vpozzoli

Yeah, and the fact that they often (it's not just MockingBird) refer to the authenticity of the original documents to defend their doctrine despite the fact that the current Bible(s) bear(s) little resemblance to the original docs (not to mention all the existing documents that were intentionally left out) speaks volumes. Cheers, Vale

Call me obtuse, but could you tell me why this should mean anything more than that: 1) there was one original document written by one or possibly several authors 2) It was copied repeatedly during a time span of several hundred years. Not all copies necessarily originate form the original, they could be copies of copies (not always easy to determine, especially if they are accurate copies) 3) the people who performed the copying did a pretty good job, overall How does this in any way legitimate the content, especially re whether it's fact or faction or a mix of the two? After all there are millions of pretty good copies of "Moby Dick" around but that does not necessarily mean that Achab actually existed (or any other character in that book for that matter). For independent confirmation you need different books that indipendently confirm the events in question, which means they cannot simply be copies of the same work and one cannot reference the other as the source of the info. If you where to actually do that with the Bible you would have a hard time verifying a lot of key points. For example, there is no independent confirmation of the Jews being taken to Egypt as slaves and then fleeing under the leadership of Moses. It's been a while but I seem to recall that was kind of like a highlight of the Old Testament (think 10 commandments). Cheers, Vale

Isn't this what the 2nd Amendment should be there for? If the government does not represent tha people any more it should be dismissed. If it refuses then the (well armed) people should forcibily remove it. Yes, I am being sarcastic (in a broad sense, not directed at the OP). Cheers, Vale

Blade runner. Classic. How 'bout: "I can't believe you actually spray painted a cat. That's gross!" Vale

FYI, websites using deceptive practices can be reported to google and google will reasearch the claim and remove those sites from all search results perminatly. I had thought about doing this myself, however as a newly formed corporate entity that will be entering into a realm that could be considered competition against skyride, I felt that it was in my best interest not to. Of course, if it is a legitimate complaint and made by someone who has no competing interests... Here is the link: http://www.google.com/contact/spamreport.html I doubt that if there isn't any money involved (i.e. it's not a sponsored link) they will spend any time even investigating it. If they took money for it and you think that the entry damages your businnes then maybe they might look into it, on the off chance that if you sue the offending party you might try to drag them into the lawsuit as well. After all they are providing a free service, so watcha complaining about? Cheers, Vale

Can't comment on Fiat service in SA but as I practically live next door to them (Fiat, not the south africans) I can only confirm that their cars are indeed pieces of garbage, but by this time you have probably figured it out by yourself So my advice would be never to buy a Fiat, but it's a bit late for that right? Unless of course you have strong enough of a case that you can force them to take it back with no penalty for you. In that case you probably need a lawyer. Cheers, Vale

"Saved"? How about: "The clit is real. It's the female orgasm that's a myth!" Vale

That's most likely what happened. If Ebay deleted the account following some complaint they should consider your auction null and void IMHO. If not they should at least have some safeguards in place to prevent pranksters from spoiling other people's auctions. Cheers, Vale

I checked, no boobies Liar, liar, pants on fire! Vale

Powered fligth is for pussies! Vale

Tell me this doesn't look like a rush: http://youtube.com/watch?v=rvqqBfRwJPM&mode=related&search= It looks to have about the same margin of error as a swoop - maybe less. Cool, but not as dangerous as you may think. With a glider you can build up a lot of speed (i.e. energy) without actually throwing yourself almost straight at the ground. BTW I had no idea hang gliders could land on an actual airport in the US. In Europe they'd probably shoot you down with a well aimed Stinger Anyways godd luck with whatever you decide to try and be safe! Cheers, Vale

Are you sure about that? I've been out of the loop a bit but back then a basic paraglider cost less than a basic hang glider. Just from the point of the amount of materials used that would make sense, but it's definitely possible that with the shift to more expensive fabrics and designs for the sake of performance paragliders are now on the expensive end of the spectrum. Personally I'm not a very big fan of paragliding, performance is unsatisfactory (unless you become the next world champ and can afford to go fliyng in Namibia!) and the shit can hit the proverbial fan pretty easily especially if the weather is tricky. Think low speed, low wing loading, collapsible wing, no landing gear But maybe I'm just too much of an old fart A hang glider is clunkier and more difficult to carry around, but once airborne it will give you way better performance and with it an increase in safety margin you might come to appreciate one day Cheers, Vale

Used to. Is it fun: definitely. Does it give you an adrenaline rush: yep, but not as much as skydiving. It also helps you stay fit: just dragging the kit around is its own workout, that's one of the reasons why lots of pilots eventually moved to paragliding. Now that I'm older I moved to actual saiplane flying, that's as much fun and then some, but definitely more expensive I'd say definitely worth a try if you want to try out some gliding without forking out too much dough right away. Cheers, Vale

Or rather does not spout. Remember it was supposed to be kept a secret for the initiated only, but was not thanks to, among others, South Park Vale

Dunno, maybe 'world peace'? Cheers, Vale

Neither have I, and I'm uncut. Maybe washing oneself properly is also a Euro thing? Ciao. Vale

I have no idea how you handle 500+ people at one gate. Makes me happy I work in MX and not customer service. It's simple, you just use more than one gate Then the problem becomes how do you handle all the passengers that show up at the wrong gate for their assigned seat number Cheers, Vale

To the OP: please disregard anything Calvin19 says, regardless of whether it's real or made up (personally I vote for made up). Ciao, Vale

I believe OK in this context is short for Oklahoma? I guess this is where Steveorino is from. Cheers, Vale

Definitely renew. You don't want to end up being a U.S. colony Vale

I'm aware many scientist are atheist, but did atheism fund science, the way the church funded hospitals, schools, orphanges, and artists? If by "atheism" you mean secular instuitions (either private or governmental) I think yes is the correct answer to your question. As a matter of fact it's safe to say that most of what we call "science" has been funded by atheism, and very little by any church whatsover. Cheers, Vale No, I was referring to organizations. Christian (Catholic) hospitals weren't started by "Christians" they were started by "groups" or "denominations" same with Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Oxford, etc. Any GROUP of atheists offer the world anything? Then your question is clearly a strawman. You know as well as I do that even if atheism is considered by some to be a religion (maybe a better, non controversial definition would be a "religious stance"), there is no such thing as an "Organized Church of Atheism (TM)". Therefore you are comparing the merits (perceived or otherwise) of the Christian church(es) to the merits, or lack thereof, of an opposing, but unfortunately also non existant, entity. In other words, you are setting the argument up in such a way that it's impossible for you side to lose, which makes debating it utterly pointless. Cheers, Vale

I'm aware many scientist are atheist, but did atheism fund science, the way the church funded hospitals, schools, orphanges, and artists? If by "atheism" you mean secular instuitions (either private or governmental) I think yes is the correct answer to your question. As a matter of fact it's safe to say that most of what we call "science" has been funded by atheism, and very little by any church whatsover. Cheers, Vale

I'm confused, does "rack" refer to the antlers or the tits? Vale

We are talking dead users per 100,000 users and not people right? In that case I think crack would be a very good bet. Cheers, Vale

Really? Then how comes Germany's and the Netherlands' net migration rates for 2006 are +2.18 and +2.72 respectively (hint, if more people are leaving than are moving in the net migration rate should be negative)? Source: CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html Makes you wonder what other parts of that article are just pure propaganda bullshit. Cheers, Vale