Re: Is The King James Version The Only Perfect Translation Of The Bible?

[No One]

Today's lesson: Hyphens.

I said "hot man-on-man" action (meaning that the man-on-man ACTION is
hot).

I didn't say "hot-man on man" action (meaning that at least one of the
MEN is hot).

And as I have said before: Back to eighth-grade English class with
you!

Back to insults to cover up that your lack of a valid point and
inability to think? You aren't going to get "hot man-on-man action"
if one of the two is not hot, and Larry Craig certainly isn't. So
that leaves the other guy. Now, what hottie is going to want to do it
with Larry?

 

[No One]

Do try to keep up.

Senator Craig has suffered the same consequences as those with active
addiction.

His behavior indicates that he has problems in the area of sex. He
can't seem to keep his feet and hands to himself.

So it is reasonable to assume that he has a sexual addiction problem.
He goes after it even knowing the consequences can be severe.


They take a shit and then FLUSH THE TOILET.

He didn't. He was making passes at the guy in the next stall.

No poop at all.


Craig didn't need to push the flush button.

He hadn't "deposited" anything in the toilet.


Well, if Larry Craig did THAT, then your fantastical meandering that
he's a neat freak who picks up toilet paper off the floors of public
toilets falls a bit short, don't you think?

I mean, I'd MUCH rather see an innocent piece of toilet paper on the
floor, than walk into a stall with a full and unflushed toilet.
Wouldn't you?


Hmmm.

Would YOU have looked?
Thing is, Larry Craig NEVER said that he took a shit.
Not once did he say that.

ROTFLMAO - nobody ever asked him. But he did indicate that he was
using the facility for its intended purpose.

While he said that he went into the restroom to use it for its
"intended purpose", he got confused and thought its purpose was to
look for **** buddies.

Oops!

What do you think the "intended purpose" of a tiolet is? Just
curious.

Show us how, honey.

I showed you how, multiple times, and you ignored it. Go back and
read the older posts. OR just take a logic course since it should be
obvious to almost anyone.

 

[No One]

You retarded fuckwit!

Larry Craig's arrest and court info was put into a computer's
searchable database.

The .pdf files are only attached to his court record.

Odd that only the pdf file turned up in a google search. But a
"searchable database" is pretty much burried to - large search engines
(google, etc.) can't search it directly, so you end up having to
(a) find the court's site, (b) navigate though it to find the
search page, and (c) run the search on your own. Now, are you
going to do that for every court in the U.S. in the hopes that
you'll find a case associated with a U.S. senator? Give me a break.

What a retard you are!
Projection.

Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Richard Nixon, Bob Allen (
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-allen1307jul13,0,5667267.story
), Mayor Jim West of Spokane Washington, ....

Need I go on?

Yes you do. I asked about senators - you know, U.S. senators. Mark Foley,
Richard Nixon, and Bob Allen were not U.S. senators when they got into
trouble. Of those three, only Richard Nixon had ever been a senator,
and Bob Allen has never held a national office of any kind. Can't
you get anything right? You might try to do that before calling
people "retards".

BTW, I can cite quite a few Democrats whose behavior was less than
exemplary. Try Norman Hsu, Jack Davis (Willie Brown's political
consultant), Bill Clinton (great president but some notable
sexcapades), Richard Daley (not the current one, but his father),
Lyndon Johnson (got us into a war on false pretexts), James McGreevey
(resigned after it was discovered that he had hired his boyfriend),
and Marion Barry (cocaine conviction) for starters.

Try <http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-19554140.html> for some
details on Davis. That should put the term "sexcapade" in
perspective, even though he was merely a spectator.

 

[No One]

Damn! How could I have forgotten David Vitter?!

See my other post - most of your list does not contain senators.
Oh, and I should add Wilbur Mills (since your list does not
include just senators).

 

[Dionisio]

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. Nobody else cares.

So if they don't care, why were you suggesting they check?


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.
-- Thomas Paine

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[Dionisio]

ROTFLMAO - didn't you even look at the thing Craig signed off on?
I mean, *really* look at it. It was a PDF file, but you couldn't
select text from it. Why? Because it was an image of paperwork
(literally) entered into a computer via a scanner, with no OCR
used.

Poor dear, the PDF file was tagged in the system. Then there's the docket... And then
there's the requirement of presence... And then there's the money trail... And then
there's, well, a few other things; Not the least of which are search tools that can
translate PDF text into "regular" text for the search.

OCR implies that the image actually is an image. That's not the case with PDF, it's a hybrid.

Other than that, you're completely correct.

It was burried. Senators travel a lot. Hardly any get into
trouble. Trying to track each guy's travel itinerary, including
which flights he took and where he changed planes, is a lot of
work, with a very small chance of any payoff.

First, we're not talking of Senators. They were delving into the life of one Senator. Not
too difficult.

Second off, while it involved work, it wasn't anything extraordinary.

Thirdly, no payoff? Hello! Scandal. "The scoop." "Being first." Those are almost *always*
considered worthwhile things to the media. They may not pan out, but they're salivated
over quite religiously. And golly, it *did* make the headlines. Worldwide.

