Jetrell Fo

Bingowings said:

Warbler said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

 

 I think he made it very clear that he does not approve of stoning or throwing bleach on someone.  

 But he is also against 'forcing the view' that it is wrong on someone else???

Again, you assume and create something different out of what was said.  There are no cryptic meanings to my words ..... I said I would not condone me forcing MY views on anyone else.

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

No, no, and No.  Which part of that is difficult to understand? 

 One small aspect... the words.

Then either you don't read well or you prefer a caustic atmosphere with regards to discussion.  You ASSUME far too much.

TV's Frink said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

 So you're cool with serial killer views of the world.  Interesting.

And as for you mister .......  easy now.  :)

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

Not even if it's a preference for not having bleach or stones placed where you would rather not?

No, no, and No.  Which part of that is difficult to understand? 

Bingowings said:

Of course he does. It doesn't involve putting bleach in anyone's eyes or pelting people with stones.

I have not now, nor will I ever, condone such acts towards anyone.  I also would never condone forcing my view of the world on to others for any reason.  

And you have every right to your opinion TheBoost. 

SilverWook said:

darklordoftech said:

It's too bad that the TFN thread got locked because I wanted to post "that Plagueis is alive" in that thread.

 We don't want nor need outside forum drama being dragged in here. With the renewed interest in Star Wars, we'll have enough shenanigans as it is.

LOL, we have all the shenanigans we can handle around here without renewed interest in Star Wars.

:)

SilverWook said:

Yes, but like the HS, it must be preserved as a warning to future fans. ;)

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kC467GyP6Y

Thanks.  I'll check it out but it's not what I'm after ultimately.

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

 Of course at least we can agree on that.

It's basic premise of "change what you don't like" is the same.

No... one is altering the emphasis away from something considered not currently relevant by believers and the other is pouring bleach into a living human being. See the subtle difference it's hard to spot I agree but it's there if you still have eyes to see it.

I agree that the physical position is different but the underlying message of both can create the same amount of damage mentally and emotionally to either side. 

As far as I'm concerned the bible is as irrelevant as being gay because neither should define a persons being.  We are all individuals, gay or straight.  We all bleed red.  We all feel pain and hurt.  Either scenario creates a discord in the fabric of beings .... and we have no idea how the outcome will affect the future, regardless of what we like to think would or should happen. 

Bingowings said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

 Of course at least we can agree on that.

It's basic premise of "change what you don't like" is the same.

TV's Frink said:

I judge all of you.

I would NOT want to see what Frink's bible looks like, LOL.

Bingowings said:

Only the bit that is apparently obsolete and only ever was meant for a particular people (the Israelites) at a particular point in history (between the Exodus and the coming of Christ) which advocates a violent death as a solution to acts deemed sinful to the Deity but legal to the state.

Only the bit that in some translations has been interpreted to refer to only penetrative sex between men (with one dressed as a woman) and all homosexual acts including lesbianism.

The bit that crazed evangelicals dish out whenever they want to damn something happening in the secular world which is not allowed within the closed doors of their religion (though often the speaker in question is blowing male prostitutes while high on drugs).

It's not in anyway equatable with spraying bleach into mens eyes and pouring bleach into another man's mouth.

Of course it isn't.  Cuz if it was, you'd look no better than those you want to change.

It's fairly simple really, you want to change an entire religion by altering it's text to fit your view of the world while others want to alter human beings by pouring bleach on them so they fit their view of the world.

You want to censor an entire religion and others want to censor an entire section of the population.

Seems even odds to me, a horse a piece.

hundsdorfex said:

Where can i get this preservation ???

Only in myspleen ???

Can someone point me any links ???

If you are not a member then someone sending you links will do you no good because you won't be able to access them.

Try this first .....

http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/Post-in-this-thread-to-request-an-invite-to-MySpleenorg-you-MUST-read-the-first-post/post/295688/#TopicPost295688

Bingowings said:

When one rides a unicorn (and I speak from experience) each leg is either side of the neck of the beast, the horn is therefore between ones legs.

The neck of the "beast" as you called it is between their legs, the horn is still on the horses head.  And if I'm not mistaken, the unicorn would only use it's horn in defense, never to harm. 

I am agnostic so all this religious discussion is somewhat distant to me. 

Oddly, some people want to cleanse people with bleach while others want to cleanse the bible by tampering with it's text, a book written thousands of years ago by different people with no real-time existence with Jesus.

I'd say each side sounds more alike than they care to admit.  This is just an observation based on postings above, it is not a judgement of anyone or their beliefs.

^^^^

That's odd because a unicorn's horn is on it's head, not between it's legs.  The rider would only have a horse between their legs as the horn is still on the horses head.

I'm confused.

The Kenny G musical tribute is kinda cool and I'm not a fan of his.  But yeah, the 25th is far more entertaining.

Didn't Jason Alexander from Seinfeld host a Star Trek TV tribute of some sort?

I have a Panasonic AG1980. it could handle it, right?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Jonathan_Ross%27_Essential_Guide_To_Star_Trek:_First_Contact

Shame I don't have the cash to pony up for it.

TrekBBS says this ...

Yeah. It was actually one of their better First Look specials. It featured behind the scenes footage not seen on the DVD along with interviews with Borg make-up effects technician Todd Masters, costume designer Deborah Everton, and actor Neal ("Lt. Hawk") McDonough. Too bad Paramount didn't include any of that on the DVD/Blu-Ray release.

Here is what Blaine had to say ....

It was only called "Beyond First Contact" when broadcast in the UK.  In the US, it was shown on HBO and was just "Making First Contact".

I believe so.  I don't know that he's ever signed up or perused here though.  He's more of a film collector and such.  He's a really great guy.

SilverWook said:

This site is a good resource.

http://www.blam1.com/StarTrek/index.htm

Details on the specials can be found under miscellaneous.

I really want to see the 30th anniversary Trek tv special, as reviews I've read made it out to be SWHS level bad. They did a sketch mixing Voyager with the cast of Fraiser!

I'm friends with Blaine and I never thought to ask him.  I'll send him a note today.

As for the 30th Anniversary, the thing I disliked most was that they end it before it actually ended while giving out awards at the end.  It was the same way when it was broadcast on TV.  At least I have it to watch. 

Echo3 said:

sorry about that Jetrell.  Try again. Im not sure if the same "XVid junk" you mention, but they certainly look better than DVD.

RE: destroy all monsters. yes, I see that its discussed. That why I added it to my list.  Was there something else you were pointing out about it?  Im not sure where to get ahold of it.

Sorry, I'm just not a fan of xVid and compression in general. 

I believe I got a hold of my DAM @ TPB.