Jump to content


Easter Quiz


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#21 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 23,054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 26 April 2011 - 10:51 AM

View Postvbnautilus, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 11:39 AM, said:

Well they go to church and listen to some egomaniac blathering about Jesus instead of running through fields of flowers in their brand new jellies.
Yea..taking a day to reflect on the gift of eternal life is a bit selfish...

Quote

Definitely the mechanism by which life changes is itself changing. For one thing, our own will is now a part of the equation.
You are hooked on the notion that evolution isn't random chance. It's kind of weird. Maybe you should reread some book or womething to understand what evolution means.

Quote

OK mister anti-human sacrifice, what do think Jesus was?
Now this...this was a good one.Dang it.

Quote

The cycle of life dying and regrowing is a natural process, not a man-made one. Spring is not something that man does.
How did Catholics stop Spring?

Quote

Spring shopping, ok certain men do that.
Let's leave checky out of the discussion.

Quote

Somebody has to supply the priests.
You should have stopped with the Jesus was a human sacrifice line. you were riding so high, and now you are back to dirty hippy status.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

#22 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,316 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 26 April 2011 - 11:20 AM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 11:51 AM, said:

How did Catholics stop Spring?
The celebration of spring. Which incidentally is when we should be celebrating the new year, instead of the arbitrary and meaningless december 31st which is just some peculiar artifact of the counting system's improper alignment with christianity.

Quote

You should have stopped with the Jesus was a human sacrifice line. you were riding so high, and now you are back to dirty hippy status.
Like I can resist a lob like that one.

#23 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 23,054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 26 April 2011 - 11:27 AM

View Postvbnautilus, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 12:20 PM, said:

The celebration of spring. Which incidentally is when we should be celebrating the new year, instead of the arbitrary and meaningless december 31st which is just some peculiar artifact of the counting system's improper alignment with christianity.
So Catholics changed January 1st to the middle of winter?Man you are paranoid.

Quote

Like I can resist a lob like that one.
Pretends its a job, then you can resist it. Hippy
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

#24 Roll the Bones

Roll the Bones

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,727 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rivendell

Posted 26 April 2011 - 12:51 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 2:16 PM, said:

Honest question.Do you really think mankind has any chance of not destroying itself and or its planet eventually?Even if there are many many people who are brought to the love of life as you are claiming, there only takes one guy to 'push the button' or drop the vial of ebola in the right place.
Damn, got busy and vb beat me to the "religon based on human sacrifice joke" but I can still mention that South America was the last place that Christians burned witches at the stake. Anyway, I don't think anyone knows what will eventually happen to this planet or us. It could be a meteor, global warming or cooling, volcanos, disease or a host of other things, we simiply don't know or have enough knowledge. Interesting story he told though, ever hear of the Dodo bird? It was discovered in the late 16th century (1598) by Portugese sailors on the island of Mauritania. It was flightless small bird that having no predator was completely fearless and friendly to humans. It came running when anyone was near. Close to a century later people starting hunting and killing them for fun. That coupled with the introduction of dogs, cats and other animals within 17 years they were wiped out. Many years later the only thing left was a stuffed species in a college in England and some teacher complained of the musty smell and threw it on a bonfire. Now, other than a few bad oil drawings there is no evidence it even existed, not even an egg-nothing. We, I mean homo sapiens, seem to wipe out other species across the planet and alot of them were on a whim. Golden parakeets and carrier pidgeons were two of the most populous birds in the US once. Hell, we don't have any evidence of the golden parakeet either. Cincinnati zoo had the last stuffed one of those and lost it. Thorughout history, since we came out of Africa animals have dissapeared and to be honest we don't have a clue how many species we wiped out or even what existed. We know of huge sloths, monitor lizards and giant turtles that existed in North America that don't now. Only four large land animals even exist out of probably hundreds of thousands.So, being the smartest animals, possibly in the universe, we aren't that good the only life we know of and the only planet that can contain it. You'd think we'd be a little smarter.
As Eric Idle wrote: You know, you come from nothing - you're going back to nothing. What have you lost? Nothing!

#25 Spademan

Spademan

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 4,740 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:13 PM

To the readers:Excellent learning points in this thread. Thanks in advance to BG and brv.

