Enough is Enough!!!

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.

"Easily" is a bit much. IMO it's a stretch to interpret it that way.

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

My interpretation of that is organized religion,
not religion itself. And there's plenty prohibition of it, as in this
case. The guy not only wants his daughter to not say "Under God",
he wants the entire nation to not say it.

 

[Nightingale]

First off, MOST CHILDREN ARE NOT AWARE OF THEIR RIGHT TO REFRAIN FROM SAYING THE PLEDGE. Teachers do not inform their students of this, and they are not required to do so.


The problem with leaving the pledge as it stands is that it adds credence to the theory that some form of higher power exists.

It adds credence to it, because words coming from a teacher or administrator in school carry more weight than that of the average citizen. In a religious or private school, that is acceptable, because by their nature, private schools are not state sponsored or funded, and parents get what they pay for.

It is unconstitutional for a public, state funded entity to support, give credence to, or otherwise seem to favor any form of religion. The words "under god" in the pledge violate this, are therefore unconstitutional, leading me to the conclusion that the pledge should be reverted to its original form.

I'm not an athiest, but I don't believe in shoving my religion down other people's throats, and I don't appreciate it when others try to do that to me. I'm all for open dialogue, but children are not old enough to partake in such a debate. When I have children, I want to be the one to teach them about the existance of God; I want them to be able to look at the situation with an open mind and eventually, come to their own conclusions about religion. I don't want a school putting the existance of God on the same level as factual mathematics (which is exactly what the words "under god" do when they are said in a school setting). Religion is theory. Math is fact. Teaching ABOUT religion is fine. Teaching religion itself is NOT.

As a sidenote...

When I was teaching, most of my eighth graders did not know the meaning of the word "allegiance" or the word "republic" What's the point of asking our children to pledge their loyalty to their country when they have no idea what they're saying!?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Re: The U.S. Constitution
quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.


By Kirk:
"Easily" is a bit much. IMO it's a stretch to interpret it that way.

quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Originally posted by Kirk



My interpretation of that is organized religion,
not religion itself. And there's plenty prohibition of it, as in this
case. The guy not only wants his daughter to not say "Under God",
he wants the entire nation to not say it.

Kirk,

First, thank you for the reply and your opinion. It is yours and it is also allowed to be expressed by the same laws and Constitution that you want to ignore now for your interpretation. Yet, if enough people believe like you then either it will be interpreted this way or it will be changed.

Second, As to the first quote of mine you replied too: How about we change the Pledge to say Allah? or better yet for my own ego have it say Rich Parsons. No I am not a god, but to some my comment and the allegiance are just as insulting.

As to the second quote: It does not say, that you cannot say it at home, nor in public, only that you are not required to say it as a student of a public school.


Now, before we get into a big argument, please understand I am discussing this with you and bring up points of logic and order, not just gut reaction and personal values. A quick discussion: One may have personal values or 'Family' Values. These Values many times are obtained through religion. This is good. These Values then influence what society believes to be ethical then they uses these ethics to determine law and precedent. So, if you argue Law then you need to understand precedence and ethics, not just gut reaction and personal values.

As stated above, you have your opinion and are entitled to it.

Thanks again for this discussion.

Rich

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Bod

Why all this bother? You can leave 'under God' in, just change the 'One nation' bit.

Constitutional or not, the pledge is simply inaccurate. Let's say that 75% of Americans believe in the same God? That's a guess by the way, for the sake of this particular argument.

Then, 'One nation under God' becomes 'Three quarters of a nation under God', the pledge becomes accurate, and everybody's happy (well I am).

Bod,

Check the website I listed. 33% of the population of the world is Christianity not 75%. I do not think the USA is 33% but I do not think it is 75% either.

Just my Opinion from the data I have read.

Rich

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons

Re: The U.S. Constitution
quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

This statement could easily be interpreted that the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious test for trust as a student of a public school.


By Kirk:
"Easily" is a bit much. IMO it's a stretch to interpret it that way.

quote: Originally posted by Rich Parsons

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;





Kirk,

First, thank you for the reply and your opinion. It is yours and it is also allowed to be expressed by the same laws and Constitution that you want to ignore now for your interpretation. Yet, if enough people believe like you then either it will be interpreted this way or it will be changed.

