New Riding Buddy (heheh)

[Paladin]

MattB wrote:
>
> Maybe you would have just kept quiet, but I suspect maybe you wouldn't have.
>
> I had no idea who she was, but on the MTBR forum they were acting like
> she was a celebrity. So I figured I'd better look her up. The rest is
> history.
>
> Matt (mostly just intolerant to intolerance - oh and really bad music)

You make a good point. Sorry I over-reacted. I'm much nicer in
person...

I did not realize you were making your call based solely on the
picture, and art is totally subjective. I happen to prefer my wife's
profile, but some think she looks too skinny and athletic. Others like
'em big and round. fbg's making the world go round and all that...

This gal, I know her a little bit, and she's bright, funny,
courageous, gracious, (very pretty in person), but also outspoken and
committed to standing up and making changes for what she believes in.

CDB

 

[Paladin]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Corvus Corvax wrote:
>
> > As far as Brandi goes, my wife took a look at her web site, and all
> > she had to say was "Man, that girl is compensating for some kind of
> > really serious kink."
> >
> > Women know.
>
> Why so judgmental? Ah, more making fun of people; forgot.
>
> I don't think that not wanting 8-year-old kids looking at pictures in "The
> Joy of Sex" (gay OR straight) in the library without parental permission or
> approval means that she (or anyone for that matter) is a prude.
>
> I don't agree with many of her political positions (none of which I'd even
> known about unless Pete pushed her website), but I hardly think she's
> "dangerous". She's a conservative Christian activist; so what?
>
> I think it's great that she rides (despite that ancient helmet); good for
> her.
>
> Bill "much (threaded) ado about nothing" S.

Blame me for that ancient helmet. I keep a bunch of old skanky loaners
in the back of my rig, and unfortunately, that goofball helmet was the
only one that fit her. The other more decent one went to her friend
who was visiting from WA DC. The dude with the beard.

CDB

 

[MattB]

Paladin wrote:
> MattB wrote:
>
>>Maybe you would have just kept quiet, but I suspect maybe you wouldn't have.
>>
>>I had no idea who she was, but on the MTBR forum they were acting like
>>she was a celebrity. So I figured I'd better look her up. The rest is
>>history.
>>
>>Matt (mostly just intolerant to intolerance - oh and really bad music)
>
>
> You make a good point. Sorry I over-reacted. I'm much nicer in
> person...
>

This seems believable. I might even make you prove it some day.

> I did not realize you were making your call based solely on the
> picture, and art is totally subjective. I happen to prefer my wife's
> profile, but some think she looks too skinny and athletic. Others like
> 'em big and round. fbg's making the world go round and all that...
>

Well, it was the picture + what I found when I looked her up. But if we
all like the same women you guys would all be jealous because I got the
best one!

> This gal, I know her a little bit, and she's bright, funny,
> courageous, gracious, (very pretty in person), but also outspoken and
> committed to standing up and making changes for what she believes in.
>

Which in theory sounds like a great set of traits. Actually that sounds
a bit like my wife. They are just at odds with the things they'd like to
see changed.

> CDB
>

Matt

 

[Paladin]

Corvus Corvax wrote:
> MattB wrote:
> >
> > No offense meant to you or anyone else CDB (which I realize probably
> > didn't pan out), but I just typed what I felt.
>
> ****, CDB is what we need more of: he just seems to want to apply a
> little common sense to life and otherwise be left the hell alone. (I'll
> buy you a beer any time, CDB: you may not think so right at the moment,
> but I feel pretty sure we are more-or-less on the same side in the
> world.)
>
>
> CC

Thanks, I'm much more Libertarian. At one time, I was a raving
activist, too, having led Operation Rescue events in WA in the
mid-80's. You really do things like that when you believe that unborn
children are truly children, but just being discriminated against on
the basis of residence. Ie, ok to kill inside, but becomes murder to
kill once they're outside. I don't buy it, but that's ok.

I was also quite concerned about taking bad guys off the street when I
had a govt job. I also used to enjoy teaching kids karate so they
could learn to set goals, believe in themselves, gain confidence and
self control.