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 11:59 AM, said:

What is the likelihood that these 'problems' being answered will be accepted by the people who bring this up even thought they are told the truth?0%,
BG begins by implying that the points raised in the OP are actually not a problem. He even puts 'problems' in what I assume to be quotes. His refutation of these "problems"? Well, nobody would believe the refutations. He provides no counter-argument. Simply says "you wouldn't believe it." This is what I call hand waving. There is no content, no refutation, no engagement on the topic at hand. There is only, *waves hands* "you wouldn't even believe it if I provided you with a sound, well-evidenced refutation. So instead of giving this refutation, I'll say you wouldn't believe it and wave my hands."

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 11:59 AM, said:

even though their own insanity shows itself because they try to make two important points that cancel each other out.1. If the Bible is truly the Word of God then these problem have answers.2. Since the Bible was written by man, then the only conclusion we can derive is that complete and utter fools made the first drafts of these Gospels, and not one Christian for hundreds of years was smart enough to 'fix' these errors.
Next, he hilariously combines two fallacies together for an uber-fallacy. He creates a False Dichotomy (a fallacy) and then places this fallacy within a straw man (a fallacy). Awesome.

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 11:59 AM, said:

( which makes it extremely unlikely of being true since at the time probably 1 in a couple thousand people was capable of writing, which makes it almost a miracle that there were dozens of scholarly elites that conspired to invent the Gospels using hundreds of prophetic writings in the Jewish books for the sole purpose of ....(this is where it gets really tricky since ALLLLLLL those early church fathers died horrible deaths after living lives of poverty and persecution for what they knew to be a lie ) the sole purpose of fooling people for no outward gain)
Now he kind of makes an attempt to logically refute something. Unfortunately, he is attempting to refute his own false dichotomy that he propped up as a straw man. Sadly, even against his own straw man, his only points are:1. lol, there weren't that many people who wrote (implication: therefore it must be true).2. The people who wrote it were willing to die (implication: therefore it must be true). Putting aside that he provides no citation for these claims, even though citation would be needed to take his claims seriously - but even putting that important fact aside - notice how poor his argument is - even against his own straw man. Point 1 has literally no content. Simply bald assertion. Let's take a look at his implication in point 2:1. They were willing to die for their cause.2. Therefore their cause was true. This is embarrassingly stupid. Despite the desperate stupidity, it is an extremely common claim you'll hear when discussing a person's cult. How often this is used is another indicator of how poorly an irrational mind can operate while defending a magical belief. Even a child, thinking clearly, could formulate the equivalent of "uhm, radical Muslims blow themselves up for Islam. So you're saying Islam must be true. And we even know with relative certainty they are willing to die for their belief, since they are doing it today. We don't even have to trust the word of a collection of cobbled texts thousands of years old that claims they died for their belief."

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 11:59 AM, said:

So by rehashing the tired old arguments that have been trounced for centuries, you in fact reinforce the Gospels.
After making a stupid argument against his own straw man, he goes right back to the beginning. Waves his hands and makes a bald claim that the points have been "trounced for centuries". Pure, content-free, un-cited, un-evidenced assertion. Without even addressing the 'problems', he declares victory. Adorable.

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 11:59 AM, said:

Thanks.
No no. We should thank BG. We should thank him for providing another classic example of a type of Gish Gallop.We can see how one can make a content-free argument, fallacy after fallacy... and the difficulty in having a discussion with such a person. It is time consuming and annoying to point out discrepancy, lies, bullshit and fallacy in arguments that are composed exclusively of discrepancy, lies, bullshit and fallacy. This type of argument can be effective in debate because it is a rare person who is willing to address such prolific bullshit, and this gives the impression of potency to a casual observer. "Hmm, that other guy didn't even address most of his points, maybe some of them are true. Maybe he can't address them." Another fine example of hand waving:

View PostBalloon guy, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 1:52 PM, said:

Case in point:If you are correct than how do you know A isn't the correct answer?You claim that you know that the original writings were 'anonymous'...how? You would need the originals to make this claim.You also claim that the originals were changed..how? See above.In fact you guys really just need them to be untrustworthy so you can therefore declare that they are not worthy to be trusted. But your own methods to cast doubt actually lend credit to two things: One you guys really don't know so you need to spread your bias thickly over the facts, and two you guys are afraid.Once you accept this specific question's answer as being correct: Please to return to the other questions and ask yourself how anyone would know what you are claiming. I mean you guys are claiming to 'know' what happened using books that were written anonymously hundreds of years later and changed many times, and yet you guys 'know' what actually happened with enough authority to declare the current Gospels as being incorrect.You guys must have 'another' source for your knowledge, I wish you guys would share it.
Parse this post for actual claims. Notice, again, he provides absolutely no citation, evidence, scholarship... nothing... for his implicit claim that the bible is inerrant or written by the named authors. There have been numerous references in multiple threads in this forum to scholarship and work in the area. You can, if you desire, find such scholarship yourself. Even if you pick up any number of bibles today - I mean, in an actual bible itself - right there in the notes or indexes are statements that "the actual author of x is unknown" time and time again.He says that his opponents are "afraid" and that one needs to "spread his bias thickly over the facts", waves his hands and, humorously, implicitly claims that "even you admit that nobody knows who wrote them: therefore who I say wrote them wrote them." lolGood stuff. Also notice how he once again doesn't address any of the "problems" - he waves his hands while shaking his head and mumbling about unrelated nonsense. This amounts to the entirety of his argument. Gish Galloping off into the sunset.

