Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Religion > Christianity > Re: NO EVIDENCE
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 151 of 286 Topic 22090 of 22550
Post > Topic >>

Re: NO EVIDENCE

by Bill Bowden <wrongaddress@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 14, 2008 at 06:03 PM

On May 14, 11:13 am, "L. Raymond" <badaddress@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Bill Bowden wrote:
> > "L. Raymond" wrote:
> > There are at least 20 Biblical precepts encoded in the Federal
> > Constitution by our founders. They are as follows:
>
> You really do lack all self-respect, don't you?  You lifted this stuff
> whole sale from a site that specifically says, "This newsletter may be
> reprinted and distributed electronically or in print, with proper
> attribution."  Where's the attribution?  Where's the link, or the
> author's name, or anything?
>

I'm sorry I posted information without credit to the source, I was
just trying to make it easier to read without following links. I will
remember to do better next time. But I'm sure since you know the
material was copied, you have the original source. So, what else is
new?

> What you are doing is expressing a strongly held opinion about items you
> haven't even read.  Doesn't that make you feel just a little stupid?  It
> would be like my insisting The Lord of the Rings is a retelling of the
> Arabian Nights because I read some web sites that say so.
>

No, doesn't make me feel stupid at all. I'm just learning the origins
of our country's values, and why the US is the greatest society in
history.

> In any case, Mr. Deschesne is just as wrong as can be expected.
>
> > Article 1, =A71, Clause 3 "...The actual Enumeration shall be made
> > within three years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the
> > United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years in such
> > Manner as they shall by Law direct..."
>
> > Numbers 1:2 "Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children
> > of Israel, after their families, of the house of their fathers, with
> > the number of their names, every male by their polls;"
>
> This wasn't for a census, it was the draft.  The count was to find all
> males ready to go to war.  Num 1:3 - "From 20 years old and upward, all
> that are able to go to war in Israel; thou and Aaron shall number them
> by their armies."
>

Very good. I learned something from that, but haven't studied the
context.

> The Constitution didn't provide for a standing army; it required a new
> appropriation of money to sup****t an army every two years.  And for the
> tax census, it counted everyone, not just 20-50 year old men, or whoever
> the Israelites used as arrow fodder.  The US census counts all free
> citizens, men and women, and even included slaves, who were counted as
> 3/5 of a person for this purpose.

Yes, the sup****ters of slavery counted slaves as 3/5 of a person to
gain seats in the house of representatives. They would have counted
them as everybody else but the north wouldn't go along with it. The
opponents to slavery didn't want to count them at all, because they
didn't vote. It was a southern, slave owner idea to count slaves for
anything. And they were the bad guys.

> Indians, not being slaves or
> citizens, were excluded.  You can wander down to your nearest library
> and see these censuses, if you've a mind to.  You'll find the name of
> the head of the house, whether man or woman, plus the number of other
> inhabitants broken down by *** and age through 1840, and after 1850
> you'll see every name.
>
> > Article 1, =A78, Clause 1 "The Congress shall have Power to lay and
> > collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and
> > provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United
> > States..."
>
> > Romans 13: 4,6 4.) "For he is the minister of God to thee for good.
> > But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the
> > sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute
> > wrath upon him that doeth evil." 6.) "For this cause pay ye tribute
> > also: for they are God=A2s ministers, attending continually upon this
> > very thing."
>
> Context:
>
> Romans 13:1 - "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.  For
> there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
> Constitution:  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
> more perfect union...".  That's We the People, not God Almighty, not
> Jesus H. Christ, not any sort of supernatural being, but We the People
> from whom all power held by the government originates.
>
> Romans 13:2- "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
> ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves
> damnation."  Constitution:  Utterly silent on the damnation of tax
> evaders.
>
> Next, there is nothing remotely religious about taxes and duties, debts
> etc.  Every government in the history of humanity has exacted tax,
> tribute or otherwise compelled people to provide wealth.  There is
> nothing biblical about it, except for the part about insisting
> Christianity is the one true religion and its god will forever curse
> slackers.  The only thing pertaining to debts I know of in the bible
> says they're supposed to be forgiven every seven years.  Try pulling
> that on the IRS and see how far it gets you.
>

Actually, it gets you quite far. IRS is very accommdating for debts
older than 3 years. If you work out a deal with them, they will take
what they can get, and forget the rest. Probably a job for a tax
attorney, but can be done.

>> Article 1, =A78, Clause 5 "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof,
> > and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard Weights and Measures."
>
> > Leviticus 19:35-36 "Ye shall do no unright- eousness in judgment, in
> > meteyard, in weight, or in measure, Just balances, just weights, a
> > just e=A2-phah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God,
> > which brought you out of Egypt."
>
> It boggles the mind that anyone could think this is remotely religious,
> or a basic principle of government.  This is a simple secular
> requirement, codified in the laws of Hammurabi, of the Aztecs, of the
> Chinese, of the Greeks, of the Egyptians and of every other civilization
> that ever developed weights and measures.  The fact that the Jews needed
> it phrased as a threat from god just tells you how often their shop
> keepers tried to rip people off.
>

Very good, I learned more from that. I talked to a chaplain today
while on jury duty and mentioned the problem of Moses copying the 10
commandments from the ancient code of Hammurabi and his idea was that
Moses lived before the code was written and it was just speculation to
the times. So, I guess it's just a guessing game of who came first?