Now? I wanna make a living, live in a way that makes my wife of 20yrs
still glad she said, "I do", take care of my family, help others with
my work, be available to friends, ride as much as I can, and that's
about it.

But, I don't want some kook in the public, (my tax-supported) library
insisting that 6yr olds have access to snuff films. If they (as the
responsible parents) want to show them to their own kids at home,
nothing I can do about that. I don't really care. I should, but I
don't.

But I do care about my kids, and to some extent, while their values are
being shaped, I want to know what sort of stuff is being poured into
them. gigo, remember? When they were younger, and they'd want to
stay the night at a new friend's home, I'd ask about adult presence,
access to the internet, that sort of thing. That's what we as parents
do, all over the world, trying to some degree to control and protect
what gets in, until such time as the kids mature to where they should
make those decisions on their own.

If we do a good job providing discipline from the outside, then when we
do cut them loose, they'll hopefully discipline themselves, and be
productive human beings. While I'm waxing elephants, it's like this.
As parents, we impose the banks on the river of their lives, slowly
letting go to see if they can hold back the water and impose their own
constraint or banks, since a river uncontrolled is a flood, and very
damaging, but a river constrained can do a lot of good for a lot of
people. As the kids mature, we hand over more responsibility, less
control, more decision making, less orders and rules.

And, I might be lucky, but I've got two amazing kids, as some folks on
this board know.

So, I had no idea this thread would go the way it has. Just tells me
the mainstream media has done a great job to stereotype Christians as
narrow, cram it down your throat bigots, when my experience is the
opposite. For example, they were first when the Tsunami hit Thailand,
and last to leave (first-hand account, btw). First to help in New
Orleans, and still helping. They're doing up to 90% of the charitable
works (especially feeding the homeless and caring for single families)
without fanfare or return, just because it's the right thing to do.

So I'm going back into my own charitable outreach as the goodwill
amabassador to the unridden masses, to host my Tues nt Beginner Barney
Rides.

Saddle up.
CDB

 

[Paladin]

MattB wrote:
> Paladin wrote:
> > MattB wrote:
> >
> >>Maybe you would have just kept quiet, but I suspect maybe you wouldn't have.
> >>
> >>I had no idea who she was, but on the MTBR forum they were acting like
> >>she was a celebrity. So I figured I'd better look her up. The rest is
> >>history.
> >>
> >>Matt (mostly just intolerant to intolerance - oh and really bad music)
> >
> >
> > You make a good point. Sorry I over-reacted. I'm much nicer in
> > person...
> >
>
> This seems believable. I might even make you prove it some day.
>
> > I did not realize you were making your call based solely on the
> > picture, and art is totally subjective. I happen to prefer my wife's
> > profile, but some think she looks too skinny and athletic. Others like
> > 'em big and round. fbg's making the world go round and all that...
> >
>
> Well, it was the picture + what I found when I looked her up. But if we
> all like the same women you guys would all be jealous because I got the
> best one!
>
> > This gal, I know her a little bit, and she's bright, funny,
> > courageous, gracious, (very pretty in person), but also outspoken and
> > committed to standing up and making changes for what she believes in.
> >
>
> Which in theory sounds like a great set of traits. Actually that sounds
> a bit like my wife. They are just at odds with the things they'd like to
> see changed.
>
> > CDB
> >
>
> Matt

I say let them compete in a jello wrestling pit...

CDB

 

[MattB]

Paladin wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> I say let them compete in a jello wrestling pit...
>
> CDB
>

Fair enough.

But if a book is written about it, should it be allowed in the library?

Matt

 

[Corvus Corvax]

Paladin wrote:
>
> Saddle up.

Hope we get to ride together some time, brother.