View Postbrvheart, on Monday, April 25th, 2011, 2:09 PM, said:

Randy: All of these "points" have easy answers, even though the site you copied them from says they are a "smoking gun".
LOLWithout the Gish Gallop, brv simply waves his hands.The points have "easy answers". This is his answer. He doesn't provide any "easy answers". It is enough, to his mind, to state that there are easy answers.Who knows what he means? Maybe he means a case of Special Pleading (a fallacy you should well aquaint yourself with if you are to engage or observe a religous person in debate - it is a real go-to in defending a god): "Yahweh did it, therefore any inerrancy you see is not actually inerrant because Yahweh isn't bound by logic." In that case, he's right, it's easy indeed. Simply say "MagicWizard did it", problem solved.Or perhaps he is referring to apologetic maneuvering. If that is the case he is being dishonest. Apologetic rhetoric and bullshit takes work. Especially to have one's reworking and "interpretations" and selective metaphor find even minor consensus within even a singular denomination let alone amongst thousands. You talk to 10 different "bible believers" concerning a single biblical absurdity and you could receive 12 different apologetic answers, some mutually exclusive. Try it some time. It's fun. So one is left wondering what these "easy answers" are, since he does not provide them despite how easy they are. --------------------------------These two usually approach arguments concerning their beliefs with what is by far the most common methodology of magical believers. Hand-waving, fallacy and bald assertions.To their credit, they forgo another common meme, "pearl-clutching" (clutching one's pearl necklace to their chest with a gasp). They don't dismiss or avoid or attempt to refute arguments by "being offended".However, if you run across an irrational thinker who actually will address your arguments with apologetic wizardry, or history revision (for example: "America was founded as a christian nation", lol - or "a bunch of zombies came out of their graves and walked around major cities", lol) and is willing to cite the references from which they gleaned this information, check their sources. Discover where they are getting their material and support, and evaluate the source within their particular field. Weigh it against the breadth, compositon, depth, and peer review of other scholaship in the field. Examine the standards of evidence utilized by the source.Proceed from there.
'"Luck" is people taking the laws of probability personally, it is the excitement of bad math.'

#26 Skeleton Jelly

Skeleton Jelly

    KOWTF

  • Members
  • 3,322 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 April 2011 - 02:36 PM

View PostTheraflu, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 2:52 PM, said:



#27 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 23,054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:21 PM

I've been accused of not supplying facts, by a post empty of facts.And one filled with the straw man of misdirection. The entire post is filled with nothing but snapping fingers crying look here, at least when its not making supposed personal anecdotes of questioning 10 different people to compare results and getting 12 answers ( try it sometimes.)Me thinks thou protesteth too muchBut making the case that muslims who strap bombs 1500 years after their religion was created is EXACTLY the same thing as the original con men who knowingly wrote a false Bible and died refusing to deny it?Those two things are exactly the same thing...if you want to avoid honesty.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

#28 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,108 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:43 PM

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 9:21 PM, said:

I've been accused of not supplying facts, by a post empty of facts.And one filled with the straw man of misdirection. The entire post is filled with nothing but snapping fingers crying look here, at least when its not making supposed personal anecdotes of questioning 10 different people to compare results and getting 12 answers ( try it sometimes.)Me thinks thou protesteth too muchBut making the case that muslims who strap bombs 1500 years after their religion was created is EXACTLY the same thing as the original con men who knowingly wrote a false Bible and died refusing to deny it?Those two things are exactly the same thing...if you want to avoid honesty.
They aren't exactly the same thing. They are exactly the same in the way that's relevant to your specific argument.Which biblical authors do you think died for their beliefs and what makes you think this?
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#29 Spademan

Spademan

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 4,740 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 26 April 2011 - 05:55 PM

Thanks go out to BG for providing a short enough post to be useful as a practical exercise for the reader:

