Wheetsin

Thank you! I was asking seriously, and I appreciate you taking the time to provide (finally) an explanation. But where is it safe to go from there? Some of your explanation doesn't make sense. If I question it to gain deeper understanding, I'm tearing it apart. And if I don't question it, I either make assumptions about what the answers are (which does not further my understanding), or I just walk away as confused as ever, which has no gain for me. So in your opinion, what's the right course of action here? So do I understand correctly, that it frustrates you for people not to take what you say as the face value truth, and instead try to analyze it and gain a deeper understanding?

Yes! You weren't ignoring me after all! Ron Cusano, how do you KNOW that? What amazing abilities of mind reading could possibly let you know what I do or do not know? The same ones that let you know what I had or hadn't researched a page or two back? I will say it again. For the third or fourth time. I truly am sorry that you have physical challenges in being able to type, or other challenges in being able to spell. But when you type something that I literally cannot understand, what would you prefer I do? Ask to clarify, so I can be sure of what you're trying to say, or make assumptions? BTW, "3D" would not have been an assumption. Not in a million years. I honestly thought that, if anything, you were trying to say an "-ed" word, such as "blasted" or "truncated", but accidentally deleted everything except the suffix. Others have told you they would not have guessed "3d", so why won't you believe what I'm saying?

Oops just noticed this one! So if the fact that I am an atheist, who questions you about your religious beliefs despite already having my mind made up, makes me closed minded and a provoker, then... ...what does it make you to have questioned my atheism, after announcing that you were a minister?

TIVO rocks except when I have to watch TV without one. I get frustrated at not being able to fast forward.

I hope you will keep in mind the number of people who tried to help you, offer you advice and suggestions around your decision. And not lump us all into a few who have been nasty to you.

Hmm, first - no I didn't know what you meant. I'm sorry you can't type or spell well, whatever be the case, but an inability to decipher is not our (or my) issue. There's no reason to get defensive because someone literally cannot understand what you're trying to say. If I wanted to "nit-pick", I would have called out all the times you said raceist, or weather, any of the other misspells. But I didn't. I asked you to clarify meaning. If "everything I wrote is completely true", then I hate my parents because they are christians, and atheists hate christians. And franky, that's not only an inappropriate thing for you to suggest, but it's also, flat out, stone cold, black and white, wrong. I have? You're the one who brought up the entire topic of religion, after claiming to be a minister. Yet I'm the provoker? And how can I have done it "since day one" when for a long time, I wasn't even involved in this thread? Now that's desperation if I've ever seen it. You have not given an insightful answer to my questions, you've evaded them or gone on the defense. Or answered one little tiny piece of a larger question, or answered anything BUT what you were asked.

No, I actually had no idea. That's why I asked. I wanted to be able to understand what it was you were trying to say. How could I have known that "eD wording" meant 3D?? So I guess what we're really seeing is an example of your wrong assumptions, and volatile nature. Ok, you're probably going to attribute this to more nit-picking, but I've tried re-reading this statement a few different times and I really cannot understand what you're trying to say. Could you perhaps reword it? description what what was said is withing the context And no, I'm not looking for geometric descriptions. Nor am I trying to provoke an argument, but again with the wrong assumptions. I am trying to get an answer to my question. If the bible is to be taken literally, and the bible calls the earth a circle, is the earth a circle? Why not just answer the question? So scripture is literal, except for where it is not literal. If I understand correctly. And where it is not literal, subjective context rules the meaning. As I've said many times now, I'm trying to understand where you're coming from, as it's definitely a bit divergent from the customary. I'm not a scriptural scholar, nor have I ever pretended to be. I have read the words, but I would never assume that how I take them is correct. So I have to ask. Only by asking can I understand what others think. I am serious. I think most people reading this thread would also say that I'm serious. I want to know. When I don't know something, I ask questions. It's strange, that when I've questioned Gadget or Lisa or Carlene or - well - any other christians, they've understood that my questions were questions, have taken them at face value, and have been happy to give me answers. Why are you so defensive when questioned? And what makes you believe I am close-minded? That I don't agree with your perspectives? Really? And if you want to try and call foul about how someone is acting, or how you believe you're being treated, or whatever else you perceive to be happening, RnR is not the place to do it. It's kind of the nature of the beast -- "if you can't take the heat don't go in the kitchen" kind of thing. I think you were reminded about this earlier, too. At least once. And hence you have proven the "Predictable Cycle of Ron Cusano behavior" absolutely correct. You get backed into a corner you can't rhetoric or evade your way out of, or someone shows that you are wrong, or you start to stutter over your own words. Adn then you try and make it person by attacking people's beliefs or, in the case of heathens like me with no beliefs, personalities. And when that doesn't work, you "quit". Either quitting specific conversations, or dramatically quitting the entire thread(s) (only to later come back). And no, this forum was around loooong before I was. But nice try. Unfortunately your insults have about as much impact as your logic. Aww, you give up so easily... I'm disappointed. Ok, that visual is about as creepy as you calling me darling.