And most reporters are lazy. Proof - look at all the newspapers that
reported that Craig said he had a "wide stance". He said no such thing
- he said he was a "wide guy". The arresting officer made the "wide
stance" thing up as a paraphrase, and everyone copied it and turned it
into a quote. It was easier to regurgitate what others had said than
to find the original material on your own.

Well, of course, it's easy. That is why it is wise to investigate the investigators.
Speaking of which, have you?

As for finding the material... Feh! Hard? Perhaps if you're a quadriplegic with ALS -- and
even then it's merely tedious.

Now true, there are folks who can find things yet refuse to acknowledge them. Alas, the
conspiracy thing was disproven.


--
And the Thought of the Moment (TM) is:

There are Jews, mostly Orthodox, who aren't against homosexuals -- as long as they don't
"flaunt" it. Apparently they've forgotten the discussions of the Lateran Councils of 1179
and 1215AD, when the idea of segregating Jews from Christian society was discussed. Fancy
them forgetting their own "flaunting..."

(Brought to you by SigChanger. http://www.phranc.nl)

 

[No One]

You stupid loon.
A person doesn't have to be ASKED in order to give information.
What a fucking retard you are.

You really know how to make a fool of yourself. Most of us don't
announce that we defecated when we leave a restroom stall. Do
you feel compelled to tell everyone you see?

Since he was being ARRESTED for NOT using the restroom for its
intended purpose, if he had said that he took a SHIT, he'd actually
have had a reason for BEING there.

As it is, he DID have a reason for being there.
Reason: To pick up some cock.

Unsubstantiated assumption on your part, but what else is new.

You aren't very good at picking up on patterns, are ya?

Oh, I've actually very good at it.

The man is a liar.

So are you - a liar.

<rest of this moron's post snipped>

"Emerson Wainwright" is the new name used by the troll ScottyFLL, who
is simply recycling his old material. He has a grudge - a very long
one and when his feelings are hurt, he acts out, regessing to the
point where he has the maturity of a 12 year old boy. He is a
pathological liar.

 

[No One]

How is that odd?
That's no more odd than my name appearing in a Google search.

No, it's odd because you went on about the inforamtion being in
a searchable database yet all you find in a google search is a PDF
file that does not contain machine-readable text (just images of the
text generated by a scanner).

How many times must I tell you this?

THERE IS ONLY ONE "R" IN THE WORD "BURY".

Do an exhaustive search and you'll find both spellings in my posts.
Sometimes I miss some typos. It is childish of you to whine about it.

Uh huh.

Yes, uh huh!

ROCKET SCIENCE, right?
LOL!

No, tedious as hell when you don't know where to look given all the
courts out there with web sites.

OMG! How can a person POSSIBLY do a search on his own!?
LOL!


You moronic imbecile.

How long do you think information on a case involving a U.S. Senator
is going to say quiet?

Quite a while if he's lucky. Craig wasn't.

<rest of this moron's rantings snipped>

"Emerson Wainwright" is the new name used by the troll ScottyFLL, who
is simply recycling his old material. He has a grudge - a very long
one and when his feelings are hurt, he acts out, regessing to the
point where he has the maturity of a 12 year old boy. He is a
pathological liar.

 

[No One]

So if they don't care, why were you suggesting they check?

Getting them to check is ScottyFLL's problem. Talk to him.
After all, it was he who made the claim.

 

[No One]

Poor dear, the PDF file was tagged in the system. Then there's the
docket... And then there's the requirement of presence... And then
there's the money trail... And then there's, well, a few other things;
Not the least of which are search tools that can translate PDF text
into "regular" text for the search.



OCR implies that the image actually is an image. That's not the case with PDF, it's a hybrid.

Other than that, you're completely correct.

No, I'm completely correct and you are completely wrong. This particular
PDF file consisted only of images of each page. You can tell because
a PDF viewer can't select any text. That happens when what appears to you
to be text is really an image.

While PDF files can contain a mix of text and images, this one does not.

First, we're not talking of Senators. They were delving into the life
of one Senator. Not too difficult.

The issue, my good man, was figuring out where to look.

Second off, while it involved work, it wasn't anything extraordinary.

He was counting on it being tedious due to the large search space.

Thirdly, no payoff? Hello! Scandal. "The scoop." "Being first." Those
are almost *always* considered worthwhile things to the media. They
may not pan out, but they're salivated over quite religiously. And
golly, it *did* make the headlines. Worldwide.

That's idiotic - sure they want scoops but they also want low hanging
fruit.

Well, of course, it's easy. That is why it is wise to investigate the
investigators. Speaking of which, have you?

As for finding the material... Feh! Hard? Perhaps if you're a
quadriplegic with ALS -- and even then it's merely tedious.

Now true, there are folks who can find things yet refuse to
acknowledge them. Alas, the conspiracy thing was disproven.

Unclear on the concept, aren't you? It's hard because there are who
knows how many court web sites in the U.S., each set up independently,
and each of which has to be searched in a different way.