Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#801
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 5/14/2016 3:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:01:32 -0400, Bud Frede wrote: I've never heard of anyone losing their hearing due to secondhand smoke. Can you tell us more about this? She admitted to having been a sickly child. Probably the results of measles or bad ear infections. Center for Disease Control Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. Since the 1964 Surgeon General’s Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...ealth_effects/ I don't think I need to post the entire website. -- Maggie |
#802
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (inconsiderate smokers)
On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:50:08 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/13/2016 7:10 AM, Mr Macaw wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote: On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: And for those who get the occasional wiff of a cigarette.... and bitch and moan...tough. Was there any other questions? Gunner As with many smokers, you sure sound inconsiderate. That may be too mild a descriptor. Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip. Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where people would have no choice but to inhale that gas? Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people breath? Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non smoker sprayed around. If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not be liable for much of anything How about the equivalent to this: Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. -- Maggie |
#803
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT Atheism vs Christianity et al : was Flashlight temptation
From "the guardian"
It's a big, fat myth that all scientists are religion-hating atheists Whether or not you think science is wonderful, the stereotype of all scientists being atheists is unrealistic. There is, however, a special dance Scientists used to be white guys in white lab coats with crazy hair, spectacles and an autistic inability to relate to other people. Now scientists are (mostly) white guys who are obsessed about the wonder of science and hate religion; and I think they all like Star Trek quite a bit too. This new religion-hating, super-awed scientist stereotype seems to based on some very strange amalgamation between Brian Cox and Richard Dawkins. And this cartoon-version of "what a scientist looks like" is all sort of tangled up in religion; where science pundits are either vilified because they are seen to all hate religion or almost worshiped like gods they supposedly detest. Ignoring that science and religion are really not the same thing, on the love side Cox has been said to resemble what God would have probably looked like "with hair that falls around his face like a helix". On the flip-side, popular scientists have been attacked for using the misty-eyed language of religion – because apparently using the word "wonder" ain't allowed if you are an atheist or a scientist. As Eliane Glaser put it last week: "It's ironic that the public engagement with the science crowd is so pro-wonder, because they're so anti-religion." All scientists; religion haters. Also it is a little known fact but now when you get a physics PhD in the UK, you are given a job-lot of Wonders wallpaper for your new office and complementary D:Ream CD; which must be played on high days and holidays. We also learn a special dance but I am not allowed to talk about this. I really hate to be the one to break the news, but scientist is not synonymous with atheist. Scientists also don't all have the same gender, race, sexual orientation or political ideology, much less religion or lack thereof. Whether or not a person is religious, with respect to their vocation as a scientist, is completely irrelevant. Just like sexual orientation, race and gender should be irrelevant to being a scientist. Reinforcing the scientist = atheist stereotype, whether you are for it or against it, necessarily excludes people. No one should be excluded from science if they want to do it, be excited about it or read about it. Richard Dawkins aside, the view that all scientists – even if they be atheists or famous people – hate religion is not really true. Peter Higgs has very sanguinely criticised Dawkins for his anti-religious stance, and goes on to say that he doesn't think science and religion are incompatible. Brian Cox himself echoes the same sentiment. There are, moreover, a number of prominent openly religious scientists, such as Frances Collins, currently the head of the US National Institutes of Health; Gerhard Etrl who won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (2007) and William D Phillips who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. And this is just naming a few. Most scientists in the media don't make a stand one way or another, perhaps because they too think it is irrelevant. Maybe this is a crazy idea but I am guessing a fair few scientists don't like Star Trek either. The cartoon stereotype that all scientists are religion-hating atheists isn't just annoying; it is harmful. It is divisive and does nothing to encourage people into scientific discovery. In fact, it reinforces the idea that only a certain type of person can do science. This is not true. Professional science has enough diversity problems as it is, with women and minorities still grossly under-represented, without throwing religious-typing in there too. Public scientists and critics alike need to take a bit more care in lumping all scientists into the same stereotypical category. The world is much more complex than that. • Dr Sylvia McLain runs a biophysics research group at Oxford. She is on Twitter – @girlinterruptin |
#804
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
OT Atheism vs Christianity et al : was Flashlight temptation
I have not been able to ascertain the name of the authour of this piece. Breaking the Science-Atheism Bond As an atheist turned Christian, I know atheism is not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person. Posted August 04, 2005 Science and Spirit Reprinted with permission from Science & Spirit Magazine. Spiritually, God is the oxygen of my existence; I would find it very difficult to thrive without a belief in God. Of course, the word "God" needs some clarification. It means different things to different people, even though there are often clear areas of overlap. To clarify: I believe in the God who is made known and made available through Jesus-that is, a personal God who I believe knows me as an individual, cares for me, and enables and inspires me to live my life with a firm sense of purpose and a deep satisfaction in the service of others. That situates me within the generous parameters of Christianity. I haven't always seen things this way. When I was growing up in Belfast, Northern Ireland, during the 1960s, I came to the view that God was an infantile illusion, suitable for the elderly, the intellectually feeble, and the fraudulently religious. I admit this was a rather arrogant view, and one that I now find somewhat embarrassing. My rather pathetic excuse for this intellectual haughtiness is that a lot of other people felt the same way back then. It was the received wisdom of the day that religion was on its way out, and that a glorious, godless dawn was just around the corner. Part of the reasoning that led to my conclusion was based on the natural sciences. I had specialized in mathematics and science during high school, as preparation for going to Oxford University to study chemistry. While my primary motivations for studying the sciences were the insights they allowed into the wonderful world of nature, I also found them a convenient ally in my critique of religion. Atheism and the natural sciences seemed to be coupled together by the most rigorous intellectual bonds. And there things rested, until I arrived at Oxford in October 1971. Chemistry proved to be intellectually exhilarating. As more and more of the complexities of the natural world seemed to fall into place, I found myself overwhelmed by an incandescent enthusiasm. I chose to specialize in quantum theory, and found it to be mentally demanding, almost to the point of pain-yet rewarding. Although the quantum universe fascinated me, I was increasingly drawn to the biological world, intrigued by the complex chemical patterns of natural organisms. In the end, I decided to research advanced physical methods of investigating biological systems, under the supervision of Sir George Radda, who later became chief executive of the Medical Research Council.In the midst of this growing delight in the natural sciences, which exceeded anything I could have hoped for, I found myself rethinking my atheism. It is not easy for anyone to subject his core beliefs to criticism; my reason for doing so was the growing realization that things were not quite as straightforward as I had once thought. A number of factors had converged to bring about what I suppose I can reasonably describe as a crisis of faith-or lack thereof. Atheism, I began to realize, rested on a less-than-satisfactory evidential basis. The arguments that had once seemed bold, decisive, and conclusive increasingly turned out to be circular, tentative, and uncertain. The opportunity to talk with Christians about their faith revealed to me that I understood relatively little about their religion, which I had come to know chiefly through not-always-accurate descriptions by its leading critics, including British logician Bertrand Russell and German social philosopher Karl Marx. I also began to realize that my assumption of the automatic and inexorable link between the natural sciences and atheism was rather naïve and uninformed. One of the most important things I had to sort out, after my conversion to Christianity, was the systematic uncoupling of this bond. Instead, I would see the natural sciences from a Christian perspective-and I would try to understand why others did not share this perspective. In 