>
> > Article 1, =A78, Clause 6 "To provide for the Punishment of
> > counterfeiting the Securites and the current Coin of the United
> > States."
>
> > Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
>
> Counterfeiting isn't stealing.  This comment doesn't even deserve this
> much of a response, but really...
>
> > Article 1, =A78, Clause 15 "To provide for calling forth the Militia
to
> > execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
> > Invasions."
>
> > Nehemiah 4:4 "And I looked, and rose up, and said unto the nobles, and
> > to the rulers, and to the rest of the people, Be not ye afraid of
> > them: remember the Lord, which is great and terrible, and fight for
> > your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your
> > houses."
>
> Sheesh, you people can't even get the attribution correct.  You're
> quoting the 14th verse, not the 4th.  What a waste of time you are.
> There's no point spending even another second on this silliness.
> Everything you've cut-n-paste is a random pairing of nonsense.  Read the
> bible and try to defend your own opinion with your own ideas, if
> possible.
>

No, can't do that. I have more interesting things to do. I'm happy
with the quotations I have, and that the US was founded on Judeo-
Christian values.
Have a nice day.

-Bill
 




 286 Posts in Topic:
NO EVIDENCE
"Bill M" <wm  2008-04-27 19:27:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 19:38:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 23:54:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:05:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 21:18:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:59:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-04-28 13:56:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 00:58:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-28 19:41:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-30 04:14:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
"Pastor Frank"   2008-04-30 10:52:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-30 21:59:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-28 18:07:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY "imaginary mythological deity"
"Pastor Frank"   2008-05-30 07:59:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-04-28 13:46:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Just Visiting <nospam-  2008-04-27 19:41:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"SheBlewHimDidYouBlo  2008-04-27 21:05:55 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 01:01:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Richo <m.richardson61@  2008-04-27 20:19:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-27 20:35:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-28 17:01:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:51:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-13 11:01:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 19:10:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 11:29:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:29:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 00:36:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-15 05:50:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 13:34:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-16 08:08:14 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Robibnikoff" &  2008-05-16 08:30:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-16 08:43:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 18:02:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-04-28 05:03:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-04-28 07:19:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-28 17:30:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-29 14:18:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-29 17:09:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-04-30 08:31:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-04-30 20:17:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 06:52:45 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 13:33:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 13:45:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-01 04:47:25 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 21:05:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-01 19:38:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:23:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:22:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 17:57:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-01 08:45:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-01 21:15:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-01 15:20:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:48:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-05 00:04:25 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:21:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-04-30 22:01:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"firefly" <f  2008-05-01 22:25:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-05-02 04:32:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 08:46:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-01 22:36:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-02 04:31:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-02 04:32:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 08:43:42 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-02 06:46:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:27:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 18:44:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-10 09:04:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 10:38:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-10 09:08:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Pastor Frank"   2008-05-12 06:10:30 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Fred Jones" &l  2008-05-12 11:52:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 02:37:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-12 12:16:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-10 11:14:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 09:49:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:29:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-02 07:55:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-02 22:42:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-02 17:52:43 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-02 18:55:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-02 17:39:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
John W. Wells <djinn@[  2008-05-10 20:02:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 08:57:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 09:14:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
dieHard <dieHard@[EMAI  2008-05-11 14:45:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-11 14:48:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-11 20:40:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
bob young <alaspectrum  2008-05-02 20:05:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECT  2008-05-02 16:29:08 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-02 22:12:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-03 09:06:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-03 09:46:52 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-05 21:32:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 07:19:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-06 03:48:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 17:10:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-06 12:04:06 
freedom of religion is a Christian concept
monkfish <monkfish@[EM  2008-05-06 13:13:38 
Re: freedom of religion is a Christian concept
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-07 03:09:13 
How do you know that we are created equal?
monkfish <monkfish@[EM  2008-05-06 13:05:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-05-05 23:41:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-06 17:26:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-06 21:31:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:08:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-07 03:17:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-07 18:14:50 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 18:15:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Santolina chamaecyparissu  2008-05-06 19:49:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-07 20:56:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-08 09:29:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-07 21:18:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-08 01:42:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-08 15:50:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-08 18:51:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:18:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-08 18:20:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-08 21:26:48 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-09 11:49:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-09 03:04:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-09 03:07:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 16:54:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-09 20:05:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-09 19:33:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-10 08:35:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-09 17:36:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-10 08:29:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 03:15:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-10 19:34:42 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-11 17:40:50 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 19:56:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 22:58:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 18:00:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-12 01:32:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-11 21:22:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 20:53:22 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 21:02:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-11 22:10:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-12 06:55:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:07:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-12 17:40:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:13:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-12 13:52:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 23:16:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-12 16:31:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-12 21:55:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 11:47:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-13 09:51:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-13 19:07:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-13 13:20:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-14 13:13:36 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-14 18:03:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-15 05:54:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 21:40:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-15 11:46:42 
