOT using these 2 words in particular. I think speckles was attempting to explain what makes something a cuss word and using those two words as examples as just about everyone agrees that they are vulgar. Please help me out... So if those 2 four letter words were spoken, in the manner of their original meaning, then that would be fine? Is that it? If they had never, ever, veered from their original meanings, then they would have no more value to us than the words feces and sex do. Speckles was saying that when we take words from their original meaning and then use them to denigrate something, that is what makes it a cuss word. Therefore, if you use substitutes in the same manner (to denigrate something) then you are still cussing. For instance if instead of saying "I really hate that f-in thing" you say "I really hate that flipping thing" you are still cussing because you are using the word flipping to bring the 'thing' down in your mind and communicate that to other people. You just were less shocking while you did it. what makes it vulgar is the idea that you can take an idea and make it disgusting by adding a word to it.

Here, anyway, it depends largely on the party and who and what was in control. If you are underaged and the party was known to be a drinking party and etc and everyone goes then there might be a concern as a group. However, if a set of parents decide to let Jr hold a party and one or two of the people Jr invites passes a bottle around in a secluded area with a few of their drinking friends, not all of the kids and possibly not even the parents will be busted. or, if the parents are the ones who call/text the police because they found out and asked the kids to leave and they wouldn't do so (they had that happen in England actually). Parties have a habit of being crashed and the LE around here tends to understand that.

Well, it's better than having cameras all over. When the cops are tipped off, they come over and if there is suspicion everyone blows into the breath thing and the guilty and those who didn't stop them go away and the innocent go home. No problem. Honestly it's not wasting resources, cause most likely there is a trooper already in the area that can drive by and see if there is any indication that the person texting was supplying an actual tip and not a hoax.

Umm....I must be somewhat dim tonight..... No matter what they mean - you can't seperate the sense of vulgarity from these words. Not to sound pious at all, but I make a point of NOT using these 2 words in particular. I think speckles was attempting to explain what makes something a cuss word and using those two words as examples as just about everyone agrees that they are vulgar.

Sorry, my compy froze and it posted twice. Actually, it could be used to control the crowd at USC games. Especially those who want to park and tailgate too close to the stadium and interfere with the workings of the 'loose cockaboose."

pot

I agree that words only have the meaning we give them and nowhere in the Bible are we forbidden to use the word *s*. However, we are told to "come out from among them", and if I say 'sugar' or 'hockey pucks' in place of a word Christians, and the world, consider to be a swear word, I am separating myself in some way. And if every Christian went around saying all kinds of four letter words all day long, well....that silly exageration need not even be finished! I honestly am not sure if the biblical prohibition against coarse language was about whether or not to use *s* or feces to describe our waste products (or *s* or sugar to describe some emotional reaction to stubbing one's toe) or this whole fascination with discussions about things nobody really needs to know about (like one's sex life). Or maybe it's both. I really dont know. Well, it's not a salvation issue, I will grant you that. But it is a heart issue. For instance. I have spilled a whole bowl of uncooked scrambled eggs on the floor (a common occurrence with my arthritis and fibromyalgia) and I am, as usual, broke enough that this means I've come up one meal short this week. Not only this, no one is available to help me clean it up, which means much pain for me. I have become angry and frustrated and I just blurt something out. Now if I have to say 'sugar' instead of *s* it indicates that I still have something evil in my heart. I'm not saying I never say anything when spill something on the floor and become angry, but honestly, it doesn't matter what i have to say it's still evil because it's a verbal expression of my extreme inability to handle a simple spill. I mean, Jesus says if I just think about hurting someone or sleeping with someone I have committed the sin, so, even if I say 'sugar' or 'shucks' instead, my heart was still evil because it wasn't necessary to comment about my anger at all. Why cant I just say "Well, there that went" like my grandma did? She was just as sore and even more broke than I am. I have no excuse, my mouth is an expression of the fact that I have anger issues and cant just et the small things go.