1977, I read renowned biologist Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, which had appeared the previous year. It was a fascinating book, brimming with ideas and showcasing a superb ability to put difficult concepts into words. I devoured it, and longed to read more of his work, but I was puzzled by what I considered to be a rather superficial atheism, not adequately grounded in the scientific arguments that undergirded the work. Atheism seemed to be tacked on with intellectual Velcro rather than demanded by the scientific evidence Dawkins assembled. A brilliant scientific popularizer, Dawkins seemed to be propagandizing an aggressive atheism. And there is no doubt that his lucid and hard-line atheism-especially evident in his recent book, A Devil's Chaplain-has done much to shape public perceptions of the credulousness of Christian faith. Belief in God, he argues, is like believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy: It cannot be sustained when we grow up and learn the realities of the scientific method. Dawkins is now the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, where I earned a doctorate in molecular biophysics and first class honors in both chemistry and Christian theology-an academically enriching experience, which I look back on with great affection. I began serious research in Christian theology at Cambridge University, and was eventually drawn back to Oxford. I now hold a chair in historical theology-the systematic study of the development of Christian ideas down through the centuries. To this day, I have never seen the sciences and religion as being fundamentally opposed to each other. As an historian, I am fully aware of important tensions and battles, usually the result of specific social conditions (such as the professionalization of science in late Victorian England) or the unwise overstatements of both scientists and theologians. Yet I judge that their relationship is generally benign, and always intellectually stimulating. My Christian faith brings me a deepened appreciation of the natural sciences, and although I am no longer active in primary scientific research, I keep up my reading in the fields that interest and excite me most: evolutionary biology, theoretical physics, biochemistry, and biophysics. Why does faith bring this intellectual enthusiasm and satisfaction? In the words of another academic from Belfast who found faith at Oxford University: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen-not only because I see it, but because by it, I see everything else." C.S. Lewis wrote this in "Is Theology Poetry?" his famous essay on the explanatory potential of the Christian faith. Lewis conceives God in a manner that illuminates the great riddles and enigmas of life, including how and why it is that we can make sense of the universe at all. His conception offers me an understanding of my own place in the greater scheme of things, and at the same time provides an intellectual Archimedean point from which I can make sense of the world around me. Above all, it sustains my sense of awe at the wonders of nature, and the greater wonders to which they point. There is a fundamental intellectual convergence between Christian theology and the working methods and assumptions of the natural sciences-a convergence I explored deeply while writing three volumes on scientific theology: Nature, Reality, and Theory. How, some people might reasonably ask, can I argue for such a productive and helpful convergence when some scientists argue that atheism is the only legitimate outcome of the proper application of the scientific method? And isn't atheism actually more economic in terms of its concepts? After all, one God is one more assumption than no God at all-and a very important assumption at that. Yet, as physicist Richard Feynman pointed out many years ago, conceptual economy is no guarantor of theoretical correctness. The real problem is trying to work out the "best explanation"-to use a highly potent concept from Princeton University philosopher Gilbert Harman-to make sense of this astonishingly complex, puzzling, and exhilarating universe in which we live and think. The scientific method simply does not allow us to adjudicate the existence of God, and those who force it to do so (on either side of the debate) have pressed it beyond its acceptable limits. In one sense, both theism and atheism must be recognized as positions of faith, belief systems that go beyond the available scientific evidence. This conviction naturally brings me into conflict with thinkers like Dawkins and his circle, who argue that the natural sciences in general-and evolutionary biology in particular-force us to atheism. Their highly contentious argument rests on decidedly shaky logical, philosophical, and evidential grounds; far from being an intellectual superhighway to atheism, it gets stalled at agnosticism, and is moved beyond that point by an aggressive use of rhetoric alone. It is quite clear that the natural sciences can be interpreted as supportive of faith or hostile to faith, depending on your agenda. Any argument that they necessitate atheism is not adequately supported by any of the evidence available. More importantly, from the scientific perspective, belief in a creator God-however that complex notion is understood-offers a powerful incentive to the investigation and appreciation of the natural world. To study nature is to study God indirectly. As many Christian writers of the Renaissance pointed out, the wisdom of an invisible and intangible God can be explored through an engagement with the visible, tangible realities of the world that appears around us. My concerns about atheism, however, are by no means limited to my love for the natural world. As a professor of historical theology, part of my academic life involves studying the question of how culture impacts religious (and anti-religious) beliefs. As I studied the intellectual history of the modern period, it became increasingly clear to me that atheism is heavily conditioned by the assumptions of the Enlightenment-assumptions that have left a powerful legacy for our time, but whose imperatives are perhaps less revolutionary in an age without an entrenched royalty to overthrow. As many cultural analysts have argued, atheism is the religion of modernity. But the rise of postmodernity has unseated this settled assumption. Atheism now seems a little old-fashioned, the establishment position of a previous generation. And in its place, postmodernity has recovered an interest in spirituality. I have no idea where this trend will take us, but certainly it seems to take us away from atheism. Atheism is not the only conceivable worldview for a thinking person. Belief in God gives us reason to examine the universe more closely, and generates a matrix that both encourages and facilitates an engagement with the world. Of course, I know this conclusion will be contested. The arguments remain open, despite rather crude attempts to close them down. I remain respectful of atheism, believing that I have much to learn from it and the concerns that it expresses. But I no longer share its faith. Or lack thereof. |
#805
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion. http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254 http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/ Some have tried to straddle the fence. |
#806
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
My opinion of Jews hasn't changed. The ones I meet are pleasant people. Most Jews ARE pleasant people. And your point is? Shalom Gunner y point is, that I don't hate anyone. You said "Do try try to be consistant in your distain and hate, old boy". I still want to know where I've shown hate! I did ask you this before. You hate and hold believers in distain and contempt. Your posts are rife with it. You cant see it can you? Haters seldom look at themselves. You are a hater. Gunner Any hate is in your own mind. -- Bod |
#807
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (inconsiderate smokers)
Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where people would have no choice but to inhale that gas? Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people breath? Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non smoker sprayed around. If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not be liable for much of anything How about the equivalent to this: Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. Woman aged 112 says her secret to long life is smoking 30 cigarettes ... www.mirror.co.uk › News › Weird News › Smoking 26 Jan 2016 - A 112-year-old woman claims the secret to a long life is smoking .... Meet the world's oldest best man who organised the stag do aged 102 ... -- Bod __________________________________________________ _ This 122 Year Old Woman Has The Most Important Secret To A Life Of ... http://www.collective-evolution.com/...st-important-s... 2 May 2014 - The oldest documented person that ever lived was a French woman ... Jeanne Calment smoked cigarettes (started at age 21), drank port wine ... __________________________________________________ ____ |
#808
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote:
If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between our two people will never be repairable. Don't even think about it! She is YOURS now !!!! -T She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-) Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now! |
#809
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote:
Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to look you in the eye. |
#810
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 05/11/2016 10:56 AM, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 18:43, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 12:37 PM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 11:43 AM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote: guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? I always do. Autistic people have trouble in looking into peoples eyes though. Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. That's very true. Wow!! we agree. :-) Yeah! Now, that we agree that you can see sincerity in someone's eyes, would you agree that you can see insincerity, too? Of course. Scariest of all is the monster that laughs instead of growls. When the eyes don't match the smile .... |