AQOTM Nomination Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 21:41:32 
Re: AQOTM Nomination Re: NO EVIDENCE
atheist@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-17 01:39:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-15 21:20:40 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-15 21:23:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-15 23:47:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Virgil <Virgil@[EMAIL   2008-05-16 01:35:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-16 13:30:28 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-16 18:14:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-17 05:06:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-18 15:15:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-18 20:36:16 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-17 08:22:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-17 13:08:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-17 17:39:44 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-18 08:15:23 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-17 18:50:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-18 22:57:49 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-19 08:50:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-19 16:50:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-19 20:34:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-20 08:24:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-20 04:21:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-21 00:45:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-19 18:24:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-20 21:22:57 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-21 04:47:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-21 17:38:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-22 03:08:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-22 12:21:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
hhyapster@[EMAIL PROTECTE  2008-05-21 23:25:28 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Darrell Stec <darrell_  2008-05-22 04:43:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
saint7peter@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-05-22 01:58:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-22 12:25:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-22 20:13:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-23 16:28:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
asilentskeptic <asilen  2008-05-22 20:20:18 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-22 21:06:00 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-22 23:37:41 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-23 15:47:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Tokay Pino Gris <tokay  2008-05-25 17:10:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-23 17:05:29 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-23 21:11:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-24 07:54:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-24 08:15:47 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-25 07:57:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-26 09:18:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-24 07:52:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-24 16:37:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:51:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-06-01 19:16:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-23 17:35:26 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-23 19:50:24 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-25 11:12:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-25 18:40:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-05-25 14:15:33 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:56:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:52:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-06-01 19:14:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-25 22:46:11 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-05-26 17:21:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-26 19:57:54 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:39:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:44:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-28 18:06:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-29 21:32:14 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Mark K. Bilbo"  2008-05-30 13:29:04 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-30 21:49:09 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill <bil@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-05-27 11:51:27 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-06-01 23:39:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"John Smith" &l  2008-06-02 07:04:34 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"L. Raymond" &l  2008-06-02 09:03:39 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-06-04 21:57:01 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Risto Karttunen <tipsu  2008-05-03 00:42:35 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-03 20:13:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-03 20:38:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-04 09:17:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
modematic <modematic@[  2008-05-04 06:31:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-04 10:43:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-04 21:37:02 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-05 00:44:51 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-05 07:19:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
stoney <stoney@[EMAIL   2008-05-15 17:56:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Bill Bowden <wrongaddr  2008-05-05 16:16:38 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-05 19:34:19 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"thomas p." <  2008-05-06 07:16:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-10 20:36:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-10 21:52:12 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 08:23:17 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 09:30:48 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 08:36:46 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 09:38:59 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 09:52:07 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 16:27:03 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 17:39:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-11 15:00:21 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-11 19:28:06 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 19:39:05 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Ben Goren <ben@[EMAIL   2008-05-12 08:14:53 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
DanielSan <danielsan19  2008-05-11 16:07:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Free Lunch <lunch@[EMA  2008-05-11 18:09:56 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-11 10:59:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-13 14:48:13 
How did they know?
Antares 531 <gordonlrD  2008-05-13 15:13:10 
Re: How did they know?
Lars Eighner <usenet@[  2008-05-13 15:45:25 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 14:53:13 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 15:42:51 
Re: How did they know?
duke <duckgumbo32@[EMA  2008-05-26 17:47:51 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 19:02:08 
Re: How did they know?
duke <duckgumbo32@[EMA  2008-05-27 06:45:23 
Re: How did they know?
Lars Eighner <usenet@[  2008-05-13 15:49:42 
Re: How did they know?
raven1 <quoththeraven@  2008-05-13 18:04:35 
Re: How did they know?
Uncle Vic <address@[EM  2008-05-13 22:51:58 
Re: How did they know?
John Locke <johnlocke9  2008-05-13 16:40:08 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:09:53 
Re: How did they know?
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-26 15:38:01 
Re: How did they know?
John Baker <nunya@[EMA  2008-05-14 06:44:55 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:22:23 
Re: How did they know?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Claude_Hop  2008-05-14 08:28:42 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:17:10 
Re: How did they know?
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbja  2008-05-13 21:08:03 
Re: How did they know?
James <bireda@[EMAIL P  2008-05-26 15:01:13 
Re: How did they know?
gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-14 01:59:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 13:34:32 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 10:24:13 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 15:04:31 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 15:05:58 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Christopher A. Lee <ca  2008-05-14 11:17:10 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:35:15 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-14 11:15:37 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-05-14 19:30:58 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
"Adonis" <ze  2008-05-15 00:56:20 
Re: NO EVIDENCE
Kelsey Bjarnason <kbja  2008-05-14 16:45:03 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Fri Jul 25 7:22:54 CDT 2008.