CC

 

[Bill Sornson]

Paladin wrote:

> Thanks, I'm much more Libertarian. At one time, I was a raving
> activist, too, having led Operation Rescue events in WA in the
> mid-80's. You really do things like that when you believe that unborn
> children are truly children, but just being discriminated against on
> the basis of residence. Ie, ok to kill inside, but becomes murder to
> kill once they're outside. I don't buy it, but that's ok.
>
> I was also quite concerned about taking bad guys off the street when I
> had a govt job. I also used to enjoy teaching kids karate so they
> could learn to set goals, believe in themselves, gain confidence and
> self control.
>
> Now? I wanna make a living, live in a way that makes my wife of 20yrs
> still glad she said, "I do", take care of my family, help others with
> my work, be available to friends, ride as much as I can, and that's
> about it.
>
> But, I don't want some kook in the public, (my tax-supported) library
> insisting that 6yr olds have access to snuff films. If they (as the
> responsible parents) want to show them to their own kids at home,
> nothing I can do about that. I don't really care. I should, but I
> don't.
>
> But I do care about my kids, and to some extent, while their values
> are being shaped, I want to know what sort of stuff is being poured
> into them. gigo, remember? When they were younger, and they'd want
> to stay the night at a new friend's home, I'd ask about adult
> presence, access to the internet, that sort of thing. That's what we
> as parents do, all over the world, trying to some degree to control
> and protect what gets in, until such time as the kids mature to where
> they should make those decisions on their own.
>
> If we do a good job providing discipline from the outside, then when
> we do cut them loose, they'll hopefully discipline themselves, and be
> productive human beings. While I'm waxing elephants, it's like this.
> As parents, we impose the banks on the river of their lives, slowly
> letting go to see if they can hold back the water and impose their own
> constraint or banks, since a river uncontrolled is a flood, and very
> damaging, but a river constrained can do a lot of good for a lot of
> people. As the kids mature, we hand over more responsibility, less
> control, more decision making, less orders and rules.
>
> And, I might be lucky, but I've got two amazing kids, as some folks
> on this board know.
>
> So, I had no idea this thread would go the way it has. Just tells me
> the mainstream media has done a great job to stereotype Christians as
> narrow, cram it down your throat bigots, when my experience is the
> opposite. For example, they were first when the Tsunami hit Thailand,
> and last to leave (first-hand account, btw). First to help in New
> Orleans, and still helping. They're doing up to 90% of the charitable
> works (especially feeding the homeless and caring for single families)
> without fanfare or return, just because it's the right thing to do.
>
> So I'm going back into my own charitable outreach as the goodwill
> amabassador to the unridden masses, to host my Tues nt Beginner Barney
> Rides.
>
> Saddle up.

****, man, that was the shiznit. (No idea a) if it's a word or b) how to
spell it.)

 

[MattB]

Bill Sornson wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> ****, man, that was the shiznit. (No idea a) if it's a word or b) how to
> spell it.)
>
>

Fo shizzle! I always knew you were down with Snoop.

Matt

 

[cc]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "GeeDubb" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>> Look at the second definition: "a specific fundamental set of beliefs
>>> and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects".
>>>
>>> Atheism fits both of the above defitions perfectly.
> <snip>
>> I guess in the second definition the non-belief in the existance of deity is
>> the fundamental "set" of beliefs and practices........
>>
>> pretty thin perfect fit but that's how you interpret it so we will agree to
>> disagree.
>
> But I think you can now at least understand how someone could
> interpret the current trend as catering 100% only to those with a
> particular "religion" (atheism), to the exclusion of any other belief
> system. That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me. Heck, I'm not
> even asking for equal time - but zero time seems a little harsh. ;-)
>
>

Mark, this is total ********! There is no set of practices or rituals
particular to atheism. It is simply the absence of all of the nonsense
that comes with popular religion. This is another illustrative point of
why atheism is NOT religion. . . there is no "set" of beliefs and no
uniting factors besides the lack of belief in a god.

You can't cater to the 'practices' of a group that doesn't practice
anything.

 

[cc]

G.T. wrote:
> GeeDubb wrote:
>>
>> "Mark Hickey" wrote
>>
>>> It would be funny if there weren't so many gullible people out there.
>>>
>> the problem is that both (more than both) sides of this issue feel
>> that the other side is gullible.
>
> No, I don't think either side is gullible. I believe rational people
> want to keep our society enlightened and free, and I believe the
> superstitious people want to take us back to the dark ages of fear and
> repression.

