OT Excellent "How To" Column

On Sep 27, 5:22*pm, rw wrote:
David F wrote:
Why so angry?

Would it count if my own daughter is right now in the horn of africa?

Do I care at all what you think......of anything?

It's Bama time.....

Jesus ****ing H. Christ, are you going to post something about fly
fishing or not?

Remember this comment, on your first-ever post:

"Stick to fly fishing here."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Reading lessons needed? I believe I was promptly told that isn't how
things work here. Now if you want some secret spots on the Oreti,
you'll have to speak a bit more cordially. tabooma

David F wrote:
On Sep 27, 5:22 pm, rw wrote:

David F wrote:

Why so angry?

Would it count if my own daughter is right now in the horn of africa?

Do I care at all what you think......of anything?

It's Bama time.....

Jesus ****ing H. Christ, are you going to post something about fly
fishing or not?

Remember this comment, on your first-ever post:

"Stick to fly fishing here."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.


Reading lessons needed? I believe I was promptly told that isn't how
things work here. Now if you want some secret spots on the Oreti,
you'll have to speak a bit more cordially. tabooma

My interest in secret spots on the Oreti is negligible. But that would
be a start, though you should know that posting "secret" spots on the
Internet is questionable on many levels.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Sep 27, 7:50*am, riverman wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:45*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:

*A debate on Biblical
history is perhaps beyond the bounds of roff,

NAHAY?

but suffice it to say
that the statement the Bible is a "... completely manufactured, man-
made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-
making" is an oversell of a valid position Morford could have made a
better way. *Very few scholars would agree with the extent of that
statement. *

Very few BIBLICAL scholars, perhaps, but I would bet that a majority
of secular scholars would wholeheartedly agree.

You would bet? What the **** is a "secular scholar"?

"Completely
manufactured" possibly overstates its human origins, but remove the
'word of God' component, and that's all that is left. As for heavily
politicized and massively edited, I'm sure everyone from King James to
Billy Graham would agree to that.

I suspect that niether of them would agree that his preferred version
was heavily or massively edited or politicized.

All devout biblical scholars I know
(maybe a couple dozen over the years) discuss the importance of
learning the original Greek, or even Aramaic or Hebrew, in order to
undo the effects of editing and linguistic interpretation.

And how many of those couple dozen over the years have been fluent in
ancient Greek and ancient Aramaic and ancient Hebrew and medieval
English and thoroughly modern English? Or am I mistaken, and we are
speaking of early Norwegian and thoroughly modern Farsi translations
here?

g.
does anybody here ever read what he writes?

On Sep 27, 8:43*am, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 05:50:40 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:45*am, Family-Outdoors wrote:
*A debate on Biblical
history is perhaps beyond the bounds of roff,

NAHAY?

but suffice it to say
that the statement the Bible is a "... completely manufactured, man-
made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-
making" is an oversell of a valid position Morford could have made a
better way. *Very few scholars would agree with the extent of that
statement. *

Very few BIBLICAL scholars, perhaps, but I would bet that a majority
of secular scholars would wholeheartedly agree. "Completely
manufactured" possibly overstates its human origins, but remove the
'word of God' component, and that's all that is left. As for heavily
politicized and massively edited, I'm sure everyone from King James to
Billy Graham would agree to that. All devout biblical scholars I know
(maybe a couple dozen over the years) discuss the importance of
learning the original Greek, or even Aramaic or Hebrew, in order to
undo the effects of editing and linguistic interpretation.

Well, yeah - I mean, why didn't God just speak in plain ol' English - it would
have made things so much easier...or maybe a .pdf or something - I mean, so, OK,
it wouldn't have done Moses much good, but think of all the recent problems it
would have solved...He would have known that computers were coming, right....?