No, we do not have to use culturally relevant things to get attention, the gospel is attention getting enough. And in many cases, depending on what it is, we should not do it. Even though I dont get 'worked up' about cussing (or some of it anyway), I dont want to find it in inspirational material. A biography or historical novel perhaps, but not inspirational material. And I dont think we should ever resort to gimmicks of any kind, even the cutesy because it cheapens the message.

Haven't heard anything here lately, but it used to be that Phil Driscoll was called "the cussing pastor." *shrugs* This isn't something I get all worked up about. It's something plenty of people in the body struggle with, and it's not going to cause anyone who hears it to go to hell. Not saying we should all be blue or anything, but it's a matter of perspective. Words only have the value we ascribe to them in this sense. How is the *s* word any more offensive for the solid wastes we produce than the word 'poo' or 'turd' or what have you? It only is so because someone decided it was. Yet, back in olde, olde England (like before shakespeare) it was just a word for feces. One could argue that using such a word to express strong emotion would not be valid as it has nothing really to do with the meaning of the word and thus is vulgar, but then what about saying "sugar" or 'hockey pucks" in it's place? Are you not actually saying (inside) the same thing since it isn't the word that is important?

Yeah, we (my group of friends that we call "the Myxx") spent months talking about it, we were all surprised. Never would have guessed. Which in the end helped me forgive those in my own life who have refused to believe that my uncle molested me as a child. I now know how hard it is to wrap your mind around the fact that someone close to you is a pervert. I didn't want to believe and couldn't understand at first. I know he did cause he admitted it, but when no good answer to why came about, I had to eventually accept that. She hasn't formally left him, she waffles between being confused, angry, discouraged and hopeful. He was diagnosed with a mental disorder, but... he's still a sex offender. Even if he's rehabbed, which is sorta risky, she still will be worried about how that will affect their son (who is the absolute cutest thing, btw) and his life growing up. He has said that he would live elsewhere if that meant their son could have a normal life, but ... One day at a time, his parole wont be for years.

Yeah, we (my group of friends that we call "the Myxx") spent months talking about it, we were all surprised. Never would have guessed. Which in the end helped me forgive those in my own life who have refused to believe that my uncle molested me as a child. I now know how hard it is to wrap your mind around the fact that someone close to you is a pervert. I didn't want to believe and couldn't understand at first. I know he did cause he admitted it, but when no good answer to why came about, I had to eventually accept that. She hasn't formally left him, she waffles between being confused, angry, discouraged and hopeful. He was diagnosed with a mental disorder, but... he's still a sex offender. Even if he's rehabbed, which is sorta risky, she still will be worried about how that will affect their son (who is the absolute cutest thing, btw) and his life growing up. He has said that he would live elsewhere if that meant their son could have a normal life, but ... One day at a time, his parole wont be for years.

It might also be state troopers running people over, I just got the impression it was county since that county rep is always commenting just before the governor does when the stories come out. YOU know someone who knew BRIAN TERRELL? Talk about a shocker! I worked with him, I visited his family and I'm friends with his wife... Did you know it made national news? when I called my sister living in DC, she knew about it.

Ax If you rrreeeallllly want me to post some stuff about the Richland County police, I could do so. But honestly that wasn't the POINT of my post. The point is that the local news is reporting abuse and corruption locally. There doesn't appear to be any chronic under reporting of embarrassing police events here, so I was surprised that the APC story had passed by unnoticed, at least to my knowledge. And speckles hadn't seen it either.

While not all police forces are full of corruption and abuses of power, this particular one is very much so. One of the favourite tactics here with petty criminals is to run them over with police cruisers as they attempt to escape the scene of the crime when the SOP is to chase them on foot. We have repeated reports of law enforcement on the take and hooked on drugs, and we wanna give these self same people and APC with a machine gun on top?