Second, As to the first quote of mine you replied too: How about we change the Pledge to say Allah? or better yet for my own ego have it say Rich Parsons. No I am not a god, but to some my comment and the allegiance are just as insulting.

As to the second quote: It does not say, that you cannot say it at home, nor in public, only that you are not required to say it as a student of a public school.


Now, before we get into a big argument, please understand I am discussing this with you and bring up points of logic and order, not just gut reaction and personal values. A quick discussion: One may have personal values or 'Family' Values. These Values many times are obtained through religion. This is good. These Values then influence what society believes to be ethical then they uses these ethics to determine law and precedent. So, if you argue Law then you need to understand precedence and ethics, not just gut reaction and personal values.

As stated above, you have your opinion and are entitled to it.

Thanks again for this discussion.

Rich

I don't want to get into a big argument. I enjoy conversations
like this, so long as they don't become insulting. I have my
beliefs, and I stick to them until someone gives me damned good
reason to change them. BUT .. it has happened before. Debate
teams exist to challenge the mind, and IMO that's what this is,
in a way. So explain to me how my reply to your post was gut
reaction? Many ... MANY interpret the constitution in many
different ways ... and unless you're a constitutional scholar, you
can't say how you interpret things is fact, and how I interpret
them is "feeling".

All respects!
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kirk



I don't want to get into a big argument. I enjoy conversations
like this, so long as they don't become insulting. I have my
beliefs, and I stick to them until someone gives me damned good
reason to change them. BUT .. it has happened before. Debate
teams exist to challenge the mind, and IMO that's what this is,
in a way. So explain to me how my reply to your post was gut
reaction? Many ... MANY interpret the constitution in many
different ways ... and unless you're a constitutional scholar, you
can't say how you interpret things is fact, and how I interpret
them is "feeling".

All respects!
:asian:

Kirk et al,

Well to be honest, I am not a Constitutional Scholar, but I do debate one regularly that teaches Political Science and History At Wayne State University. Does, this add more to my arguments, nope. Does your question still ring valid, as in why yours was a 'Gut' reaction versus 'my way'.

Well, first, as stated I believe in a form of Christianity, so I have no problem saying the pledge. Yet, I do understand, as pointed out before, that many of the founding fathers were truly Deist AKA Agnostics of the day. The papers written by many of them discussed this and other views of state and or religion. So, I do have some insight, but not the only insight.

As, to your view being Gut reaction, it was not meant as an insult. the same reaction could be both gut reaction and one of ethics. Take for example, Murder. 'Thou Shall NOT Kill', one of the BIG Ten. And society has determined that it is not ethical to kill people. Therefore the laws against murder. Including also the Manslaughter, where society has determined that actions that may have caused death unintentionally shall still be prosecuted.

So, I can not answer if your reaction / interpretation was a gut reaction or not. Only you can. Yet, the tone of the words, the arguments where people go well it is that way now leave it alone? The well who does it hurt??? And then ignore or care not about any answers given unless they agree with them. Note: I did not say you did not care. This is abstract. The Gut reaction has a tendency to 'Yell' louder the same thing over and over. Assuming people will get either tired or will learn what is right for them.

Yet, if they partake in a discussion/argument and can give points for their point of view, such as a debate team, on why they believe they are right and why society should have a belief or ethical view.

Can we agree that that our society in the USA was created around the US Constitution? Yes different points of view exist on what it says, but can we say that this is one of the major influences on how we designed state and local laws. On how we maintain our freedoms and also our responsibilities to our society? If yes, then we can say that, the US Constitution allows for change threw process. This also allows for balance of powers, where the Courts may deem something unlawful or Unconstitutional that a or The Congress has passed or endorsed.

If the answer is no we cannot agree to the above questions about the US Constitution then I have to ask, how do you part take as a member of this society? Not meant as a slur or insult, but very curious? For, if the US Constitution was not an influence then, what was??

So, as I point out references to world population of religions by percentages and I also quote the US Constitution and list the articles and not just the modern media interpretations. I have presented a side to an argument. When the other side to this argument only comes back with, 'but it has always been so'? or 'that is not HOW I INTERPRET IT?' These things are personal, and yet, maybe true to you based upon your own personal values. Yet, Why should society listen to what you have to say? Why should they have to learn you views? What are your points? All because you and a few others stand and yell really loud. Yes express your point of view, I am for that 110%, yet do not assume everyone believes exactly as you do. For, if you do then you will not understand why others are different from you.