IAC, the whole idea of "scholars" on either side of (the) "religion" issue(s)
makes no sense. *Most folks have no problem when someone says, "I prefer (grape,
apple, strawberry, or whatever) jam/jelly on my PB & J," but if someone says
they prefer (Jesus, Mohammad, or none of the above), all hell breaks
loose...what's so hard to accept about that some folks believe that Jesus was
the son of God, and they are absolutely correct for them, and others believe
that he wasn't, and they are absolutely correct for them. *Hey, that's why
there's Gnostic and Vedanta...

HTH,
R

Cretin.

g.

On Sep 27, 7:34*am, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:30:07 -0500, Ken Fortenberry

wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Well, there goes health care reform...

I've always wondered why religion seems to terrify "liberals" and supposed
"intellectuals" so much...

Idiot.

g.

On Sep 27, 9:32*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Well, there goes health care reform...

Damn, which one killed health care reform, Morford or Maddow ?

I've always wondered why religion seems to terrify "liberals" and supposed
"intellectuals" so much...

I don't know any liberals or intellectuals who are terrified of
religion. Many are themselves religious and those who aren't
take a "live and let live" approach to religion.

Not only wrong, but a bald faced lie.

Now, when you start demanding that the government adopt your
religion and impose its dogma on the citizenry, that's terrifying.

Nah, that's business as usual.

Imbecile.

g.

On Sep 27, 9:40*am, wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:32:18 -0500, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You gotta love Mark Morford, talk about hitting the nail
squarely on the head:

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

And while you're at it, be sure to check out Frank Schaeffer
on a recent Rachel Maddow show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8

"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."

Well, there goes health care reform...

Damn, which one killed health care reform, Morford or Maddow ?

Er, see below...



I've always wondered why religion seems to terrify "liberals" and supposed
"intellectuals" so much...

I don't know any liberals or intellectuals who are terrified of
religion. Many are themselves religious and those who aren't
take a "live and let live" approach to religion.

Now, when you start demanding that the government adopt your
"religion" and impose its dogma on the citizenry, that's terrifying.

There...

Where?

Dumbass.

g.

On Sep 27, 11:10*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
"You cannot reorganize village life to suit the village idiot."
Well, there goes health care reform...
Damn, which one killed health care reform, Morford or Maddow ?

Er, see below...
I've always wondered why religion seems to terrify "liberals" and supposed
"intellectuals" so much...
I don't know any liberals or intellectuals who are terrified of
religion. Many are themselves religious and those who aren't
take a "live and let live" approach to religion.

Now, when you start demanding that the government adopt your
"religion" and impose its dogma on the citizenry, that's terrifying.

There...

Oddly enough, I think I understand your cryptic nonsense.

You're a liar....and a fool.....and a pig.

You're saying liberals are trying to impose their "religion"
on the citizenry. That's hilarious. I believe Todd the phony
fly fisherman expressed a similar idiotic sentiment here on
roff.

And what you believe should be of interest to somebody or
other.....because......,?

But hey, look on the bright side, no one will ever accuse you
or Todd of being a liberal or a "supposed intellectual".

Wrong again. It will most certainly happen.

Moron.

g.

On Sep 27, 12:03*pm, David F wrote:


Nonetheless the liverals do provide comic relief. Bama rules!!

O.k., anybody want to take a stab at explaining what this is?

g.

On Sep 27, 12:58*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
David F wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
You're saying liberals are trying to impose their "religion"
on the citizenry. That's hilarious. I believe Todd the phony
fly fisherman expressed a similar idiotic sentiment here on
roff.

But hey, look on the bright side, no one will ever accuse you
or Todd of being a liberal or a "supposed intellectual".

Nonetheless the liverals do provide comic relief.

That's odd, in all the coverage I've seen of ****ed off
right-wing whackjobs at town halls and teabagger rallies
and birther forums I haven't seen a single one laughing.

;ljakjsdf??

Bama rules!!

Roll Tide Roll !!

I have a soft spot in my heart (and head ;-) for Alabama football.

An thus.......?

Ken Fortenberry
formerly of Guntersville, Alabama

Yeah, you've told us more than we ever wanted to know about tidewater
genetics.

g.