Re: clinton surgery question

"MU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It's hypocritical to state that an all-powerful being is benevolent and
> yet
> is the cause of unspeakable agony.

Only to you. I would be careful with the word "cause"; be more accurate
and use the word "allow".

Read up on Pharoh.

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

moo

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Steve Harris said:

John <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

>COMMENT:
>
>Excuse me? There's a lot of agony in the world, and I want to know if
>you think all of it is necessary.

A good portion of the agony in the world is caused by people's free
will choices. Would you be willing to give up free will to avoid rape
and murder? Unfortunately, free will allows people to make bad,
really bad choices that harm themselves and others. But free will
without the ability to make a bad choice isn't free will, is it?

COMMENT:
Why no, but I think you're about to make a splendid argument why
Christians should never put violent criminals into prison, since the
effect of this is to remove free will and free choice from people who
make persistantly bad choices to do evil.

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

COMENT:

No [censored], Einstein. And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will. But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

SBH

Happy Dog said:

"MU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I know this through God's teachings and the *intimate* reasons for His
> Plan (why this and that) I don't have any real knowledge nor should I.
> Nor do I
> need to.

Happy Dog said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

WTF is THAT supposed to mean?

Exactly what is says. It's a simple sentence, grade school level.

Happy Dog said:

Grade one, maybe. Idiot Mu. You claimed that you know what doesn't happen
in the afterlife WRT reqard and punishment. You claim to know this through
god's teachings etc.

I claim to know that I learned that I do not know? Nope, never said that
Unhappy TrollPuppy.

Quoted message said:

Then you claim that you have no real knowledge or any
need for it. And you also claim to be a skeptic. This is patently
hallucinatory.

Maybe to you. Makes perfect sense and works quite well for me. One can be
skeptical without the need to know; you confuse "desire to know" with need
to know. I desire to know, and will, someday but I have no need to know
until then. God's Plan.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do you care what I say? You made a point of claiming my uselessness.
Why do you even respond? Why waste your time?

Happy Dog said:

I care only enough to post worthy rebuttals, like above. I don't care that
you're a dysfunctional religious nut.

Oh, I am highly functional; what do you do when you aren't a TROLL? Do you
work? Sleep all the time? Use your Puppy pan?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You claim to be a skeptic but
feel that "God's teachings" are axiomatic.

I never said that. You made that up out of thin air.

Happy Dog said:

Nope. You can't explain how god's teachings are transmitted and how you
arrive at a particular viewpoint when most of the rest of the world has a
different one.

Sure I can. As to what the rest of the world knows is of little concern to
me.

Happy Dog said:

All that adds up to a POV which requires god's teachings to
be self-evident to any right-thinking individual. Like you, no?

God lets me know what He feels I need to know. Faith not right thinking
opens that channel of knowledge.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So when I ask you to show us, in
detail, exactly what the no-[censored] teachings are that eclipse all the other
no-[censored] teachings of other gods, you'll put it in a succint and credible
form. Not.

You never asked me for any such detail. Drink less when you post.

"When I ask you" is in the present. The question is implied.

I don't know what a "no [censored]" teaching is. Try again. No [censored], please do.
lol

Happy Dog said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Only to one so blinded by the Light that they can't grasp the logical
fundamental that all untestable (as in impossible to test) claims are
logically equivalent.

See above regarding drinking.

Gee MU, you've really seized on this particular insult. Projecting perhaps?

Projecting what? You post like you are imbibed, that's all.

I am afraid Dr. Chung is performing a kind of Sisyphus work trying to
explain rationally the idea of God (three in one, one for three?) of his
words, of his deeds. Men are not and will never be able to understand this.
It is the matter of belief, of faith. - The virtually ununderstable things -
f.i. the Holy Trinity, mankind's sufferings, etc. - belong to the "secret
of faith..."
That simple.
D.
PS Nevertheless, I appreciate dr. Chung's efforts to be good and make the
unbelievers good too...;-)

"Steve Harris [email hidden]" <[email hidden]> je
napisal v sporocilo news:[email hidden] ...

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Steve Harris said:

John <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> >COMMENT:
> >
> >Excuse me? There's a lot of agony in the world, and I want to know
> >if
> >you think all of it is necessary.
>
> A good portion of the agony in the world is caused by people's free
> will choices. Would you be willing to give up free will to avoid
> rape
> and murder? Unfortunately, free will allows people to make bad,
> really bad choices that harm themselves and others. But free will
> without the ability to make a bad choice isn't free will, is it?