BINGO.

 

[Sand Squid]

Paladin wrote:
>That's the great thing about freedom, we can believe what we want,
> pretty well say what we want, and if someone doesn't like it, and they
> want to believesomething else, and even try to persuade others to his
> or her way of thinking, that's when freedom rings...

And when that doesn't work just lob a frag' through the open window in
the middle of the night.

 

[Mark Hickey]

cc <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> But I think you can now at least understand how someone could
>> interpret the current trend as catering 100% only to those with a
>> particular "religion" (atheism), to the exclusion of any other belief
>> system. That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me. Heck, I'm not
>> even asking for equal time - but zero time seems a little harsh. ;-)
>
>Mark, this is total ********! There is no set of practices or rituals
>particular to atheism. It is simply the absence of all of the nonsense
>that comes with popular religion. This is another illustrative point of
>why atheism is NOT religion. . . there is no "set" of beliefs and no
>uniting factors besides the lack of belief in a god.

Yawn. Continuing to try to weasel around the established definition
of "religion", huh? Still trying to parse down bits and pieces of the
optional bits in couple of the definitions to try to prove (to
yourself?) that I don't have a point.

So no use discussing the matter further if you won't even admit what's
there in black and white in every dictionary in the English language.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> >> But I think you can now at least understand how someone could
> >> interpret the current trend as catering 100% only to those with a
> >> particular "religion" (atheism), to the exclusion of any other belief
> >> system. That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me. Heck, I'm not
> >> even asking for equal time - but zero time seems a little harsh. ;-)
> >
> >Mark, this is total ********! There is no set of practices or rituals
> >particular to atheism. It is simply the absence of all of the nonsense
> >that comes with popular religion. This is another illustrative point of
> >why atheism is NOT religion. . . there is no "set" of beliefs and no
> >uniting factors besides the lack of belief in a god.
>
> Yawn.

Yawn, yourself.

> Continuing to try to weasel around the established definition
> of "religion", huh?

LOL! You're the one parsing and picking to suit your own purposes.
Nobody has yet bought the load of dung you're trying to sell, because
it's obvious on the face of it that atheism is pretty much the opposite
of religion.

> Still trying to parse down bits and pieces of the
> optional bits in couple of the definitions to try to prove (to
> yourself?) that I don't have a point.

The irony is astounding.

> So no use discussing the matter further if you won't even admit what's
> there in black and white in every dictionary in the English language.

Declare victory and quit the field, eh? Yup, worked in Vietnam, too.

Your right-wing conservative talking point doesn't stand up to logical
scrutiny, nor to plain old common sense.

That ans the fact that there are plenty of religious people who
actually agree that religion should be a private, personal thing, and
be completely separated from the public square. I know of at least 36
of them. And that's just right off the top of my head. Kiss your
false dilemma goodbye...

E.P.

 

[cc]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> cc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>>But I think you can now at least understand how someone could
>>>interpret the current trend as catering 100% only to those with a
>>>particular "religion" (atheism), to the exclusion of any other belief
>>>system. That's pretty much it in a nutshell for me. Heck, I'm not
>>>even asking for equal time - but zero time seems a little harsh. ;-)
>>
>>Mark, this is total ********! There is no set of practices or rituals
>>particular to atheism. It is simply the absence of all of the nonsense
>>that comes with popular religion. This is another illustrative point of
>>why atheism is NOT religion. . . there is no "set" of beliefs and no
>>uniting factors besides the lack of belief in a god.
>
>
> Yawn. Continuing to try to weasel around the established definition
> of "religion", huh? Still trying to parse down bits and pieces of the
> optional bits in couple of the definitions to try to prove (to
> yourself?) that I don't have a point.
>

Mark: if you decide to belief
in something, it does not make
my disbelief a religion! Plain
and simple !

If you tomorrow decide that
you belief monkeys flying out
of my butt will rule the
planet, my disbelief does not
constitute a religions.
Period! You cannot refute
that, despite your semantic
masturbation.