As Kirk pointed out that the children may not say this, but also pointed out by another (Forgot the name sorry) Teachers are not required to advise the children that they have this option. So, let us reverse this argument again. Reverse logic many times find a problem with one side or another of an argument. Once again I ask is it ok to say One Nation Under Rich Parsons? Or One Nation under Buddha, Or One Nation Under Chairman Chow, or One Nation Under President Clinton/Bush? or One Nation Under (* Fill in the Blank with your worst fear *)?

Seriously, why is it an attack if you remove the word 'In God We Trust' From our money and remove 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance? You are still allowed to believe in God and practice your religion your way. Yes others are not 'forced' or coerced into believing that must say it to be accepted.

So, Thank you for your replies and also for your continued discussion. I do truly wait to hear the other side of the argument, on how society is hurt by this? On how . . . ?

Thanks and best wishes and waiting for everyone's reply.

Rich
:asian:

 

[Kirk]

Well that's quite a lengthy post, and no insult to you, but TOO
many questions asked in one post for me to enjoy discussing. I
don't want to write a discertation, and I'm sure there'll be
others that will. So let me pick one I can quickly reply to.

Seriously, why is it an attack if you remove the word 'In God We Trust' From our money and remove 'Under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance? You are still allowed to believe in God and practice your religion your way. Yes others are not 'forced' or coerced into believing that must say it to be accepted.

This IS gut reaction, or gut emotion I should say. I'm not firing off
the handle per se. I don't believe "In God We Trust" or "Under
God" is pushing religion. If you're a man wanting to make your
child believe in atheism, fine, but you can't change history, and
you can't let a child live their entire life without knowing that
many others believe in a supreme being, Rich Parsons, Alla, or
whomever (again, I believe you CAN say any of those things, or
not say them at all). I present to you, that Atheism, is a belief
structure as strong as any religious belief and making it illegal
to speak his name (he who is known as I Am) is pushing religion
more than making someone say it (which I do NOT believe in).
If your only concern is that the teacher won't tell anyone that
they do NOT have to say "under God" then change the law there.
Make it a crime for a teacher to not educate kids on their rights
in regards to the pledge. Let's open up THAT can of worms.

Remember the whole "teach evolution/do not teach evolution"
debate? Why so one sided? You teaching it violates the beliefs
of just as many who don't want it taught. Is the message here
that athiests and agnostics' feelings are to be considered
above those of religious beliefs? Is their equality more
important?

And the even deeper emotional side, and I can predict your reply
already, is the moral dilemna. Which again is ridiculous on both
sides of the issue. I don't like fire and brimstone, and I don't like
teaching children that the idea that crime can go unpunished. I'm
at a point in my life right now where my limited education of
science and logic has been enough to challenge my own personal
faith and convictions. I have a 7 mo. old daughter, and regardless
of whatever my beliefs 'evolve' into ... I'll still take her to church.
I'll still pay the tithing that the church asks, even though I feel
that organized religion has become the farce that it is, because
of that damned collection plate. Because I'll take every bit of help
I can, in raising my child to be an honest, caring, giving, loving
person. IMO society alone, nor a complete education can or will
give that to a child. Summation .. what does it hurt?

On the history side of things ... I'm a bit tainted there as well. It's
funny to me how much history has changed. What used to be a
fact 20 years ago is now a myth. Some "scholar" suddenly
found out more information, that proves this or that, yet none
before them knew what the hell they were talking about? I need
more than "Thomas Jefferson, although a Mason was a satanist".
:shrug: (not putting words in your mouth, I'm greatly
exagerating your claims to help further communicate my point).

Respects!

 

[Nightingale]

oooohhhhh, my.... SOAPBOX ALERT :soapbox:

Originally posted by Kirk

I present to you, that Atheism, is a belief
structure as strong as any religious belief and making it illegal
to speak his name (he who is known as I Am) is pushing religion
more than making someone say it (which I do NOT believe in).
If your only concern is that the teacher won't tell anyone that
they do NOT have to say "under God" then change the law there.
Make it a crime for a teacher to not educate kids on their rights
in regards to the pledge. Let's open up THAT can of worms.