COMMENT:
Why no, but I think you're about to make a splendid argument why
Christians should never put violent criminals into prison, since the
effect of this is to remove free will and free choice from people who
make persistantly bad choices to do evil.

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

COMENT:

No [censored], Einstein. And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will. But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

SBH

Steve Harris said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Steve Harris said:

John <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> >COMMENT:
> >
> >Excuse me? There's a lot of agony in the world, and I want to know if
> >you think all of it is necessary.
>
> A good portion of the agony in the world is caused by people's free
> will choices. Would you be willing to give up free will to avoid rape
> and murder? Unfortunately, free will allows people to make bad,
> really bad choices that harm themselves and others. But free will
> without the ability to make a bad choice isn't free will, is it?

COMMENT:
Why no, but I think you're about to make a splendid argument why
Christians should never put violent criminals into prison, since the
effect of this is to remove free will and free choice from people who
make persistantly bad choices to do evil.

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

COMENT:

No [censored], Einstein.

Then why write it?

Quoted message said:

And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will.

Correct. For example, He could have prevented the crucifixion of His Son but then we would not have been saved.

Quoted message said:

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

What I discern is that such actions would be contrary to His will and plan.

Quoted message said:

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

This would not be about my beliefs but about what is true.

Quoted message said:

SBH

You remain in my prayers, dear Steve whom I love.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R20632B48

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867

DP said:

I am afraid Dr. Chung is performing a kind of Sisyphus work trying to
explain rationally the idea of God (three in one, one for three?) of his
words, of his deeds. Men are not and will never be able to understand this.
It is the matter of belief, of faith. - The virtually ununderstable things -
f.i. the Holy Trinity, mankind's sufferings, etc. - belong to the "secret
of faith..."
That simple.

Yes it is.

"MU" <[email hidden]> wrote>> Grade one, maybe. Idiot Mu. You
claimed that you know what doesn't happen

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the afterlife WRT reqard and punishment. You claim to know this
through
god's teachings etc.

I claim to know that I learned that I do not know? Nope, never said that
Unhappy TrollPuppy.

You said that reward and punishment are not meted out in the afterlife. (I
said this was an assumption and you said it was incorrect.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then you claim that you have no real knowledge or any
need for it. And you also claim to be a skeptic. This is patently
hallucinatory.

Maybe to you. Makes perfect sense and works quite well for me. One can be
skeptical without the need to know; you confuse "desire to know" with need
to know. I desire to know, and will, someday but I have no need to know
until then. God's Plan.

A skeptic who doesn't need to ask questions? How cute.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You claim to be a skeptic but
> feel that "God's teachings" are axiomatic.

I never said that. You made that up out of thin air.

Quoted message said:

Nope. You can't explain how god's teachings are transmitted and how you
arrive at a particular viewpoint when most of the rest of the world has a
different one.

Sure I can. As to what the rest of the world knows is of little concern to
me.

So much for skepticism. Anyone with a skeptical bone would ask why
Christian adherents are in the minority. But you just don't care to know.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All that adds up to a POV which requires god's teachings to
be self-evident to any right-thinking individual. Like you, no?

God lets me know what He feels I need to know. Faith not right thinking
opens that channel of knowledge.

OK. Self evident to any faithful person. So why do people of different
faiths get different messages? How do you know that yours is true?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>So when I ask you to show us, in
> detail, exactly what the no-[censored] teachings are that eclipse all the
> other
> no-[censored] teachings of other gods, you'll put it in a succint and
> credible
> form. Not.

You never asked me for any such detail. Drink less when you post.

"When I ask you" is in the present. The question is implied.

I don't know what a "no [censored]" teaching is. Try again. No [censored], please do.

Yes you do mu mu. It's the real version of universal reality that the
faithful, oops, Christian faithful, understand. But, like I said, can't
explain in a rational way to skeptics or non-believers. Just like the other
faithful...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

See above regarding drinking.

Gee MU, you've really seized on this particular insult. Projecting
perhaps?

Projecting what? You post like you are imbibed, that's all.

Occasionally. Better than drunk on Jesus.

le mo

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

Happy Dog said:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

COMENT:

No [censored], Einstein.

Einstein could spell "Comment".

Quoted message said:

And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will.

Sure could.

Quoted message said:

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

Quoted message said:

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

If they are disguised, by definition, how would I recognize them as "my"
beliefs?