First, what's "eD" wording? Second, you're talking about scripture. I'm an atheist. Scripture is all Peter Pan to me. So why on earth would I have a preference for the wording? Third, it is not "nit-picking" when you say that something should be taken literally, but then do not take it literally. That's a total paradigm shift. Everyone knows that context changes meaning, just like punctuation can. And if the meaning of something can be changed, it cannot be taken literally, because it is inherently subjective to its audience. So I truly, from the core of my curiosity, would like to know how you can have both "take it literally" and "don't take it literally" at the same time. My questions were serious, and you evaded them. Perhaps you believed for some reason that they were not serious, but then - what you believe isn't always right. It's only right to you. And hence we come very close to full circle. Yes, I deny that. I breeze past most of what you say. If you look back at this thread, you'll notice I've disregarded many more posts than what I have replied to. And I would also deny any "great lengths" to find fault with "everything" you say. For a few reasons. First being that when I have found fault with something you have said, it has been obvious. It doesn't take great lengths for me to see that the shirt I have on is brown, just as it doesn't take great lengths to see that something you have said is faulty. Second being that I don't pay attention to "everything" you say. There's no way I could even pretend to have read everything you've posted, let alone given them any regard or attention. So... yep. I would pretty much have to deny what you've asked. Consolidated for coherence. My responses are in black:

11/11 And somehow that indicates "Your Projected Love Life: Your Love Life may bloom soon".

My bad, I misread. I thought you had said that *you* had asked me, and I didn't want to have missed it.

Missed that, where's it at? I'll go read again.

I am asking my questions very seriously. I want to know why, if you believe the bible is literal, you wouldn't also believe the world is a circle, as the bible states. Or why you wouldn't believe that rabbits have rumen, as the bible indicates. How are those questions nit-picking? It seems like whenever you're called out on evading questions, or when it's shown that what you have said is not accurate, or when someone doesn't allow you to skirt around the question, this is the turn you take. Why not just answer the questions? Why does your refusal equate to people "whinning" (a.k.a whining), or playing childish games, or mocking your faith, or a host of other accusations? If you don't have an answer, it's ok to say so. No one has all the answers, or they'd also have all the Nobels. And it's much more respectable to say "I can't answer that", or "I don't know" than to disguise your inability or reluctance to answer as someone else's childishness or stupidity.

I have a hard time buying the "they asked for it" logic when it comes to things like violent behavior. Does anyone believe the "She asked for it" rape defense, because a woman wears a provocative outfit? Is that different from believing a "He asked for it" defense if a male wore a provocative outfit, that happened to provoke something different?

:clap2: :clap2:

Why are you so intent on misquoting me? I ASKED why there are "no geological signs". I never SAID there was NO EVIDENCE. And after asking for resources, I later added that MY searches had been unsuccessful, not that ALL searches had been. THis is the 2nd time I've had to explain to you the difference between what actually transpired, and what you're claiming transpired. It's like you read what's on the screen, and then let it mean whatever you want it to. But ironically enough, you're the first one to call foul if someone misquotes you, e.g. the most recent exchange between you and TOM. So why can you wantonly misquote others, but no one can do it to you? And I'm still waiting to hear what qualifies you to make the statement to me that, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know? On what evidence do you base that claim? ...and a host of other questions still lingering out there.

My grandmother will be 75 this week. I've already set up a surprise dinner (she thinks it's just me and her going, but the entire family will be there) at her favorite restaurant, ordered a cake, balloons, flowers, etc. Those were the easy parts. The hard part is figuring out a gift. :faint: She is in good health, but has started gifting away her possessions, streamlining her will, etc. Because of this I'm hesitant to buy her anything "material" - knick-knacks, etc. I've gone the route of maid, lawn service, pre-paid classes, computer, etc. and they're either done, or haven't gone over as well as one might hope. So my current thought is to treat her to a day at the spa - color correction rinse for her hair (white hair + smoker = yellow hair), cut, manicure, facial, pedicure, etc. Maybe Mario Triccoci or one of the "papmering" spas. She won't do a massage - too modest. Any other suggestions? $500 or under.

All in all life isn't that different. And IMO, whatever differences are in place, are sooo worth it.