View PostBalloon guy, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 6:21 PM, said:

I've been accused of not supplying facts, by a post empty of facts.And one filled with the straw man of misdirection. The entire post is filled with nothing but snapping fingers crying look here, at least when its not making supposed personal anecdotes of questioning 10 different people to compare results and getting 12 answers ( try it sometimes.)Me thinks thou protesteth too muchBut making the case that muslims who strap bombs 1500 years after their religion was created is EXACTLY the same thing as the original con men who knowingly wrote a false Bible and died refusing to deny it?Those two things are exactly the same thing...if you want to avoid honesty.
Alright, here we have a much shorter example of the previously deconstructed post. Previously, BG has made the claim that the "problems" in the OP, which were referenced with the verses you can read to verify they are not distorted or taken out of context, are "not problems at all". He has claimed that these "problems" have been "trounced for centuries".Instead of providing any content relating to these alleged refutations we can parse the thread and find literally no counter to these "problems" outside of baldly claiming they are refuted. Now we have this post.Questions:1. In what way has he addressed the "problems" that "have been trounced for centuries"? Has he addressed them at all, let alone provided us the information that "trounces" them? If so, how?2. In what way has he defended any of his implicit claims concerning the authors of the Gospels? Has he defended them at all? If so, how?3. If he has not provided any refutation, or has provided insufficient refutation, what has he been doing otherwise? He has clearly been writing words and responses, what is the content and intent of these words and responses?4. Do you see any fallacious statements in this post? If so, what are the fallacies? 5. Do you see any bald statements? If so, which? How could he have attempted to support them? Which claims would have been a reasonably supported claim if actually supported?This is a short enough post that these questions can be examined and answered, at least to yourself, relatively quickly. Not all of them may apply. Discerning which do apply is another important skill-set when examining an argument with critical thought. One should not throw out scatter-shot accusations of "fallacy" or "bald-statement", rhetorically hoping some of them will stick.
'"Luck" is people taking the laws of probability personally, it is the excitement of bad math.'

#30 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 22,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 26 April 2011 - 06:54 PM

View PostSpademan, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 5:13 PM, said:

So one is left wondering what these "easy answers" are, since he does not provide them despite how easy they are.
Did you see how many points he made? I don't have that kind of time.
CAPITALISM: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor. - Ron Swanson ---> Video:Ron's Pyramid of Greatness Picture: Poster Size


View PostSuitedAces21, on 20 August 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

tilt you suck.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

titly suck a dick bitch

#31 Spademan

Spademan

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 4,740 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 26 April 2011 - 07:20 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 7:54 PM, said:

Did you see how many points he made? I don't have that kind of time.
Uh huh.Keep waving your hands around instead of providing the "easy answers", because the "easy answers" are, strangely, too time consuming.To put it into the hand movement argument you're utilizing: *facepalm*
'"Luck" is people taking the laws of probability personally, it is the excitement of bad math.'

#32 DinkDonk

DinkDonk

    Not the one you want, Babe

  • Members
  • 2,758 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo
  • Favorite Poker Game:Shorthanded Limit HE

Posted 26 April 2011 - 07:34 PM

The only time I come into the religion forum is when I see LG or Spade as the last poster. I find them both very sexy.

#33 brvheart

brvheart

    I'm the best.

  • Members
  • 22,830 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toyko, Japan
  • Interests:Playing in nuclear fallout.
  • Favorite Poker Game:I play 100/200 live with my best friend Jason.

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:19 PM

View PostSpademan, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 10:20 PM, said:

Uh huh.Keep waving your hands around instead of providing the "easy answers", because the "easy answers" are, strangely, too time consuming.To put it into the hand movement argument you're utilizing: *facepalm*
Are you trying to imply that every single "easy answer" has in common the fact that it is not time consuming? Because I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that point.
CAPITALISM: God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor. - Ron Swanson ---> Video:Ron's Pyramid of Greatness Picture: Poster Size


View PostSuitedAces21, on 20 August 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

tilt you suck.

View PostEssay21, on 25 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

titly suck a dick bitch

#34 Spademan

Spademan

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 4,740 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 26 April 2011 - 09:57 PM

View Postbrvheart, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 10:19 PM, said:

Are you trying to imply that every single "easy answer" has in common the fact that it is not time consuming? Because I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that point.
What I mean to imply is that you are implying that every single "easy answer" is time consuming, since you haven't provided a single "easy answer", and your only defense to this glaring omission is "time consuming".What I have explicitly said is that your responses are hand waving and content-free.
'"Luck" is people taking the laws of probability personally, it is the excitement of bad math.'