The problem is that children are simply not intellectually mature enough to make a decision like this. They'll either say it or not say it based on what their friends do, which accomplishes nothing, because it is simply action without meaning, just as the pledge, to many students who have never been taught about it, is simply words without meaning

Remember the whole "teach evolution/do not teach evolution"
debate? Why so one sided? You teaching it violates the beliefs
of just as many who don't want it taught. Is the message here
that athiests and agnostics' feelings are to be considered
above those of religious beliefs? Is their equality more
important?

No. The message here is that the evolutional THEORY (not fact, idea) is taught because there is scientific evidence (and strong scientific evidence at that... trust me, I've been out in the field digging some of it up) that points to its accuracy. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious beliefs other than that it happens to coincidentally contradict something that a portion of the US happens to believe. The fact is that we have a fossil record. The fossil record is something that simply cannot be explained by Genesis.

The fossil record works this way... There are layers of rock in the ground. These layers represent different years. Over time, sediment gets deposited in some areas, and eroded in others. The topography of our Earth is consistantly changing. Often, the layers of silt and sediment are deposited in a river bend or slow moving stream of water, and as more and more sediment gets piled on top, they're compressed into rock (you can reproduce this action in your own kitchen if you've got a lot of time...) However.... sometimes, in these layers, animals get caught and buried in sediment. The pressure from all the material deposited on top helps to create a fossil. Older fossils are found on the bottom, more recent fossils are found on top.

Take for example, the horse...

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/Stratmap1.htm

This image details the fossil record of the horse. Note how the skulls start out small, and get larger and larger? All these skulls were found in the same general area, and the smaller ones were found in layers below (older than) the larger ones. The logical conclusion is that the bigger horses evolved from the little ones, because there is something similar between them all.

Scientific principle dictates that "Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Only changed." Therefore, (other than the initial moment where the universe came into existance, which is an entirely different debate, so lets not go there in this argument) something cannot come from nothing. Recent horses had to come from somewhere, and frankly, with the current fossil record, I truly doubt that some supreme being pointed his finger and went "zap" here's a horse.

Genesis fails to explain the existance of the fossil record. If we were to take Genesis literally, there should still be dinosaurs walking the Earth.

Science teachers (at least, the good ones) teach that science doesn't profess anything as fact. SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE. SCIENCE CAN ONLY DISPROVE. The reason that evolution has stayed in the curriculum as a valid creation theory is that there is significant scientific evidence to back it up, and so far, none contradicting it. The reason that creation is NOT taught in science classes is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT. Show me some, and I would be happy to evaluate it.

And the even deeper emotional side, and I can predict your reply
already, is the moral dilemna. Which again is ridiculous on both
sides of the issue. I don't like fire and brimstone, and I don't like
teaching children that the idea that crime can go unpunished. I'm
at a point in my life right now where my limited education of
science and logic has been enough to challenge my own personal
faith and convictions. I have a 7 mo. old daughter, and regardless
of whatever my beliefs 'evolve' into ... I'll still take her to church.
I'll still pay the tithing that the church asks, even though I feel
that organized religion has become the farce that it is, because
of that damned collection plate. Because I'll take every bit of help
I can, in raising my child to be an honest, caring, giving, loving
person. IMO society alone, nor a complete education can or will
give that to a child. Summation .. what does it hurt?

It hurts a lot. It gives state sponsored support to the idea that "God" exists. I placed "God" in quotation marks, because the only religion that calls the supreme being by the name "God" is the christian one. Therein lies the bias. If you were saying "One Nation, Under Allah" I bet you'd have much more of an issue with it. However, that is exactly what you're asking children of other religions to do, because to people of other religions, God is the CHRISTIAN name for the powers that be. (Please, name me one other mainstream religion in the US that calls their deity God).

On the history side of things ... I'm a bit tainted there as well. It's
funny to me how much history has changed. What used to be a
fact 20 years ago is now a myth. Some "scholar" suddenly
found out more information, that proves this or that, yet none
before them knew what the hell they were talking about?

Again, SCIENCE DOES NOT PROVE. Evolution is taught with the explanation that "This is the best explanation we have, and is the most plausible conclusion based on the physical evidence." Science doesn't teach "fact" History does (and usually not very accurately). Science presents evidence and asks that conclusions be drawn from the evidence. These theories are always being revised. They are THEORIES, and should not be taught as fact. If they are being taught as fact, you need to have a chat with that teacher, and the principal, because theories are ideas. Good theories, like Evolution, are extremely well supported ideas, which is why they belong in schools, but they need to be taught as what they are. Ideas, not "facts."