Haha, I do spoil my family. I expect that will change if/when we have a child. In the meantime, I help them live it up. She is about an hour and a half away. We don't have a super close relationship. I was much, much closer to my grandfather, and when he died, the whole dynamic of our family changed. (Funny how that happens - you have the "glue" that binds the entire family, and things sort of fall apart if they're gone.) How do I say this nicely... I can tolerate her well in small doses. And I just remembered, she's one of the... what are they called, red hats? Red hat society? Something like that. Maybe something she could do with them? (Eekgad, my grandmother in a bright purple feather boa is a thread of its own.)

The only surgeon I've heard of who takes patients that are not his own is Dr. Malley -- I think he does, anyway. I have no idea what he charges. He advertises on TV all the time, so I'm sure his number is out there somewhere. Oops, jsut googled "dr malley kansas city" and go this website, ph # included: http://www.malleysurgical.com/

It's weird, how much relativity is involved. The picture below was taken around the time I last felt comfortable about my body. At the time, although I felt comfortable, I also felt fat. And I was fat, relative to what I had weighed a few months before. But now I'd be thrilled if I could get there, even if I never went a pound below. What was I thinking?

Jeans are a nightmare for me. My legs are usually too long for "averages", and a little too short for "talls". No problem, I usually just get the talls and be sure to wear a heel. But if I don't want to wear a heel, it's either have my hems dragging on the ground, or be ready for a flood. And if the jeans fit in my hips, they're gaping in the waist. Once I found a perfect pair of jeans at Gordman's. Bought them and they fit perfect, like they were made for me. First pair of jeans in my life, ever, even when I was thin, that fit well. I went back the next day to buy more and they were gone. The brand is back now, but they're this low rise cut (which is not flattering on me, since I have a "double belly"... you know, where it look slike a B instead of a ). Sure, that makes perfect sense! Anyway, when I wear low rise jeans, the waist usually hits the "fold" in my double belly, making it stick out over the top of the jeans. Which I refuse to have. Which means higher rise pants, which also means no bootcut or flare leg, which are the only ones that look right on me. *sigh* Oh, something I said earlier reminds me of a peeve. I hate that kids are wearing really long jeans now, and apparently not washing them very often either. The bottoms of the legs drag through the dirt and ran and oil and everything else, and get filthy, and this is the style? And I KNOW they didn't get that filthy from just one wearing. Are dirty clothes trendy now?!?

Try telling yourself: Nothing tastes as good as being healthy feels, and see if that makes any difference. Otherwise, TIVOs are quite nice investments.

I'm sorry, what does that mean? I'm not sure if you tried to type "nonsense" or "non essence" or something different, and don't want to make assumptions. So you still haven't answered my question. You take the bible literally. The bible says the world is a circle. Do you believe the world is a circle? I didn't ask "Why do the people call it a circle?", as you answered. I asked what you believe. Is the world a sphere, or is the bible to be taken literally? And you also haven't answered what it is, exactly, that qualifies you to say, "You just haven't looked." How could you possibly know? Now - hang on. You're the first one to say, "That's not what I said !! Show me where I said that !!" So be careful what you indicate others have said. My words were, "I've been unsuccessful in my searches." BIG difference. No, I'm not talking about cows. I don't think you got my point. I was talking about CUD, which comes from rumen. And it ONLY comes from rumen. Saliva doesn't come from the eye or the ear or the toes, it ONLY comes from the mouth. If you say "saliva", you're talking about something from the mouth. And if you say "tears", you're talking about something from the eyes. And if you say "cud", you're talking about something from the rumen, not from the stomach. So I'll ask again, because this was yet another question you evaded. If you believe the bible is literal, then you believe that rabbits have rumen. And if you don't believe that rabbits have rumen, then you believe the bible is not literal. Which do you believe? I'm confused. It took you many years of intense study and learning to form the belief that I'm trying to prove you wrong?? Yes, I agree. And context makes meaning subjective. It can completely change the meaning. How can something be literal when it depends on context? Your analogy of law doesn't equate. Laws were written literally, but they cannot be literal in today's world was the gist of what you said, if I remember correctly. So by your analogy the bible was literal once upon a time, but it cannot be literal in today's world. Would that be the parallel?

Hi Sunta, and happy anniversary! I'm not going to guess about what you're feeling, but a firned of mine who is banded experienced increasing pain around her port - if I remember correctly. From mild annoyance to take your breath away attacks. In her case, her tubing had herniated and the surgeon just poked it back in place, added some reinforcing, and called it good.

Most in the Rants and Raves forum do believe in god. I've seen a handful of atheists have presence here. Count is now probably up 5 or 6 "known" atheists. For that to be most in this forum, it would mean that there are no more than 5 others who post to RnR. And that's simply not accurate.