#35 vbnautilus

vbnautilus

    psychonaut

  • Members
  • 10,316 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:venice beach, ca

Posted 26 April 2011 - 10:38 PM

How is that Encyclopedia of Fallacies coming along?

#36 Spademan

Spademan

    Poker Forum God

  • Members
  • 4,740 posts
  • Location:NC

Posted 26 April 2011 - 11:26 PM

View Postvbnautilus, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 11:38 PM, said:

How is that Encyclopedia of Fallacies coming along?
Conservatively at 39%.
'"Luck" is people taking the laws of probability personally, it is the excitement of bad math.'

#37 SuperJon

SuperJon

    <3

  • Members
  • 6,303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 27 April 2011 - 02:59 AM

View PostDinkDonk, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 11:34 PM, said:

The only time I come into the religion forum is when I see LG or Spade as the last poster. I find them both very sexy.
Same

#38 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 23,054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:51 AM

View PostSpademan, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 8:20 PM, said:

Uh huh.Keep waving your hands around instead of providing the "easy answers", because the "easy answers" are, strangely, too time consuming.To put it into the hand movement argument you're utilizing: *facepalm*
Here is a good startto discuss the so called contradictions in the GospelsIt explains everything easily...knowing Greek will make it easierIt has been done multiple times in the past, which in the politics section was a good enough reason for you to not supply any data when you pointed out something you disagreed with. But far be it from me to expect you people to not be hypocrites.Knowing that the 4 Gospels were written for different readers gives us an easier understanding of why the focus of each book is slightly different.The correct response you should use would be to imply my Arguing to Authority since CRI is an authority on this stuff and I am sending everyone there.Next try to ignore the link, it will be best while you employ: Spurious Delegitimization of Evidence or CriticismThen you should Deligitimize Criticism and Rebuttal in Advance again. This has been your best tool so far with Brv.The job of Creating a Granfalloon has worked wonderfully for you so no reason to stop using that...plus it gives you that needed smokescreen to avoid actually having any point.Good luck.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

#39 Balloon guy

Balloon guy

    Respect my Raises!!!!!!

  • Members
  • 23,054 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So Cal
  • Interests:Cigars, Flying, Golf, Bible
  • Favorite Poker Game:Golf

Posted 27 April 2011 - 11:02 AM

View PostBaseJester, on Tuesday, April 26th, 2011, 6:43 PM, said:

They aren't exactly the same thing.
Saracasm...it's a common tool to suspect when the meanings are obviously opposite from the words

Quote

They are exactly the same in the way that's relevant to your specific argument.
How? I am pointing out that making the claim that a person invented a religion then died penniless and painfully for that religion is different than a person 1500 years removed who believes the religion is 100% correct. So in fact they are not even remotely in the same ball park of being the same thing. One guy believes in his religion, the other guy knows his religion is a lie because he was the inventor of the lie. Explain how that is even remotely the same thing.

Quote

Which biblical authors do you think died for their beliefs and what makes you think this?
Most of them, the Roman persecution of Christians under Nero and beyond is an historic fact. John dies by being burned in oil on Patmos is also historical, as is Peter's being crucified upside down.Since we don't know who wrote Hebrews, we can't say all of them. But with the timeframe what it was, I highly suspect that all of them in fact did die horrible deaths.Fox's Book of Matyrs will help you understand the times better.
I use my cigar smoke as idiot repellent

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.” ― George Orwell

#40 SweetDee

SweetDee

    Poker Forum Nut

  • Members
  • 395 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:No Limit Hold em

Posted 27 April 2011 - 01:18 PM

At work some guy who claims to be pretty religious was explaining how Easter morning he was just too tired from the night before to make it to the 10 A.M. service, further explaining how 10 was just too early. I was just kind of listening in to the conversation and just bellowed out what was in my head: "Jesus take a back seat!" Quite a few people laughed but I may have embarrassed the poor guy.Incidentally, in my head I was thinking of the Carrie Underwood song "Jesus take the wheel" and was trying to fit backseat in phonetically so I could sing it, and obviously couldn't so I just yelled it out. In all seriousness, 10 A.M. is too early. I should apologize to that guy.
Don't you guys think that the puncher probably just mistook Snookers for a mean little goblin? Like, he was all drunk and it was dark and some goblin starts yelling at him, he was probably like, oh shit there's a monster in the club!, and then he just reacted without thinking and punched a bitch.- Tim Wakefield




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users