/soapbox


respectfully, :asian:
-N-

 

[Kirk]

AAAAAHHH!! Too much! Too much! It'd take forever to reply to
all of that! The three of us need to hook up for a few hours and
drink large amounts of coffee and "choot the chit".

 

[qizmoduis]

We all know about the First Amendment to our constitution. "Congress shall make now law...respecting the establishment of religion..." etc. The amendment expressly forbids the government of our country from passing any laws that require any form of worship or from passing laws restricting any form of worship. The 14th amendment extended the protections of the first and other amendments to all levels of government. Essentially, the government simply cannot tell anyone what, who, or how to worship or not. It can't promote deism, monotheism, animism, or atheism, or whatever other 'ism you might consider.

The blathering about the Pledge decision is all hot air. Simply put: the Congress, during the 50's didn't have the authority to pass THE LAW that added the phrase "under God" to the Pledge. The law that did this was unconstitutional. The congresscritters, in their infinite wisdom, chose to ignore this in their anti-communist zeal.

The court that made this decision did not say that the Pledge itself was unconstitutional, but that the Congress didn't have the authority to add religious phrasing to it. It has already been established that children cannot be required to participate in Pledge recitations by other courts.

Personally, what I find most appalling, is our leaders lack of knowledge of how our own government works.
:soapbox:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kirk

AAAAAHHH!! Too much! Too much! It'd take forever to reply to
all of that! The three of us need to hook up for a few hours and
drink large amounts of coffee and "choot the chit".

Kirk and NightingGale, this is not enough. We need more people to dicsuss this issue to educate the masses and to see how others 'see' things.

Note: Coffe puts me to sleep, do not know why, but I'll drink Water or Root beer with you anytime.

Rich

 

[Kirk]

This conversation is just more than I want to type, and it'd be
great to discuss with you and nightengale, verbally, over
whatever beverage suits you. So before I bow out, let me say
that although it's full of so much to discuss, it's a pleasure being
able to discuss it without flames, insults and what not popping up.
Respects!

 

[Nightingale]

well, if any of ya are in southern cali... a coffee night sounds great.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kirk

Well that's quite a lengthy post, and no insult to you, but TOO
many questions asked in one post for me to enjoy discussing. I
don't want to write a dissertation, and I'm sure there'll be
others that will. So let me pick one I can quickly reply to.

Kirk,

You did not do so bad yourself in length or in asking questions of your own. Good man!

Originally posted by Kirk


This IS gut reaction, or gut emotion I should say. I'm not firing off
the handle per se. I don't believe "In God We Trust" or "Under
God" is pushing religion. If you're a man wanting to make your
child believe in atheism, fine, but you can't change history, and
you can't let a child live their entire life without knowing that
many others believe in a supreme being, Rich Parsons, Allah, or
whomever (again, I believe you CAN say any of those things, or
not say them at all). I present to you, that Atheism, is a belief
structure as strong as any religious belief and making it illegal
to speak his name (he who is known as I Am) is pushing religion
more than making someone say it (which I do NOT believe in).
If your only concern is that the teacher won't tell anyone that
they do NOT have to say "under God" then change the law there.
Make it a crime for a teacher to not educate kids on their rights
in regards to the pledge. Let's open up THAT can of worms.

Opening a Can of Worms. Personally I do not think it is the any better for society to require teachers to be the soul source of a child's education. The parents and Family and Society itself should take responsibility for the education of children. Many people as you stated below, look to a religion in trying to help them raise and educate their child. This is good in my opinion. Yet, people have the privilege to choose which religion they wish to be a member of.

BTW Congratulations on the little Girl! I wish you and yours the best!

Originally posted by Kirk


Remember the whole "teach evolution/do not teach evolution"
debate? Why so one sided? You teaching it violates the beliefs
of just as many who don't want it taught. Is the message here
that atheists and agnostics' feelings are to be considered
above those of religious beliefs? Is their equality more
important?