Well, I read Reason Mag online fairly often and I have learned that when they have an article there, their source is in ORANGE and BOLD. This was the source at Reason.com POLICEMAG. Note that Reason.com only picked it up in Sept, when it was in the magazine in March. I went to the State's website and looked up Leon Lott and "special response team" and was given a few articles from February and March of 2008. I dont have an archive account so I could not read them all, but they had to do with the APC. So, I guess we got the thing early this year. Glad I'm in Lexington County I wonder why it wasn't on the news. (I know which broadcast you listen to now, only one runs news for hours here....) I think I will shoot them an email. Maybe they didn't notice the story. Sorry everyone, I really didn't realise that this story was so old and dated from early this year. I thought it was new as I hadn't heard anything about it before. Someone drew it to my attention a few days ago and when I was looking for alternative sources (as I do, usually to check the veracity of a story. I try to find it on at least two other sources, but they don't have to be mainstream news sources as I've found that this doesn't really make any difference because someone will inevitably come out and say "well the NY Times, Guardian, LA times, WorldNetDaily or what ever would say that, wouldn't they? It seems that some people won't believe anything unless it comes out of Fox news or CNN) I found the POLICEMAG site amongst a lot of others. However, I picked on the Reason.com one because it had a a really good picture and the Policemag one was kind of mundane. I didn't even notice that the article in the magazine was dated in March, sorry, just my carelessness. But, having said that, I must say that I get the impression that a lot of mainstream new sites or journalists tend to stay away from anything that might make the DHS look even slightly bad. I don't think it is a case of "they didn't notice it" (it's a pretty big story to miss) but a case of "they didn't want to acknowledge it". It's not your fault that Reason just picked up on the story. I believe those people have lives too and cant sit about 24-7 grabbing news. At least it was picked up on this year. As far as the local news channel here, they are fairly good at reporting abuses of power in our local area (google Richland or Lexington county police, and then something to do with chasing criminals who were escaping on foot and running them down with police cars and you should hit the mother lode), but not noticing I wasn't meaning that they didn't notice it at all, but that, since we have a good deal of local news here, it was something that got set aside and passed under the notice of the person that reports on these things. Since the beginning of the year that person has pretty much been concentrating on scammers in the area that pick on little old ladies, police who run people over and gang violence. The news here is not ultra friendly to Leon Lott, so if it was something that the person who reports on this topic had actually completely noticed, he would have reported on it. This doesn't mean it happens everywhere, but this particular news channel in this particular area is pretty good about facing issues where law enforcement of any kind does not look good.

Well, I read Reason Mag online fairly often and I have learned that when they have an article there, their source is in ORANGE and BOLD. This was the source at Reason.com POLICEMAG. Note that Reason.com only picked it up in Sept, when it was in the magazine in March. I went to the State's website and looked up Leon Lott and "special response team" and was given a few articles from February and March of 2008. I dont have an archive account so I could not read them all, but they had to do with the APC. So, I guess we got the thing early this year. Glad I'm in Lexington County I wonder why it wasn't on the news. (I know which broadcast you listen to now, only one runs news for hours here....) I think I will shoot them an email. Maybe they didn't notice the story.

If you had 5 Baptists in a room you might have 6 different opinions...because the way I understand it, the defining doctrine of the Baptists is adult baptism of the believer. I am not sure there are any other defining doctrines common to all of them. I found some of the Baptist Brands listed in Charitow's post to be rather humorous though. Like: Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (As opposed to the grumpy stand-offish ones?) Primitive Baptists (I picture whole congregations in loin cloths for some reason) Regular Baptist Churches (As opposed to the irregular, strange ones?) Separate Baptist Separate Baptists in Christ (They separated and then separated again I guess) Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarian Baptists (Um, yeah...) Some Baptists are Calvinists (Reformed baptists, sovereign grace baptists, the Founders, for example, I know there are more I just dont know what they are all called) and some are very Arminian (Free-Will Baptists, Wesleyan Baptist, and I believe Missionary Baptists are too). It might be true that most Baptists are not Calvinist, but it's hard to say on this one.