#811
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman
wrote: On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion. http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254 http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/ Some have tried to straddle the fence. Its hardly straddling the fence. If you like steak, but also like meatloaf....and decide that meatloaf is what you want to eat...it makes steak no less a yummy food. Gunner |
#812
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 15/05/2016 06:44, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote: If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between our two people will never be repairable. Don't even think about it! She is YOURS now !!!! -T She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-) Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now! Can't you just take her back for a a while? You might get to love her again. Please!....pretty please!!....with cherrys on top!! Think of the children! -- Bod |
#813
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman
wrote: On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion. http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254 http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/ Some have tried to straddle the fence. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/277.htm Religion of Freedom This is a religion of freedom and reason for man to lead a noble life. Buddhism does not prevent anyone from learning the teachings of other religions. In fact, the Buddha encouraged His followers to learn about other religions and to compare His Teachings with other teachings. The Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings. The Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings in other religions, His followers are free to respect such teachings. It seems that certain religionists try to keep their followers in the dark, some of them are not even allowed to touch other religious objects or books. They are instructed not to listen to the preachings of other religions. They are enjoined not to doubt the teachings of their own religion, however unconvincing their teachings may appear to be. The more they keep their followers on a one-track mind, the more easily they can keep them under control. If anyone of them exercises freedom of thought and realizes that he had been in the dark all the time, then it is alleged that the devil has possessed his mind. The poor man is given no opportunity to use his common sense, education, of his intelligence. Those who wish to change their views on religion are taught to believe that they are not perfect enough to be allowed to use free will in judging anything for themselves. According to the Buddha, religion should be left to one's own free choice. Religion is not a law, but a disciplinary code which should be followed with understanding. To Buddhists true religious principles are neither a divine law nor a human law, but a natural law. In actual fact, there is no real religious freedom in any part of the world today. Man has not the freedom even to think freely. Whenever he realizes that he cannot find satisfaction through his own religion to which he belongs, which cannot provide him with satisfactory answers to certain questions, he has no liberty to give it up and to accept another which appeals to him. The reason is that religious authorities, leaders, and family members have taken that freedom away from him. Man should be allowed to choose his religion which is in accordance with his own conviction. One has no right to force another to accept a particular religion. Some people surrender their religion for the sake of love, without a proper understanding of their partner's religion. Religion should not be changed to suit man's emotions and human weaknesses. One must think very carefully before changing one's religion. Religion is not a subject for bargaining; one should not change one's religion for personal, material gains. Religion is to be sued for spiritual development and for self-salvation. Buddhists never try to influence other religionists to come and embrace their religion for material gain. Nor do they try to exploit poverty, sickness, illiteracy and ignorance in order to increase the number of Buddhist population. The Buddha advised those who indicated their wish to follow Him, not to be hasty in accepting His Teachings. He advised them to consider carefully His Teaching and to determine for themselves whether it was practical or not for them to follow. Buddhism teaches that mere belief or outward rituals are insufficient for attaining wisdom and perfection. In this sense, outward conversion becomes meaningless. To promote Buddhism by force would mean pretending to propagate justice and love by means of oppression and injustice. It is of no importance to a follower of the Buddha whether a person calls himself a Buddhist or not. Buddhists know that only through man's understanding and exertion will they come nearer to the goal preached by the Buddha. Amongst the followers of every religion are some fanatics. Religious fanaticism is dangerous. A fanatic is incapable of guiding himself by reason or even by the scientific principles of observation and analysis. According to the Buddha, a Buddhist must be a free man with an open mind and must not be subservient to anyone for his spiritual development. He seeks refuge in the Buddha by accepting Him as a source of supreme guidance and inspiration. He seeks refuge in the Buddha, not blindly, but with understanding. To Buddhists, the Buddha is not a savior nor is He an anthropomorphic being who claims to possess the power of washing away other's sins. Buddhists regard the Buddha as a Teacher who shows the Path to salvation. Buddhism has always supported the freedom and progress of mankind. Buddhism has always stood for the advancement of knowledge and freedom for humanity in every sphere of life. There is nothing in the Buddha's Teaching that has to be withdrawn in the face of modern, scientific inventions and knowledge. The more new things that scientists discover, the closer they come to the Buddha. The Buddha emancipated man from the thralldom of religion. He also released man from the monopoly and the tyranny of the priestcraft. It was the Buddha who first advised man to exercise his reason and not to allow himself to be driven meekly like dumb cattle, following the dogma of religion. The Buddha stood for rationalism, democracy and practical, ethical conduct in religion. He introduced this religion for people to practise with human dignity. The followers of the Buddha were advised not to believe anything without considering it properly. In the Kalama Sutta,the Buddha gave the following guidelines to a group of young people: 'Do not accept anything based upon mere reports, traditions or hearsay, Nor upon the authority of religious texts, Nor upon mere reasons and arguments, Nor upon one's own inference, Nor upon anything which appears to be true, Nor upon one's own speculative opinion, Nor upon another's seeming ability, Nor upon the consideration: 'This is our Teacher.' 'But, when you know for yourselves the certain things are unwholesome and bad: tending to harm yourself of others, reject them. 'And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good: conducive to the spiritual welfare of yourself as well as others, accept and follow them.' Buddhists are advised to accept religious practices only after careful observation and analysis, and only after being certain that the method agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all. A true Buddhist does not depend on external powers for his salvation. Nor does he expect to get rid of miseries through the intervention of some unknown power. He must try to eradicate all his mental impurities to find eternal Happiness. The Buddha says, 'If anyone were to speak ill of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be upset or perturbed, for this kind of reaction will only cause you harm. On the other hand, if anyone were to speak well of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be over-joyed, thrilled or elated, for this kind of reaction will only be an obstacle in forming a correct judgment. If you are elated, you cannot judge whether the qualities praised are real and actually found in us.' -- (Brahma Jala Sutta). Such is the unbiased attitude of a genuine Buddhist. The Buddha had upheld the highest degree of freedom not only in its human essence but also in its divine qualities. It is a freedom that does not deprive man of his dignity. It is a freedom that releases one from slavery to dogmas and dictatorial religious laws or religious punishments. |
#814
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:15:15 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote: Gunner Asch on Sat, 14 May 2016 09:50:26 -0700 typed in alt.survival the following: On Sat, 14 May 2016 07:40:42 -0700, pyotr filipivich wrote: Gunner Asch on Sat, 14 May 2016 01:00:35 -0700 typed in alt.survival the following: God knows ... but I don't! And you know this!....how do you know god knows? Please be specific! IF I believe that God IS God, then it is logical that I'd believe God knows. ;-) So nothing specific then. As expected. Actually...its quite specific. You are in denial again. He keeps asking religious people questions, and when he gets a religious answer, it bothers him no end. Must be that their theology doesn't match his. Frankly...it appears that he is mentally ill. Are you attempting to say that religious fanatics are unhinged? Most fanatics on the spectrum are unhinged. Its obvious he isnt a thinking man, just an emotional one. If he were in the slightest bit thoughtful, he would be agnostic. But no..he is radically unhinged. Shrug Machts nichts als zu mir. nicht leben alle Fledermäuse in belfries. Shrug -- pyotr filipivich "If once a man indulges himself in Murder, very soon he comes to think little of Robbing, and from Robbing he comes next to Drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to Incivility and Procrastination." T. De Quincy (1785-1859) "Murder Considered As One of the Fine Arts" |