On 24 Sep 2004 12:10:11 -0700, Steve Harris [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

I've had all these Christians earnestly tell me that allowing evil
people to exercise their free will in doing evil deeds, is *necessary*
for the Great Scheme of Things. If that's so, I'm trying to get them
to explain to me why good Christians become policemen, judges, prison
guards, and serve on juries. Since of effect of all these things is to
restrain exercise of free will by people who make evil choices. Is
this the thing to do, or not?

It is and you continue to refuse to learn the difference between the free
will and the freedom to act on it.

Why is that? It's a simple concept.

Quoted message said:

Similarly, I've had all these Christians tell me that natural disease
and suffering is NECESSARY for the great scheme of things. So I'm
wondering why Christians become social workers, sanitation engineers,
nurses, doctors, firefighters, paramedics, and so on. Since the effect
of all these things is to decrease the amount of natural disease and
suffering in the world. So is this the good thing to do, or not?

See above. God's Plan includes or active participation in life.

Quoted message said:

Let me get this straight: god won't restrain the undetected serial
murderer, but he wants US to do so. How's that again?

See above. God's Plan includes or active participation in life.

Quoted message said:

And if we can't
figure it out, god doesn't mind the string of victims which results,
until we do. And if we never do, god allows it to continue to Green
River Killer or Zimbabwe/Nazi genocide proportions.

See above. God's Plan includes or active participation in life.

Quoted message said:

Similarly, god won't restrain the lightning, but he doesn't mind if we
invent lightening rods. God won't wipe out smallpox, but god has no
problem with us if we do it. It sounds kind of like a yawner either
way, from the Christian point of view.

Seeing as you are not a Christian, your POV on Christianity is one of an
outsider looking in.

Quoted message said:

How amazing the view through your rose colored glasses, Chung! All
the people with free will, both good and evil, and all the natural
forces acting impersonally to cause suffering or not, by random
change, all conspire to make this world, every day and every way, the
best of all possible worlds at all times. With all the evils in it
*always* necessary ones. Or have I misunderstood?

Nope.

In article <[email hidden]>,

MU said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

Happy Dog said:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't? I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

Luna said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't? I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

I let God drive that car, Luna. That is a component and a "perk" of faith.
It's not always clear and straightforward but God has promised to give me
whatever I need, not what I want, in the way of understanding. To date,
He's done good.

In article <[email hidden]>,

MU said:

Luna said:

Quoted message said:

> Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that
> the
> events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author. Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't? I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

I let God drive that car, Luna. That is a component and a "perk" of faith.
It's not always clear and straightforward but God has promised to give me
whatever I need, not what I want, in the way of understanding. To date,
He's done good.

Neat. I feel I have everything I need in the way of understanding too, but
no one gave it to me. I had to learn it myself. But in general, people
value more that which they struggle for, rather than that which is handed
to them.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

MU said:

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fyi, incarceration does not remove free will. It does limit options for
exercising free will.

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

COMENT:

No [censored], Einstein.

Einstein could spell "Comment".

Quoted message said:

And exacly the same argument applies to god. There
are many possible ways he could restrain evil people from carrying out
evil actions, without depriving them of free will.

Sure could.

Quoted message said:

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

Quoted message said:

What is it--- does something in your brains make you Rock-Stupid when
it comes to your own beliefs, but magically make the dummy-think wear
off temporarily when those same beliefs are fed back at you in
disguised form?

If they are disguised, by definition, how would I recognize them as "my"
beliefs?

<LOL> More MU_Shy logic. But the more important question is why you're
answering questions as though you were Chung when the questions are
addressed to Chung? You say you don't do that. Hmmmmm Could that be
<gasp> untrue...?

Bob

MU said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

<LOL> That "accurately" is the kicker, huh? Chung says that there's a
lot that can be and he says he's a scientist. It looks to me, and I
certainly don't want to create a situation with you and your
cardiotrician, but you're saying he's dead wrong. That makes it pretty
much unanimous.

Quoted message said:

Happy Dog said:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate

More "truth discernment" in action? Chung still insists that the Flood
happened and that it covered the entire world 15 cubits deep, even Mt
Everest where they only eat 2 pounds of food a day. <LOL> He insists
that there's geological evidence that this is so. Scientific American
disagrees and offers lengthy citations and references. Chung merely
says, "I discern it to be so."

It's wonderfully funny watching him pee on his big, floppy shoes.

Quoted message said:

and many
times contradictory from author to author.

Yet you think it's the word of God. Chung says it's absolutely true
(even while weaseling his way around the "inconsistencies"😉. "Author
to author" hmmm Sounds like a lot of different people wrote it. People.

