A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 13:49 In article <8bo8psFmj5U2(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-E45CCB.12475331072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > . > > > > No she did not. She told a complete narrative which indicated how she > > came to terms with the impulse for reverse racism, and overcame it. > > Breitbart edited this quite deliberately to distort the story to look > > 180 degrees different. That's a simple lie. > > That is the lie. The video on Breitbarts site clearly shows that part of the > video. > > > > For example, I take "Breitbarts target was the NAACP, not Sherrod. She > > made the statements. " of yours and edit it to say: > > > > "Breitbarts target was Sherrod. She made the statements. " > > > > It that the truth? > > He used Sherrod to make a point about the NAACP. Excuse me, he deliberately misrepresented what Sherrod said to try to discredit the NAACP. Big difference.
From: William Clark on 2 Aug 2010 13:53 In article <8bo8clFk1lU2(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > news:wclark2-461BD8.12331031072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <8bgpfgFjmcU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> news:mfb656lnn3k6l3kud0kfmufbuia7740k81(a)4ax.com... > >> > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:52:27 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >><bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >> >>news:3ka656pd3g5igp3s7c5tevo6nff6d5b2qa(a)4ax.com... > >> >>> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 14:37:24 -0500, "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> > >> >>> wrote: > >> > > >> >>>>> You, on the other hand, have nothing but one way political thought > >> >>>>> as > >> >>>>> evidenced here. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> BK > >> >>>> > >> >>>>Right Bobby. Your words don't match your rhetoric. > >> >>>> > >> >>> What a laugh. My words ARE rhetoric. You need a dictionary. > >> >>> > >> >>> Do you mean my words don't match my actions? What the hell do you > >> >>> know about my actions? > >> >>> > >> >>> Nothing. > >> >>>> > >> >> > >> >>You are just as party line as anyone else here. > >> > > >> > Only to you and Moderate. I vote split tickets and even supported > >> > Bush when he was in office. I wanted him to be effective, he just > >> > wasn't. He was a joke. > >> > > >> > As I said, you seem to want Obama to fail more than you want the > >> > country to recover. That's extreme right wing. > >> > > >> No Bobby you just don't get it. People want the country to recover. The > >> majority of us don't think Obama is going to get us there. Hopefully he > >> proves us wrong, but I just cant see it right now. > > > > "Hopefully he proves us wrong"? Don't make me laugh - you and the rest > > of the wingnuts are devastated at the prospect of that happening. > > Devastated? No, more like highly skeptical. No, "devastated" is right.
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 14:14 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-50F88F.09230702082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8bmuc6F11gU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > news:alangbaker-27495F.05365101082010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > In article <MPG.26bf2ff0ab24ec6798a174(a)news.giganews.com>, > > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <alangbaker-15E2AB.23062231072010(a)news.shawcable.com>, > > > > alangbaker(a)telus.net says... > > > > > > > > > > In article <8bjv3hFufjU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:wclark2-DBCC9B.17523931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > > > In article <8bj66lFm27U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > > "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "BAR" <screw(a)you.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > news:MPG.26be08094943135398a15f(a)news.giganews.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And, superstition is more widely believed and adhered to > > around the > > > > > > > > > world than science. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ask any baseball player. Golfers too. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, their superstition does not contribute to their ability at the > > game, > > > > > > > just to how they calm their nerves. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's belief. I didn't claim there was in validity. It's a shot in > > the > > > > > > dark, like atheistic evolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Greg > > > > > > > > > > LOL > > > > > > > > > > Evolution is not atheistic or theistic, Greg. It simply is. > > > > > > > > Evolution is a theory. > > > > > > Correct. I'd say at this point it is a theory that is a close to proven > > > as any theory can ever be, but it is still a theory. > > > > > > However, it is neither atheistic nor theistic. > > > > There are those who believe in God and evolution. > > > > -Greg > > Which entirely proves Alan's point. Duh. I used the words atheistic evolution vs. deistic evolution, to illustrate that the former requires more faith than those who believe in pig guts and astrology. Duh. Deistic evolution is a more reasoned approach to the origin and development of life. -Greg
From: Moderate on 2 Aug 2010 14:11 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-59B516.13475602082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8bo518Fv2bU2(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >> Carbons lap dog speaks! Woof! > > In future, "think twice, type once", might be a useful mantra for you. Thinking once would be an immense step forward for you. Woof!
From: dene on 2 Aug 2010 14:17
"Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote in message news:5kqb56diek5m92djb6v60r1ilcpl82im5u(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:58:09 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> > wrote: > > >On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 12:56:46 -0400, William Clark > ><wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > >>Oh, and it is not necessary to be an atheist to believe in evolution. > >>That's just another creationist crock. > > >The big objection isn't in evolution - some evolution was obvious long > >before Darwin. > > >The objection is in natural selection, as long as "natural" means "not > >done by God or by Man". And of course, the idea that humans evolved > >from something else. > > It's easier to find physical evidence that mankind (and every other > living thing) evolved from gobs of protoplasm than it is to find > evidence that there is a creative mind behind it all. It's in the > DNA. It is not easy to find physical evidence. The transcending mutatations fossils between species should far outweigh the fossils for existing or extinct species. Yet there is virtually nothing in the fossil record. There is evolution within species....the evidence....but not from one species to another. -Greg |