Let us ignore the Atheist for a moment.
Is your (Our) Christian God (Jaweh/Jehovah/I AM) any more important than any other? As I stated below, if this is pushed too far I could see Islam being the national religion, since none of the rest of the Christians can get together and act like good Christians to each other. Just my opinion and not a representation of all Christians, just the organized institutions.

As for the, evolution, NightingGale stated clearly form a science point of view. Yet, here is one to make you think:
Is it not possible that the Creator in [His/Her] infinite wisdom started out with a design and then from their made changes. Why start all over from the beginning. When A car designer goes to the drawing board to make a new car, does he redesign wheels? Nope they work keep them. So, just maybe the creator planned for the evolution and similarities. Those that wrote Genesis or other creation stories may not have had enough understanding? Just my questions to make everyone go HMMM?

Originally posted by Kirk


And the even deeper emotional side, and I can predict your reply
already, is the moral dilemma. Which again is ridiculous on both
sides of the issue. I don't like fire and brimstone, and I don't like
teaching children that the idea that crime can go unpunished. I'm
at a point in my life right now where my limited education of
science and logic has been enough to challenge my own personal
faith and convictions. I have a 7 mo. old daughter, and regardless
of whatever my beliefs 'evolve' into ... I'll still take her to church.
I'll still pay the tithing that the church asks, even though I feel
that organized religion has become the farce that it is, because
of that damned collection plate. Because I'll take every bit of help
I can, in raising my child to be an honest, caring, giving, loving
person. IMO society alone, nor a complete education can or will
give that to a child. Summation .. what does it hurt?

Moral Dilemma is a problem yes. A balance, of where there is no support actual or perceived by the federal/state governments that allows the individuals to still pursue their happiness, either through Religion or other methods.

BTW: The fact that you care about your daughter and that you are willing to make sacrifices and do things for her, speaks highly of yourself and of the household she will grow up in. Once again I wish you and yours the best.

Originally posted by Kirk


On the history side of things ... I'm a bit tainted there as well. It's
funny to me how much history has changed. What used to be a
fact 20 years ago is now a myth. Some "scholar" suddenly
found out more information, that proves this or that, yet none
before them knew what the hell they were talking about? I need
more than "Thomas Jefferson, although a Mason was a Satanist".
:shrug:

History is HIS Story - His being the victor, the ones who have won the battle or wrote down their story for others to read and believe. Science and the arts make break through daily. If you look and most of the Founding fathers, they would not fall into your modern conservative right for religious views. They were Deists. And to some this is Satanist. If you do not believe the way I do then you are wrong and need to be removed. This is why others attack others and destroy things and people in their beliefs. They have no concept they might be wrong.

Me personally I am wrong more times then not. Yet, Edison had hundreds of failed attempts at the light bulb before he succeeded. A Lincoln also lost every election he ran for except for the presidential election. Somedays you are right and others you are wrong.

Originally posted by Kirk


(not putting words in your mouth, I'm greatly
exaggerating your claims to help further communicate my point).

Respects!

Kirk,

Go ahead and put word into my mouth, it is not the first time not the last time it has or will be done. Many people do this to be mean, but you have done this as stated to make a point in a discussion or argument (look it up) that we have partaken here on this forum.

Respects to you Sir


To the rest of the readers,
Chime in, give us your point of view. Like I said I could be wrong, but I have given my argument and am willing to debate the pro's and con's of it.

Thank you all

Rich

:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kirk

This conversation is just more than I want to type, and it'd be
great to discuss with you and nightengale, verbally, over
whatever beverage suits you. So before I bow out, let me say
that although it's full of so much to discuss, it's a pleasure being
able to discuss it without flames, insults and what not popping up.
Respects!

OOpps!

It took me too long to post

No Worries, No Problems and most certainly no Flames or Insults!

Have a Great Day

Rich

 

[Kirk]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons




OOpps!

It took me too long to post

No Worries, No Problems and most certainly no Flames or Insults!

Have a Great Day

Rich

Well, lets come up with another subject! I enjoy the argument!
Just THIS subject will end up being 1 page per post! LOL

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Kirk



Well, lets come up with another subject! I enjoy the argument!
Just THIS subject will end up being 1 page per post! LOL

Hmmm,

Let us see? We just discussed Religion with the Government, no maybe Sex and Taxes?

As the first will get me into lots of trouble her in the internet, and the second everyone hates, to some degree, I leafve the new topic generation to the next random post.

Rich