Quoted message said:

Do I believe that the Egyptian
calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

What sorts of lessons proceed from the Song of Solomon?

"Lesson" you say. But so much of it is in parables and cryptic
notions. What happens when 50 equally serious people come away with
different "lessons" from the same passages?

What a perfectly silly thing to offer as the only basis for the
bible's value. Read some history and see how it came to be. And where
the stories came from. And it really is funny that you try to divorce
the words from their meaning as though meaning is somehow independent
of the means of its expression. But I don't expect you to understand
this. It's too complex an idea for your pretty, curly head.

Here's five bucks, buy yourself something frilly.

Bob

"MU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no event in human history that can be accurately traced to the
direct intervention of God.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cool. So you don't take the bible literally? You do not believe that
the
events it described ever happened?

All of the OT?NT literally? No way. It is historically inaccurate and many
times contradictory from author to author.

What happened Easter morning?

Do I believe that the Egyptian

Quoted message said:

calamities in Moses times happened. Perhaps.

But I don't care. Teaching is about the lesson derived not the text read.

So you sort of believe it? Except for the bit about god having a hand in
it? Or sort of? Or not?

m

"MU" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Luna said:

How do you decide which parts you believe in, and which parts you don't?
I
believe the bible is literally true, except for the parts about God and
Jesus.

I let God drive that car, Luna. That is a component and a "perk" of faith.
It's not always clear and straightforward but God has promised to give me
whatever I need, not what I want, in the way of understanding. To date,
He's done good.

Meaning what? You're not dying of a horrible disease? You're loved ones
are OK? For the faithful in the opposite situation, and they exist, you
idiot, is god "doing good"?

moo

"MU" <[email hidden]> wrote in

Quoted message said:

On 24 Sep 2004 14:17:26 -0700, Steve Harris [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But whenever
nonbelievers wonder why a compassionate and omnipotent god doesn't DO
any of these things (give Ted Bundy polio or John Wayne Gacy a
paralyzing spinal tumor or something) it's always the believers who
chime in to say that this use of force would remove free agency.

You sum all believers into one enveloping statement; that makes your
"coment" untrue.

Nope. On this there is little dissent among the faithful. Including you.

moo

MU <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Your making up the rules, Steven, no getting around that.

COMMENT:

Einstein might know enough to use the correct spelling "you're," too.
Though it's true his English was insecure, it being his third or
fourth language.

Retreats to points about spelling, typos, grammar and such, are the
last refuge of the loser in logic. But if you insist on playing down
at the dirty details, I can do that, too. You'll lose.

SBH

Happy Dog said:

You said that reward and punishment are not meted out in the afterlife. (I
said this was an assumption and you said it was incorrect.)

Never said that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One can be
skeptical without the need to know; you confuse "desire to know" with need
to know. I desire to know, and will, someday but I have no need to know
until then. God's Plan.

Happy Dog said:

A skeptic who doesn't need to ask questions? How cute.

I ask questions. Read more carefully.

Quoted message said:

So much for skepticism. Anyone with a skeptical bone would ask why
Christian adherents are in the minority. But you just don't care to know.

Correct. Lemmings running off cliffs are in the majority at that time. A
better question is why is it that you find the need to be in the majority
to be right?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

God lets me know what He feels I need to know. Faith not right thinking
opens that channel of knowledge.

Happy Dog said:

So why do people of different
faiths get different messages? How do you know that yours is true?

Satan has his hand in this world for one. I know mine is true because God
has been kind enough to reaffirm me with increasing amounts of faith and
comfort in His Plan.

Happy Dog said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>So when I ask you to show us, in
>> detail, exactly what the no-[censored] teachings are that eclipse all the
>> other
>> no-[censored] teachings of other gods, you'll put it in a succint and
>> credible
>> form. Not.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't know what a "no [censored]" teaching is. Try again. No [censored], please do.

Happy Dog said:

Yes you do mu mu. It's the real version of universal reality that the
faithful, oops, Christian faithful, understand. But, like I said, can't
explain in a rational way to skeptics or non-believers.

Difficult to explain something to someone who hasn't the tools to
understand. And you won't get those tools from God until you ask for them.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> See above regarding drinking.

Gee MU, you've really seized on this particular insult. Projecting
perhaps?

Projecting what? You post like you are imbibed, that's all.

Happy Dog said:

Occasionally. Better than drunk on Jesus.

How would you know?