#815
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (inconsiderate smokers)
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:55 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:50:08 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/13/2016 7:10 AM, Mr Macaw wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote: On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: And for those who get the occasional wiff of a cigarette.... and bitch and moan...tough. Was there any other questions? Gunner As with many smokers, you sure sound inconsiderate. That may be too mild a descriptor. Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip. Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where people would have no choice but to inhale that gas? Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people breath? Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non smoker sprayed around. If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not be liable for much of anything How about the equivalent to this: Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. How about that. So you getting a wiff on rare occasions is being poisoned far worse than I as the primary smoker? Is that your claim? It should be noted that Chocolate Can cause cancer as well as coffee, potatos and some fishes. With the exception of west coast fish...one would have to eat a few tons of each in multiple single settings...but hey...you would have to have a gas mask on your face for years at a time...connected directly to my gas masks exhaust port, to get enough "second hand smoke" (EEEEE!!! Run!!) to have ANY sort of medical risk...unless you have medical issues of your own. Which you appear to be victim of. You must curse your parents for their genetic "gift" to you. Gunner |
#816
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 15/05/2016 03:37, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:55:50 +0100, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote: "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence". "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs ..." Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as stated above, it can be classified as a religion. So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm! No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a religion. Being "religious" is a whole different practice. So I'm not religious, but I am? No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious". But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form. Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen. I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever. What..you two sleep together and need to back each other up? Fanatics are that way...pathetic and queer. So are you intolerant of Gay people? -- Bod |
#817
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 15/05/2016 06:57, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman wrote: On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion. http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254 http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/ Some have tried to straddle the fence. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/277.htm Religion of Freedom This is a religion of freedom and reason for man to lead a noble life. Buddhism does not prevent anyone from learning the teachings of other religions. In fact, the Buddha encouraged His followers to learn about other religions and to compare His Teachings with other teachings. The Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings. The Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings in other religions, His followers are free to respect such teachings. It seems that certain religionists try to keep their followers in the dark, some of them are not even allowed to touch other religious objects or books. They are instructed not to listen to the preachings of other religions. They are enjoined not to doubt the teachings of their own religion, however unconvincing their teachings may appear to be. The more they keep their followers on a one-track mind, the more easily they can keep them under control. If anyone of them exercises freedom of thought and realizes that he had been in the dark all the time, then it is alleged that the devil has possessed his mind. The poor man is given no opportunity to use his common sense, education, of his intelligence. Those who wish to change their views on religion are taught to believe that they are not perfect enough to be allowed to use free will in judging anything for themselves. According to the Buddha, religion should be left to one's own free choice. Religion is not a law, but a disciplinary code which should be followed with understanding. To Buddhists true religious principles are neither a divine law nor a human law, but a natural law. In actual fact, there is no real religious freedom in any part of the world today. Man has not the freedom even to think freely. Whenever he realizes that he cannot find satisfaction through his own religion to which he belongs, which cannot provide him with satisfactory answers to certain questions, he has no liberty to give it up and to accept another which appeals to him. The reason is that religious authorities, leaders, and family members have taken that freedom away from him. Man should be allowed to choose his religion which is in accordance with his own conviction. One has no right to force another to accept a particular religion. Some people surrender their religion for the sake of love, without a proper understanding of their partner's religion. Religion should not be changed to suit man's emotions and human weaknesses. One must think very carefully before changing one's religion. Religion is not a subject for bargaining; one should not change one's religion for personal, material gains. Religion is to be sued for spiritual development and for self-salvation. Buddhists never try to influence other religionists to come and embrace their religion for material gain. Nor do they try to exploit poverty, sickness, illiteracy and ignorance in order to increase the number of Buddhist population. The Buddha advised those who indicated their wish to follow Him, not to be hasty in accepting His Teachings. He advised them to consider carefully His Teaching and to determine for themselves whether it was practical or not for them to follow. Buddhism teaches that mere belief or outward rituals are insufficient for attaining wisdom and perfection. In this sense, outward conversion becomes meaningless. To promote Buddhism by force would mean pretending to propagate justice and love by means of oppression and injustice. It is of no importance to a follower of the Buddha whether a person calls himself a Buddhist or not. Buddhists know that only through man's understanding and exertion will they come nearer to the goal preached by the Buddha. Amongst the followers of every religion are some fanatics. Religious fanaticism is dangerous. A fanatic is incapable of guiding himself by reason or even by the scientific principles of observation and analysis. According to the Buddha, a Buddhist must be a free man with an open mind and must not be subservient to anyone for his spiritual development. He seeks refuge in the Buddha by accepting Him as a source of supreme guidance and inspiration. He seeks refuge in the Buddha, not blindly, but with understanding. To Buddhists, the Buddha is not a savior nor is He an anthropomorphic being who claims to possess the power of washing away other's sins. Buddhists regard the Buddha as a Teacher who shows the Path to salvation. Buddhism has always supported the freedom and progress of mankind. Buddhism has always stood for the advancement of knowledge and freedom for humanity in every sphere of life. There is nothing in the Buddha's Teaching that has to be withdrawn in the face of modern, scientific inventions and knowledge. The more new things that scientists discover, the closer they come to the Buddha. The Buddha emancipated man from the thralldom of religion. He also released man from the monopoly and the tyranny of the priestcraft. It was the Buddha who first advised man to exercise his reason and not to allow himself to be driven meekly like dumb cattle, following the dogma of religion. The Buddha stood for rationalism, democracy and practical, ethical conduct in religion. He introduced this religion for people to practise with human dignity. The followers of the Buddha were advised not to believe anything without considering it properly. In the Kalama Sutta,the Buddha gave the following guidelines to a group of young people: 'Do not accept anything based upon mere reports, traditions or hearsay, Nor upon the authority of religious texts, Nor upon mere reasons and arguments, Nor upon one's own inference, Nor upon anything which appears to be true, Nor upon one's own speculative opinion, Nor upon another's seeming ability, Nor upon the consideration: 'This is our Teacher.' 'But, when you know for yourselves the certain things are unwholesome and bad: tending to harm yourself of others, reject them. 'And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good: conducive to the spiritual welfare of yourself as well as others, accept and follow them.' Buddhists are advised to accept religious practices only after careful observation and analysis, and only after being certain that the method agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all. A true Buddhist does not depend on external powers for his salvation. Nor does he expect to get rid of miseries through the intervention of some unknown power. He must try to eradicate all his mental impurities to find eternal Happiness. The Buddha says, 'If anyone were to speak ill of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be upset or perturbed, for this kind of reaction will only cause you harm. On the other hand, if anyone were to speak well of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be over-joyed, thrilled or elated, for this kind of reaction will only be an obstacle in forming a correct judgment. If you are elated, you cannot judge whether the qualities praised are real and actually found in us.' -- (Brahma Jala Sutta). Such is the unbiased attitude of a genuine Buddhist. The Buddha had upheld the highest degree of freedom not only in its human essence but also in its divine qualities. It is a freedom that does not deprive man of his dignity. It is a freedom that releases one from slavery to dogmas and dictatorial religious laws or religious punishments. Yet you class Gay people as queers. -- Bod |
#818
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 07:08:24 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 15/05/2016 06:57, Gunner Asch wrote: On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:47 -0600, rbowman wrote: On 05/14/2016 06:44 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: You can't believe two religions. If you became Buddhist, you must think Catholicism was incorrect, or you'd still be in that religion. http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Catholicis.../dp/0824514254 http://www.ncregister.com/site/artic..._collide_dont/ Some have tried to straddle the fence. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/277.htm Religion of Freedom This is a religion of freedom and reason for man to lead a noble life. Buddhism does not prevent anyone from learning the teachings of other religions. In fact, the Buddha encouraged His followers to learn about other religions and to compare His Teachings with other teachings. The Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings. The Buddha says that if there are reasonable and rational teachings in other religions, His followers are free to respect such teachings. It seems that certain religionists try to keep their followers in the dark, some of them are not even allowed to touch other religious objects or books. They are instructed not to listen to the preachings of other religions. They are enjoined not to doubt the teachings of their own religion, however unconvincing their teachings may appear to be. The more they keep their followers on a one-track mind, the more easily they can keep them under control. If anyone of them exercises freedom of thought and realizes that he had been in the dark all the time, then it is alleged that the devil has possessed his mind. The poor man is given no opportunity to use his common sense, education, of his intelligence. Those who wish to change their views on religion are taught to believe that they are not perfect enough to be allowed to use free will in judging anything for themselves. According to the Buddha, religion should be left to one's own free choice. Religion is not a law, but a disciplinary code which should be followed with understanding. To Buddhists true religious principles are neither a divine law nor a human law, but a natural law. In actual fact, there is no real religious freedom in any part of the world today. Man has not the freedom even to think freely. Whenever he realizes that he cannot find satisfaction through his own religion to which he belongs, which cannot provide him with satisfactory answers to certain questions, he has no liberty to give it up and to accept another which appeals to him. The reason is that religious authorities, leaders, and family members have taken that freedom away from him. Man should be allowed to choose his religion which is in accordance with his own conviction. One has no right to force another to accept a particular religion. Some people surrender their religion for the sake of love, without a proper understanding of their partner's religion. Religion should not be changed to suit man's emotions and human weaknesses. One must think very carefully before changing one's religion. Religion is not a subject for bargaining; one should not change one's religion for personal, material gains. Religion is to be sued for spiritual development and for self-salvation. Buddhists never try to influence other religionists to come and embrace their religion for material gain. Nor do they try to exploit poverty, sickness, illiteracy and ignorance in order to increase the number of Buddhist population. The Buddha advised those who indicated their wish to follow Him, not to be hasty in accepting His Teachings. He advised them to consider carefully His Teaching and to determine for themselves whether it was practical or not for them to follow. Buddhism teaches that mere belief or outward rituals are insufficient for attaining wisdom and perfection. In this sense, outward conversion becomes meaningless. To promote Buddhism by force would mean pretending to propagate justice and love by means of oppression and injustice. It is of no importance to a follower of the Buddha whether a person calls himself a Buddhist or not. Buddhists know that only through man's understanding and exertion will they come nearer to the goal preached by the Buddha. Amongst the followers of every religion are some fanatics. Religious fanaticism is dangerous. A fanatic is incapable of guiding himself by reason or even by the scientific principles of observation and analysis. According to the Buddha, a Buddhist must be a free man with an open mind and must not be subservient to anyone for his spiritual development. He seeks refuge in the Buddha by accepting Him as a source of supreme guidance and inspiration. He seeks refuge in the Buddha, not blindly, but with understanding. To Buddhists, the Buddha is not a savior nor is He an anthropomorphic being who claims to possess the power of washing away other's sins. Buddhists regard the Buddha as a Teacher who shows the Path to salvation. Buddhism has always supported the freedom and progress of mankind. Buddhism has always stood for the advancement of knowledge and freedom for humanity in every sphere of life. There is nothing in the Buddha's Teaching that has to be withdrawn in the face of modern, scientific inventions and knowledge. The more new things that scientists discover, the closer they come to the Buddha. The Buddha emancipated man from the thralldom of religion. He also released man from the monopoly and the tyranny of the priestcraft. It was the Buddha who first advised man to exercise his reason and not to allow himself to be driven meekly like dumb cattle, following the dogma of religion. The Buddha stood for rationalism, democracy and practical, ethical conduct in religion. He introduced this religion for people to practise with human dignity. The followers of the Buddha were advised not to believe anything without considering it properly. In the Kalama Sutta,the Buddha gave the following guidelines to a group of young people: 'Do not accept anything based upon mere reports, traditions or hearsay, Nor upon the authority of religious texts, Nor upon mere reasons and arguments, Nor upon one's own inference, Nor upon anything which appears to be true, Nor upon one's own speculative opinion, Nor upon another's seeming ability, Nor upon the consideration: 'This is our Teacher.' 'But, when you know for yourselves the certain things are unwholesome and bad: tending to harm yourself of others, reject them. 'And when you know for yourselves that certain things are wholesome and good: conducive to the spiritual welfare of yourself as well as others, accept and follow them.' Buddhists are advised to accept religious practices only after careful observation and analysis, and only after being certain that the method agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all. A true Buddhist does not depend on external powers for his salvation. Nor does he expect to get rid of miseries through the intervention of some unknown power. He must try to eradicate all his mental impurities to find eternal Happiness. The Buddha says, 'If anyone were to speak ill of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be upset or perturbed, for this kind of reaction will only cause you harm. On the other hand, if anyone were to speak well of me, my teaching and my disciples, do not be over-joyed, thrilled or elated, for this kind of reaction will only be an obstacle in forming a correct judgment. If you are elated, you cannot judge whether the qualities praised are real and actually found in us.' -- (Brahma Jala Sutta). Such is the unbiased attitude of a genuine Buddhist. The Buddha had upheld the highest degree of freedom not only in its human essence but also in its divine qualities. It is a freedom that does not deprive man of his dignity. It is a freedom that releases one from slavery to dogmas and dictatorial religious laws or religious punishments. Yet you class Gay people as queers. You class believers as insane. Given that "queer" has been the term used by both straights and gays to describe gays for many many decades...you have a problem with this? You are bonkers. Seek a mental health professional as soon as possible. The rot is spreading Gunner |
#819
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 07:07:11 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 15/05/2016 03:37, Gunner Asch wrote: On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:55:50 +0100, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote: "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence". "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs ..." Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as stated above, it can be classified as a religion. So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm! No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a religion. Being "religious" is a whole different practice. So I'm not religious, but I am? No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious". But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form. Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen. I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever. What..you two sleep together and need to back each other up? Fanatics are that way...pathetic and queer. So are you intolerant of Gay people? Intolerant? I have gay friends. Shrug....you embarrassed at having been exposed? Gunner |
#820
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:15:18 +0100, Bod wrote:
My opinion of Jews hasn't changed. The ones I meet are pleasant people. Most Jews ARE pleasant people. And your point is? Shalom Gunner y point is, that I don't hate anyone. You said "Do try try to be consistant in your distain and hate, old boy". I still want to know where I've shown hate! I did ask you this before. You hate and hold believers in distain and contempt. Your posts are rife with it. You cant see it can you? Haters seldom look at themselves. You are a hater. Gunner Any hate is in your own mind. Your denial is quite pathetic. |
#821
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (inconsiderate smokers)
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message ... On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:55 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:50:08 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/13/2016 7:10 AM, Mr Macaw wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 12:44:22 +0100, Stormin Mormon wrote: On 5/12/2016 2:30 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: And for those who get the occasional wiff of a cigarette.... and bitch and moan...tough. Was there any other questions? Gunner As with many smokers, you sure sound inconsiderate. That may be too mild a descriptor. Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip. Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where people would have no choice but to inhale that gas? Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people breath? Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non smoker sprayed around. If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not be liable for much of anything How about the equivalent to this: Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. How about that. So you getting a wiff on rare occasions is being poisoned far worse than I as the primary smoker? Is that your claim? It should be noted that Chocolate Can cause cancer as well as coffee, potatos and some fishes. With the exception of west coast fish...one would have to eat a few tons of each in multiple single settings...but hey...you would have to have a gas mask on your face for years at a time...connected directly to my gas masks exhaust port, to get enough "second hand smoke" (EEEEE!!! Run!!) to have ANY sort of medical risk...unless you have medical issues of your own. Which you appear to be victim of. You must curse your parents for their genetic "gift" to you. Gunner Another severly mentaly ill lib Gorbal warming is only one of their religions Sercond hand smoke is another one |
#822
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 15/05/2016 09:34, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:15:18 +0100, Bod wrote: My opinion of Jews hasn't changed. The ones I meet are pleasant people. Most Jews ARE pleasant people. And your point is? Shalom Gunner y point is, that I don't hate anyone. You said "Do try try to be consistant in your distain and hate, old boy". I still want to know where I've shown hate! I did ask you this before. You hate and hold believers in distain and contempt. Your posts are rife with it. You cant see it can you? Haters seldom look at themselves. You are a hater. Gunner Any hate is in your own mind. Your denial is quite pathetic. I'll ask for a third time. Show me the hate statements that you claim that I have made? -- Bod |
#823
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 03:36:36 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:45:38 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:26:16 +0100, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 3:32 AM, Bod wrote: I wonder how many more things Einstein could have discovered if he wasn't hampered by religion? Einstein was driven by "How did he do it". So I have to say, no. He probably would have just been mediocre. "hampered by religion"? You lead an insular life. Often times, those that say they don't believe in religion, get caught up in religions by other names, such a secular humanism, atheism, Liberalism, global warming (which is not science, but religoun). Liberalism, which tells you what you can eat, what you can wear, who you can speak with, what you can drive, yada, yada, yada, is far more restrictive than Christianity. Hell, Liberalism even tells you what you can think (political correctness). A lot of atheists are very religious people. More dogmatically narrow minded than the most devout Jew, Muslim, or southern Baptist Christian, by far. Erm! I was bullied into going to church as a kid by a scarey Vicar. Many Irish Catholics were also bullied and brainwashed to go to church. Cross the line and you got kneecapped or tarred and feathered. What lovely religious people. Bullying anyone is wrong, imo. I've been bullied by religious people, too, but just because they did something wrong, it shouldn't be cause for me to abandon something I believe in. I may question "why", but at the same time if I truly "believe" in a higher power then what people do to me can't change what I truly believe. Bullying people is fun, especially when the person you're bullying is a pathetic little worthless piece of ****. Survival of the strongest, fittest, cleverest, fastest, etc, etc. Oh, you don't believe that, you're religious. So er.... why do religious folk blow each other up? And you claim repeatedly that you dont attack the religious in the most viscious ways. When I pointed out that you lied...you denied it. And here you are doing it again. You are a true fanatic of your religion And a Putz. You can't even keep track of who you're talking to. I have never in my entire life said I don't attack the religious. -- I went to buy some camoflage trousers the other day but I couldn't find any. |
#824
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 03:37:43 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 01:47:01 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 00:34:17 +0100, Gunner Asch wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:55:50 +0100, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:41, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 12:33 PM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:10, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 11:39 AM, Bod wrote: "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence". "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs ..." Technically, if a person identifies with a particular societal organization that shares a specific mindset relating to such things as stated above, it can be classified as a religion. So in your strange interpretation, I am an Atheist who doesn't believe in *any* religion, but I am religious!!?....hmm! No. I'm saying that the definition of a religion equates atheism as a religion. Being "religious" is a whole different practice. So I'm not religious, but I am? No. A "religion" is not the same thing as being "religious". But I'm *not* religious in any way shape or form. Snort! You are VERY much religious! And you preach your religion long and loudly, to everyone you can force to listen. I know Bod and he's not religious in any way whatsoever. What..you two sleep together and need to back each other up? Fanatics are that way...pathetic and queer. You don't know any other men then? Men must only know women because to know someone means you **** them up the arse? -- Why is there no Disneyland China? No one's tall enough to go on the good rides. |
#825
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:54:26 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 15/05/2016 06:44, T wrote: On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote: If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between our two people will never be repairable. Don't even think about it! She is YOURS now !!!! -T She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-) Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now! Can't you just take her back for a a while? You might get to love her again. Please!....pretty please!!....with cherrys on top!! Think of the children! Don't tell me she's been done for child molesting aswell? -- The scientific theory I like best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline Luggage. -- Mark Russell |
#826
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 15/05/2016 11:18, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:54:26 +0100, Bod wrote: On 15/05/2016 06:44, T wrote: On 05/11/2016 02:11 AM, Bod wrote: If you guys ever send us back Madonna, the damage between our two people will never be repairable. Don't even think about it! She is YOURS now !!!! -T She's your baggage, please take her back to her homeland ;-) Are you trying to start a war ???? She is ALL yours now! Can't you just take her back for a a while? You might get to love her again. Please!....pretty please!!....with cherrys on top!! Think of the children! Don't tell me she's been done for child molesting aswell? Lol. -- Bod |
#827
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Wed, 11 May 2016 18:12:12 +0100, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 11:43 AM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote: guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? I always do. Autistic people have trouble in looking into peoples eyes though. Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. That's very true. It's absolute bull****. A good liar like myself can fake looks. -- Hit the button marked 'STOP' with remaining hand. |
#828
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:55:01 +0100, Muggles wrote:
On 5/11/2016 1:45 PM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 19:30, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 12:56 PM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:43, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 12:37 PM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 18:12, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 11:43 AM, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote: guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? I always do. Autistic people have trouble in looking into peoples eyes though. Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. That's very true. Wow!! we agree. :-) Yeah! Now, that we agree that you can see sincerity in someone's eyes, would you agree that you can see insincerity, too? Of course. Ok, would you define sincerity as good, and insincerity as bad, so you could actually say you can see good or bad in someones eyes? Yes and yes. So, you agree that "good" and "bad" exist, right? Those are concepts that are highly fluid and apply both the secular and spiritual mindsets. If you agree that "good" and "bad" exist, at what point did you define what qualifies as being either? A feeling? What other people taught you? A sense of right vs. wrong? What influenced you to accept how you would define either concept? Was it part of your training in the Catholic schools that you did accept? How can "good" and "bad" be separated as even being a secular or spiritual mindset, or are secular and spiritual concepts directly related? Good is the desire to be liked by others, for self gain. -- I limit my Political Correctness to voting. |
#829
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 06:46:26 +0100, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote: Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to look you in the eye. Guys look at the breasts. -- The problem with today's society is adults are treated like children, children are treated like retards, and retards are exempt from the law. |
#830
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:43:32 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 3:39 AM, T wrote: On 05/11/2016 01:02 AM, Bod wrote: On 10/05/2016 21:37, Muggles wrote: On 5/10/2016 2:22 PM, T wrote: On 05/08/2016 12:26 PM, Muggles wrote: On 5/8/2016 1:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2016 04:03:28 +0100, Muggles wrote: On 5/7/2016 4:08 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:36:25 +0100, Winston_Smith wrote: On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:09:27 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote: As intelligence increases with each generation, religion decreases. Can you prove a decrease in religion results in an increase of intelligence ? There seem to be examples to the contrary here. I'd say the increase in intelligence causes the decrease in religion. Clever folk realise what they've been taught is a load of ****e. Religion is only the outward expression of a desire or acknowledgement that a greater power exists beyond our own selves. Yes I know what religion is, and it's nonsensical. No, religion is a logical response to an inward sense that greatness exists outside of being human. There is no evidence of a greater power. Who designed the human nervous system? What sort of intelligence would it take to get it to function correctly? If there was one, there would be evidence, There is evidence, but even evidence is subject to your individual belief system. and if we have to worship it, he would ask for the worship. Would you want to have to ask, or would you want such adoration given freely to you? And looking around you, you see God's hand in everything. yeah ... Hmm, like some innocent babies being born blind/ limbless etc? Hi Bod, Long time no talk. Hope this find you well over on the island. That is nature, not God's doing. And don't think for one second that God doesn't notice. Luke 12:7 KJV But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefo ye are of more value than many sparrows. We also feel God presence around those who are helpless. This is what Muggles and I an talking about. And, by the way, we are servants of Christ. We are expected to be his arms and legs. No sitting back and hitting others over the head (taxes) and demanding that they take care of the helpless, but not lifting a figer ourselves. It is the deference between society, which is a blessing, and government, which is to punish. I've always thought that since it says we are the "body" of Christ that it included the entire body, not just the arms and legs. I've joked that I must be a gall bladder because even as a child people would say things to me like, "You've got GALL to say that!" lol I guess I wasn't born with much tact! sing "all things bright and wonderful, the lord god made them all". Yup. All things seen and unseen. You should feel our hearts when we look at the stars. The universe is beyond our human capability to comprehend (the hand of God). Then recite "god made all men equal" Colonel Colt made all men equal. God loves each and every one of us. What a load of crap!! Watch out what you do unto the least of you. You are also doing it unto God. That included the rivers of blood from the abortionist's knife. Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? I always do. Autistic people have trouble in looking into peoples eyes though. Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. Where did you get that idea from? I used to work in a school which had autistic kids, and they had perfectly normal conversations with me. -- In the first few days of the Olympics the Rumanians took gold, silver, bronze, copper, lead and anything else they could get their bloody hands on. |
#831
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:59:43 +0100, wrote:
Bod wrote: [...] Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. How do blind people look into someone's eyes? The dog tells them where to look. -- Cold showers/baths/swimming: 1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes. 2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body. 3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold. 4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories. 5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves. 6) Save energy. 7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale). |
#832
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:56:32 +0100, wrote:
Bod wrote: On 12/05/2016 13:43, Betty wrote: Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 19:59, Betty wrote: Bod wrote: [...] Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. How do blind people look into someone's eyes? Have a wild guess. "I expected a factual explanation ....". You made a definite statement and should have an answer other than, "Have a wild guess". If you understand what blindness means, then it was a stupid question. Your statement was a stupid premise, you are just unwilling to amend your statement. Are you some kind of AI? Because you need reprogramming. You're not acting normal enough to fool us into thinking you're human. You're taking all the words too literally. Report to yur programmer and get back to us within 9462378243 seconds. -- Yorkshire man takes his cat to the vet. Yorkshireman: "Ayup, lad, I need to talk to thee about me cat." Vet: "Is it a tom?" Yorkshireman: "Nay, I've browt it wi' us." |
#833
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Fri, 13 May 2016 15:34:23 +0100, Bud Frede wrote:
Betty 'all writes: Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 19:59, Betty wrote: Bod wrote: [...] Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. How do blind people look into someone's eyes? Have a wild guess. "I expected a factual explanation ....". You made a definite statement and should have an answer other than, "Have a wild guess". Given that eyes don't convey much in the way of sincerity or the lack thereof, I don't know that blind people are less effective at judging sincerity or veracity than someone who is sighted, or at least not because they can't see a persons eyes. A much more sensitive means is using the voice to judge these things. If you ever think that someone is lying to you, get them to repeat what they were telling you on the phone. Without all the other cues that are fooling you, it's usually pretty easy to detect a falsehood. I have no problem listening to the tone of voice just because they're in front of you. -- The most ejaculatory orgasms ever recorded in 1 hour for a boy is 16. |
#834
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (inconsiderate smokers)
On 5/15/2016 12:42 AM, Bod wrote:
Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where people would have no choice but to inhale that gas? Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people breath? Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non smoker sprayed around. If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not be liable for much of anything How about the equivalent to this: Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. Woman aged 112 says her secret to long life is smoking 30 cigarettes ... www.mirror.co.uk › News › Weird News › Smoking 26 Jan 2016 - A 112-year-old woman claims the secret to a long life is smoking .... Meet the world's oldest best man who organised the stag do aged 102 ... There's always someone who appears immune when many people get sick. Do you recommend her 30 cigarettes a day as a lifestyle? -- Maggie |
#835
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 5/15/2016 12:46 AM, T wrote:
On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote: Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to look you in the eye. They do? I'm surprised! -- Maggie |
#836
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 16:08:29 +0100, Muggles wrote:
On 5/15/2016 12:46 AM, T wrote: On 05/11/2016 09:32 AM, Muggles wrote: Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? True. Guys tend to just look forward. Girl do tend to look you in the eye. They do? I'm surprised! I find someone looking me straight in the eye very annoying. It's a sign of nosiness or impatience. They ask me a question, then stare directly into my eyes, indicating to me that they're annoyed I haven't answered yet. -- Don't waste money on binoculars, stand closer to the object. |
#837
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (inconsiderate smokers)
On 5/15/2016 1:06 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2016 22:42:55 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/14/2016 3:16 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: Non-smokers are the inconsiderate ones. They're taking in a millionth of what the smokers are, they need to get a grip. Do you think it would be ok with you if a non-smoker sprayed bottled sewer gas that contained various dangerous chemicals randomly where people would have no choice but to inhale that gas? Why do smokers believe they have a right to poison the air other people breath? Depends on the levels of the sew gas and the chemicals that that non smoker sprayed around. If he were spewing out .005 parts per million..Id think he would not be liable for much of anything How about the equivalent to this: Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. How about that. So you getting a wiff on rare occasions is being poisoned far worse than I as the primary smoker? Is that your claim? As a child I got a wiff with every breath I took while I was at home. Those cumulative wiffs caused multiple upper respiratory infections, including ear infections, bronchitis, and reactive airway disease. It should be noted that Chocolate Can cause cancer as well as coffee, potatos and some fishes. With the exception of west coast fish...one would have to eat a few tons of each in multiple single settings...but There are no people forcing anyone to eat chocolate, coffee, potatos, or fish. If people have illness as a result of allergies to those things they don't go near them, and on top of that they aren't exposing other people to any dangerous chemicals they have no choice by to breath. hey...you would have to have a gas mask on your face for years at a time...connected directly to my gas masks exhaust port, to get enough "second hand smoke" (EEEEE!!! Run!!) to have ANY sort of medical risk...unless you have medical issues of your own. Which you appear to be victim of. You must curse your parents for their genetic "gift" to you. After years of exposure and damage to my body from secondhand smoke, I'm highly allergic and reactive to not only cigarette smoke, but VOC's in the air. It's a fact that cigarette smoke hurts the people it comes in contact with, including, the residue you carry on you in your hair and on your clothes. Many people who smoke, not everyone, simply don't care about anyone but themselves because their hooked on smoking psychologically, physically, and emotionally. Essentially, they're drug addicts, only their drug is legal. -- Maggie |
#838
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Sun, 15 May 2016 04:41:44 +0100, Muggles wrote:
On 5/14/2016 3:01 AM, Gunner Asch wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:01:32 -0400, Bud Frede wrote: I've never heard of anyone losing their hearing due to secondhand smoke. Can you tell us more about this? She admitted to having been a sickly child. Probably the results of measles or bad ear infections. Center for Disease Control Secondhand smoke contains more than 7,000 chemicals. Hundreds are toxic and about 70 can cause cancer. Since the 1964 Surgeon Generals Report, 2.5 million adults who were nonsmokers died because they breathed secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke causes numerous health problems in infants and children, including more frequent and severe asthma attacks, respiratory infections, ear infections, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Smoking during pregnancy results in more than 1,000 infant deaths annually. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...ealth_effects/ I don't think I need to post the entire website. Bod, how many years have you smoked? Would you say you were less well than anyone else? -- All the American flags on the moon have been bleached by radiation from the sun (which can only be a good thing). |
#839
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On Thu, 12 May 2016 17:37:13 +0100, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 7:01 AM, Bud Frede wrote: Muggles writes: I've asked many questions, myself. As far as creation goes, including human beings, the rules were defined in the beginning. Babies being born blind or limbless and other such things happened after sin entered the world. There is now more chemicals and pollution that we're exposed I get right off that boat when it comes to things like "original sin." Why would a newborn baby be punished for something that someone else did far in the past? What kind of petty, vengeful god would cause a newborn baby to be born blind of limbless? According to the bible, God "created" everything "in the beginning". At that time all rules of nature and creation were also set into motion. WE create the newborn baby based on the laws set into motion "in the beginning". Since, sin entered the world, nothing has been perfect, which allowed disease and imperfection to occur. Everything humanity has done from the time of the fall leads up to a certain result - our actions have consequences in our lives and our bodies, and that includes our children. This world was given to us to have dominion over, and what we have today is a result of OUR dominion over this world, not God's. God gave it to us, and he hasn't taken it back. Mankind in it's limited understanding has thoroughly screwed things up over and over again, and yet, the bible still tells us that God is waiting for us to acknowledge him and come to him, and he will stand by our sides as we deal with this world and help us, lead us, give us wisdom, and live in this world that he gave us. THAT is what the bible says, not me. Typical religious nut, twisting things to suit reality. -- In the UK, 17% of employees are health and safety officers. Say NO! to health and safety in the workplace, before there are no real workers left! Look out for yourself and stop blaming each other like 6 year olds! |
#840
Posted to alt.home.repair,alt.survival
|
|||
|
|||
Flashlight temptation (initial follow up report 3)
On 15/05/2016 15:55, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:43:32 +0100, Bod wrote: On 11/05/2016 17:32, Muggles wrote: On 5/11/2016 3:39 AM, T wrote: On 05/11/2016 01:02 AM, Bod wrote: On 10/05/2016 21:37, Muggles wrote: On 5/10/2016 2:22 PM, T wrote: On 05/08/2016 12:26 PM, Muggles wrote: On 5/8/2016 1:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sun, 08 May 2016 04:03:28 +0100, Muggles wrote: On 5/7/2016 4:08 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:36:25 +0100, Winston_Smith wrote: On Sat, 07 May 2016 21:09:27 +0100, "Mr Macaw" wrote: As intelligence increases with each generation, religion decreases. Can you prove a decrease in religion results in an increase of intelligence ? There seem to be examples to the contrary here. I'd say the increase in intelligence causes the decrease in religion. Clever folk realise what they've been taught is a load of ****e. Religion is only the outward expression of a desire or acknowledgement that a greater power exists beyond our own selves. Yes I know what religion is, and it's nonsensical. No, religion is a logical response to an inward sense that greatness exists outside of being human. There is no evidence of a greater power. Who designed the human nervous system? What sort of intelligence would it take to get it to function correctly? If there was one, there would be evidence, There is evidence, but even evidence is subject to your individual belief system. and if we have to worship it, he would ask for the worship. Would you want to have to ask, or would you want such adoration given freely to you? And looking around you, you see God's hand in everything. yeah ... Hmm, like some innocent babies being born blind/ limbless etc? Hi Bod, Long time no talk. Hope this find you well over on the island. That is nature, not God's doing. And don't think for one second that God doesn't notice. Luke 12:7 KJV But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefo ye are of more value than many sparrows. We also feel God presence around those who are helpless. This is what Muggles and I an talking about. And, by the way, we are servants of Christ. We are expected to be his arms and legs. No sitting back and hitting others over the head (taxes) and demanding that they take care of the helpless, but not lifting a figer ourselves. It is the deference between society, which is a blessing, and government, which is to punish. I've always thought that since it says we are the "body" of Christ that it included the entire body, not just the arms and legs. I've joked that I must be a gall bladder because even as a child people would say things to me like, "You've got GALL to say that!" lol I guess I wasn't born with much tact! sing "all things bright and wonderful, the lord god made them all". Yup. All things seen and unseen. You should feel our hearts when we look at the stars. The universe is beyond our human capability to comprehend (the hand of God). Then recite "god made all men equal" Colonel Colt made all men equal. God loves each and every one of us. What a load of crap!! Watch out what you do unto the least of you. You are also doing it unto God. That included the rivers of blood from the abortionist's knife. Guess you have never looked into someone's eyes and seen the love of God. Many people won't look others eye to eye because they can see into that person's soul what they are going through, or what they are about. Have you noticed that people don't like looking at each other eye to eye? I always do. Autistic people have trouble in looking into peoples eyes though. Only by looking into someone's eyes can you see their sincerity. Where did you get that idea from? I used to work in a school which had autistic kids, and they had perfectly normal conversations with me. Because I know about Autism and you haven't got a clue. https://www.autismspeaks.org/blog/20...ke-eye-contact -- Bod |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Looking for Best LED Flashlight | Home Repair | |||
Fighting Temptation | Home Repair | |||
LED flashlight | Electronics Repair | |||
The "Illegal" Temptation | Home Repair | |||
Temptation. Virtual sculpture. | Woodworking |