 

[Ed Pirrero]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
> Mostly what I carry on about has to do with strict misrepresentation
> of facts. But I stand on my opinion that only the gullible will
> accept Michael Moore or Al Franken books/films as "documentaries".
>
> OTOH, those who read Ann Coulter are not likely to consider her work
> as more than political satire (though she run circles around most
> other political authors with her attributions and historical depth).

LOL. Who are you trying to kid? I know several wing-nuts who think AC
is serious. And consider her "insight" 100% on-target. Otherwise
smart people.

I get the idea from listening to her talk and reading what she writes
that she actually believes what she's saying. Otherwise, she's a
superb actress. But I do also notice that she saves her most
outrageous quips for when she's hawking a new book.

E.P.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> Mostly what I carry on about has to do with strict misrepresentation
>> of facts. But I stand on my opinion that only the gullible will
>> accept Michael Moore or Al Franken books/films as "documentaries".
>>
>> OTOH, those who read Ann Coulter are not likely to consider her work
>> as more than political satire (though she run circles around most
>> other political authors with her attributions and historical depth).
>
>LOL. Who are you trying to kid? I know several wing-nuts who think AC
>is serious. And consider her "insight" 100% on-target. Otherwise
>smart people.

You couldn't be too bright and not pick up on the obvious comedic
qualities in her writing. That's not to say that she doesn't make
valid points, but that her writing is first and foremost satire.

>I get the idea from listening to her talk and reading what she writes
>that she actually believes what she's saying. Otherwise, she's a
>superb actress. But I do also notice that she saves her most
>outrageous quips for when she's hawking a new book.

Well, who doesn't?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[G.T.]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>Mostly what I carry on about has to do with strict misrepresentation
>>>of facts. But I stand on my opinion that only the gullible will
>>>accept Michael Moore or Al Franken books/films as "documentaries".
>>>
>>>OTOH, those who read Ann Coulter are not likely to consider her work
>>>as more than political satire (though she run circles around most
>>>other political authors with her attributions and historical depth).
>>
>>LOL. Who are you trying to kid? I know several wing-nuts who think AC
>>is serious. And consider her "insight" 100% on-target. Otherwise
>>smart people.
>
>
> You couldn't be too bright and not pick up on the obvious comedic
> qualities in her writing. That's not to say that she doesn't make
> valid points, but that her writing is first and foremost satire.
>

I can't imagine what is funny about saying women shouldn't vote. Is she
saying that women are too smart so they vote for the people who will
make this country a better place to live? So we should ban women from
voting to help keep AC's creepy friends in office?

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[Mark Hickey]

"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:

>> You couldn't be too bright and not pick up on the obvious comedic
>> qualities in her writing. That's not to say that she doesn't make
>> valid points, but that her writing is first and foremost satire.
>
>I can't imagine what is funny about saying women shouldn't vote. Is she
>saying that women are too smart so they vote for the people who will
>make this country a better place to live? So we should ban women from
>voting to help keep AC's creepy friends in office?

You're taking one line written by a political satirist out of context,
and assuming it was meant it as a serious position position.

How bright is that?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[G.T.]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>
>>>You couldn't be too bright and not pick up on the obvious comedic
>>>qualities in her writing. That's not to say that she doesn't make
>>>valid points, but that her writing is first and foremost satire.
>>
>>I can't imagine what is funny about saying women shouldn't vote. Is she
>>saying that women are too smart so they vote for the people who will
>>make this country a better place to live? So we should ban women from
>>voting to help keep AC's creepy friends in office?
>
>
> You're taking one line written by a political satirist out of context,
> and assuming it was meant it as a serious position position.
>

I've read it in context. She's not much of a satirist, the most
effective satirists skewer their foes, not themselves. Saying that we
should kick out all Arabs and convert everyone to Christianity, and that
we should rape the Earth because God created Earth for Man to exploit
just doesn't work when it comes from a conservative.

And she's a moron because she seems to think that most camels have two
humps when 90% are dromedaries with one hump.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons