| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Angel - Inner Quest" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2007 06:36:27 PM |
| Object: |
Guide to Bible referencing |
Understanding Bible Teachings
Many swear by the Bible. They insist that it is the only true word of
God, to be accepted in its entirety without question and without
personal interpretation. And yet surprisingly, everyone disagrees in a
big or small way with everyone else in regard to what the Bible
teachings and passages really mean. A thousand believers, a thousand
religions. There are various reasons why.
Infants crawl before they stand, stand before they walk and walk
before they run. In learning to read and write, we begin by memorizing
the alphabet, then we put the letters together to form words, we
combine words to express our meaning in sentences and so on. Regarding
math, we learn to count, then we add and subtract, multiply and
divide. Only after can we take up algebra, geometry and physics.
Everything begins with simple basics and progresses to the more
complex. So do we deepen our awareness of the Truth.
The Bible being the oldest source of the Divine Teachings for
Christians, it is only right that we make it the starting point of our
studies. But lest we be misled, it is important that we properly
appreciate certain distinctions within the Bible, itself. Yes, it is
divinely inspired. But there are levels to its teachings. Those who
don't realize this will naturally end up confused.
In the Old Testament, the prophets expounded on the divine teachings
but, on the main, they admit that their understanding is less than
perfect. Instead, they point to Jesus, our Lord who will come and
reveal more of the Truth. All their pronouncements then are to be
regarded as partly true and partly false. All who quote from them are
quoting half-truths, at best. And besides, so much of the Old
Teachings, not all, are now irrelevant, obsolete and have been
superseded by the Teachings of Jesus.
Jesus knowing the Truth revealed it to his disciples. But being like
any typical group of students, his followers could only comprehend so
much. This they imparted to others in their turn. Truth not thoroughly
understood and handed down became colored to some certain extent.
There are higher and lower level interpretations of Truth.
Recognizing the strong influence of traditions, Jesus made use of them
together with ceremonies, rituals and symbols to illustrate his
teachings to the people of those times more effectively. Baptism,
symbolic of purification, was retained from John the Baptist to foster
a strong sense of belonging. The Jews having been slaves of the
Egyptians and then the Romans, situations involving masters and slaves
were more understandable to them than if the situations were related
to the more advanced concepts of free men and universal brotherhood.
Jesus' death on the cross became the ultimate human sacrifice in the
tradition of the blood of the lamb where the lamb was sacrificed to
safeguard the lives of the Hebrew first-born during the Egyptian
experience. The body and blood of Christ now reminds us every Sunday
of his divine message and the fine examples we all should emulate, and
our own necessary trials and hardships. Stark naked Truth being too
direct, offensive to the sinful and blinding to the ignorant, Jesus
clothed it in parables.
After Jesus completed his mission and returned home, the Apostles and
later the church fathers interpreted his teachings for the purpose of
instructing the greater masses of ignorant people. Necessarily, the
Catechism had to be formulated with a view to bringing the Higher
Teachings down to such a level where they could be understood and
accepted, in like manner that we do not teach collegiate subjects to
grade school pupils. Here again, some conflicts and inconsistencies
resulted from the integration of non-Biblical teachings drawn from
church traditions which did not always completely agree with the
teachings in the Bible.
Over the centuries, social, economic and political exigencies
compelled that the teachings be further degraded to ensure the
attainment of certain desired ends. Objections to these subsequent
Church edicts - the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and
doctrine, celibacy, indulgences, sacraments and others, as well -
sparked the Protestant Revolt of the 16th century. These and similar
self-serving man-made laws are not God's laws and we should not allow
them to confuse us any further.
Because of these many innovations, much was lost. Now 2,000 years
after, the original Truths that Jesus taught are obscured and the
reasons behind the downgrading of his teachings have been completely
forgotten. The rituals, symbols and other trappings of religion are
fanatically embraced while the meaning and purpose behind them have
been consigned to the wayside. Now is the time for us to stem the tide
and get back to the true spirit of things.
Neither is the Bible the only true word of God nor is it complete in
itself because "there are many other things that Jesus has done and if
all these should be written down, then the whole world itself will not
be able to contain all the books that should be written." In fact,
there is so much more he wants to tell us which he didn't then,
because we would not have been able to understand them anyway at the
time.
And how can we not help but personally interpret all these truths for
ourselves? Everyone understands differently because everyone has had
different experiences to draw insights from. Every teaching, even that
supposed to come from divine sources, must test true in the light of
our own personal experiences. Otherwise, our conscience and intuition
will tell us that it really is not true and we should reject it
outright, immediately, regardless of who proposed it. Or else we
should withhold our judgment until more sufficient facts can prove or
disprove it.
In all our evaluations, experience is the light God gives each of us
that will enable us to determine correctly what is right and true.
Beyond this, only those who apply the teachings can ever really know
the Truth. Knowledge may be given but enlightenment must be earned. In
order to get over our confusion and resolve the many conflicting
interpretations, we should start over and conduct a new study and
investigation. Aware now of the hierarchy of the divine teachings, we
should better go back to basics, focus rather on the direct source,
the true light - the life and teachings of the Master in the Gospels.
This done, then we should continue to move forward in our quest.
Today, there are much more recent and highly authoritative sources of
divine instruction relayed to us through different messengers that
clarify and effectively upward revise the divine teachings again, this
time specifically, for the men of the coming millennium. Truth is
everywhere continually on the march and gathering speed. To those
whose hearts and minds are open, even the mysteries are being unfolded
and made plain. According to his promise: If we seek for his Truth,
then we will surely find it.
.
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
26 Mar 2007 02:08:13 PM |
|
|
"Angel - Inner Quest" <luz@nerdshack.com> wrote in
news:1174865787.547139.230720@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Understanding Bible Teachings
ROFLMAO.
AKA How many errors can you find
Many swear by the Bible. They insist that it is the only true
word of God, to be accepted in its entirety without question and
without personal interpretation. And yet surprisingly, everyone
disagrees in a big or small way with everyone else in regard to
what the Bible teachings and passages really mean. A thousand
believers, a thousand religions. There are various reasons why.
Infants crawl before they stand, stand before they walk and walk
Standing is actually more difficult than walking. Most infants take
their first steps before they can stand without support.
before they run. In learning to read and write, we begin by
memorizing the alphabet, then we put the letters together to form
words, we combine words to express our meaning in sentences and
so on.
Which schood did you attend? Let's warn people away from it.
Memorizing the alphabeth came a long time after the first scentence
had been written.
Regarding math, we learn to count, then we add and
subtract, multiply and divide. Only after can we take up algebra,
geometry and physics.
Most people learn some basic physics before they can count to 10.
"Sit down on the swing, or you can fall off and hurt yourself!"
(Gravity). "Don't put your fingers in the electric socket!"
(Electricity)
Everything begins with simple basics and
progresses to the more complex.
Learning a language from scratch, learning which is up and which is
down (the infant actually have to switch them around in the brain),
tying your shoe-laces. What have you done that even approaches the
complexity of that lately?
<.....>
Egyptian slaves, infallibility of the Pope, origin of baptism
Today, there are much more recent and highly authoritative
sources of divine instruction relayed to us through different
messengers that clarify and effectively upward revise the divine
teachings again, this time specifically, for the men of the
coming millennium.
<.....>
What does this refer to?
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Angel - Inner Quest" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
29 Mar 2007 06:40:39 PM |
|
|
On Mar 27, 3:08 am, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote:
"Angel - Inner Quest" <l...@nerdshack.com> wrote innews:1174865787.547139.230720@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Understanding Bible Teachings
Today, there are much more recent and highly authoritative
sources of divine instruction relayed to us through different
messengers that clarify and effectively upward revise the divine
teachings again, this time specifically, for the men of the
coming millennium.
<.....>
What does this refer to?
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Hello Lisbeth and all,
The Truth is everywhere to be found by those who seek for it. But you
can start by visiting these links:
To weigh the evidences proving the Afterlife:
A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife Irrefutable Objective
Evidence
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/index.html
To understand the Divine Teachings:
Enter the Realm of the Spirit
http://innerquest1.blogspot.com/
Angel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
04 Apr 2007 12:32:36 PM |
|
|
"Angel - Inner Quest" <l...@nerdshack.com> wrote
innews:1174865787.547139.230720@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Understanding Bible Teachings
Today, there are much more recent and highly authoritative
sources of divine instruction relayed to us through different
messengers that clarify and effectively upward revise the
divine teachings again, this time specifically, for the men of
the coming millennium.
<.....>
What does this refer to?
Hello Lisbeth and all,
The Truth is everywhere to be found by those who seek for it. But
you can start by visiting these links:
To weigh the evidences proving the Afterlife:
A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife Irrefutable
Objective Evidence
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/index.html
"Another argument that was raised in the early days of psychic
research was that the mediums were getting the information by
telepathy from the unconscious minds of the people who came to sit
with them."
To understand the Divine Teachings:
Enter the Realm of the Spirit
http://innerquest1.blogspot.com/
I couldn't find the page where the evidence that spirits exist is
shown. Or any "recent and highly authoritative sources of divine
instruction" for that matter.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
04 Apr 2007 06:17:51 PM |
|
|
On 04 Apr 2007 17:32:36 GMT, Lisbeth Andersson <lisand@bredband.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9908CFA2B9A2lisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>
"Angel - Inner Quest" <l...@nerdshack.com> wrote
innews:1174865787.547139.230720@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
Understanding Bible Teachings
Today, there are much more recent and highly authoritative
sources of divine instruction relayed to us through different
messengers that clarify and effectively upward revise the
divine teachings again, this time specifically, for the men of
the coming millennium.
<.....>
What does this refer to?
Hello Lisbeth and all,
The Truth is everywhere to be found by those who seek for it. But
you can start by visiting these links:
To weigh the evidences proving the Afterlife:
A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife Irrefutable
Objective Evidence
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/index.html
"Another argument that was raised in the early days of psychic
research was that the mediums were getting the information by
telepathy from the unconscious minds of the people who came to sit
with them."
To understand the Divine Teachings:
Enter the Realm of the Spirit
http://innerquest1.blogspot.com/
I couldn't find the page where the evidence that spirits exist is
shown. Or any "recent and highly authoritative sources of divine
instruction" for that matter.
There is NONE.
N o evidence whatsoever.
James Randi has shown the people who claim that there is, to be either
completely Bonkers, or completely Fraudulent.
Angel drawers is in the first category.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
05 Apr 2007 09:10:43 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:hdc8139hfpvmvicifm02fg7vqqtvic4pv6@4ax.com:
I couldn't find the page where the evidence that spirits exist is
shown. Or any "recent and highly authoritative sources of divine
instruction" for that matter.
There is NONE.
N o evidence whatsoever.
I was hoping for some new sources, authoritative or not.
James Randi has shown the people who claim that there is, to be
either completely Bonkers, or completely Fraudulent.
To tell the difference: the Bonkers crowd shows up to be tested, or at
leasts tries to figure out how to get through the application process.
The Fraudulent have a large store of excuses why they don't try to get
that million dollars.
*I had an idea ahout how I should get my hands on that money, I
thought about repeating the experiment that started homeopathy but
doing it according to scientific methods, double blind and all that.
There is no doubt that Hahnemann got the right result although his
explanation was way off. If you give one group some toxic stuff, and
the control group some foul tasting stuff with harmless lumps in it,
there should not be much doubt of which is doing most good (= less
harm). For obvious reasons it won't work to use pure water in a double
blind test. Well, before I got around to researching Hahnemann's
original recepie, I checked Randis rules. Unfortunately he has a rule
against experiments that can cause people harm :-(, and the idea died
off. However, I did wonder how much money the volunteers would demand
for participating in an experiment of this kind, and I really don't
feel that I have lost a million dollars.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Angel - Inner Quest" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
13 Apr 2007 09:28:54 PM |
|
|
On Apr 5, 10:10 pm, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net> wrote:
Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote innews:hdc8139hfpvmvicifm02fg7vqqtvic4pv6@4ax.com:
I couldn't find the page where the evidence that spirits exist is
shown. Or any "recent and highly authoritative sources of divine
instruction" for that matter.
There is NONE.
N o evidence whatsoever.
I was hoping for some new sources, authoritative or not.
James Randi has shown the people who claim that there is, to be
either completely Bonkers, or completely Fraudulent.
To tell the difference: the Bonkers crowd shows up to be tested, or at
leasts tries to figure out how to get through the application process.
The Fraudulent have a large store of excuses why they don't try to get
that million dollars.
*I had an idea ahout how I should get my hands on that money, I
thought about repeating the experiment that started homeopathy but
doing it according to scientific methods, double blind and all that.
There is no doubt that Hahnemann got the right result although his
explanation was way off. If you give one group some toxic stuff, and
the control group some foul tasting stuff with harmless lumps in it,
there should not be much doubt of which is doing most good (= less
harm). For obvious reasons it won't work to use pure water in a double
blind test. Well, before I got around to researching Hahnemann's
original recepie, I checked Randis rules. Unfortunately he has a rule
against experiments that can cause people harm :-(, and the idea died
off. However, I did wonder how much money the volunteers would demand
for participating in an experiment of this kind, and I really don't
feel that I have lost a million dollars.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
Should be in "What happens when we die?" If this and the other
evidence submitted are not proof enough for you, then, sad to say, you
will just have to wait until you leave this world. Everyone will then
know for sure.
In the East, there is a teaching. "To those who are ready, no proof is
needed. To those who are not, no proof will suffice."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
14 Apr 2007 06:58:22 AM |
|
|
"Angel - Inner Quest" <luz@nerdshack.com> wrote in
news:1176517734.683922.243290@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
On Apr 5, 10:10 pm, Lisbeth Andersson <lis...@bredband.net>
wrote:
Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote
innews:hdc8139hfpvmvicifm02fg7vqqtvic4pv6@4ax.com:
I couldn't find the page where the evidence that spirits exist
is shown. Or any "recent and highly authoritative sources of
divine instruction" for that matter.
There is NONE.
N o evidence whatsoever.
I was hoping for some new sources, authoritative or not.
James Randi has shown the people who claim that there is, to
be either completely Bonkers, or completely Fraudulent.
To tell the difference: the Bonkers crowd shows up to be tested,
or at leasts tries to figure out how to get through the
application process. The Fraudulent have a large store of
excuses why they don't try to get that million dollars.
*I had an idea ahout how I should get my hands on that money, I
thought about repeating the experiment that started homeopathy
but doing it according to scientific methods, double blind and
all that. There is no doubt that Hahnemann got the right result
although his explanation was way off. If you give one group some
toxic stuff, and the control group some foul tasting stuff with
harmless lumps in it, there should not be much doubt of which is
doing most good (= less harm). For obvious reasons it won't work
to use pure water in a double blind test. Well, before I got
around to researching Hahnemann's original recepie, I checked
Randis rules. Unfortunately he has a rule against experiments
that can cause people harm :-(, and the idea died off. However,
I did wonder how much money the volunteers would demand for
participating in an experiment of this kind, and I really don't
feel that I have lost a million dollars.
Should be in "What happens when we die?" If this and the other
evidence submitted are not proof enough for you, then, sad to
say, you will just have to wait until you leave this world.
Everyone will then know for sure.
I'm very sure I will not get Randi's prize posthumously.
In the East, there is a teaching. "To those who are ready, no
proof is needed. To those who are not, no proof will suffice."
And the old Norse had a saying: He who comes in from the mountains
with cold knees, needs warmth.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Toby A Inkster" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
15 Apr 2007 03:44:08 AM |
|
|
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started homeopathy but
doing it according to scientific methods, double blind and all that.
[...] For obvious reasons it won't work to use pure water in a double
blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
15 Apr 2007 04:34:51 AM |
|
|
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods, double
blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it won't work to
use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
..-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are getting. It
would be difficult to keep a secret of who is getting what if one
group is getting pure water and the other group is getting a foul
smelling and tasting brew with small lumps in it.
I did wounder about using four groups, one gets the original recipie,
one gets fake disgusting stufff, one group pure water and the last one
"homeopatic" water, I'm sure the technical details could have been
worked out, the real problems were moral and economical. Randi has a
rule against hurting people and I'm sure giving poison to a group of
people would qualify as hurting them, I had some thoughts about the
moral of it, how ill would the poison make them and would it cause any
lasting harm? However before I had time to research it I started to
wonder how many volunteers would be needed and how much would they
need to be paid? That's when I gave up on the idea. :-(
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
18 Apr 2007 01:10:18 PM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods, double
blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it won't work to
use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
.-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are getting. It
would be difficult to keep a secret of who is getting what if one
group is getting pure water and the other group is getting a foul
smelling and tasting brew with small lumps in it.
Put the water/foul brew into something like liqui-gels (like the Nyquil
medicine comes in or like a paintball is made) where you'd have no way
to know what's inside. Now for something that requires a large dosage,
that might mean swallowing several of them but it'd allow for the
double-blind with no problem.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
20 Apr 2007 11:40:33 PM |
|
|
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f05muc$hd2$1@news04.infoave.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods,
double blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it won't
work to use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
.-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are getting.
It would be difficult to keep a secret of who is getting what if
one group is getting pure water and the other group is getting a
foul smelling and tasting brew with small lumps in it.
Put the water/foul brew into something like liqui-gels (like the
Nyquil medicine comes in or like a paintball is made) where you'd
have no way to know what's inside. Now for something that
requires a large dosage, that might mean swallowing several of
them but it'd allow for the double-blind with no problem.
That might work. How good are they at hiding taste and texture of the
stuff inside? More importantly, how expensive are they to make?
Remember, the point of the excercise is to relieve Randi of his
$million, and it has already been reduced too much because the
volunteers wants too much of it (ignoring for the moment Randi's
ethical rules).
If the stuff needs to be swallowed with water, it might be nessessary
to recalculate the concentrations. We don't want to destroy the effect
of the water by diluting it ;-)
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 03:00:04 AM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f05muc$hd2$1@news04.infoave.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods,
double blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it won't
work to use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
.-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are getting.
It would be difficult to keep a secret of who is getting what if
one group is getting pure water and the other group is getting a
foul smelling and tasting brew with small lumps in it.
Then it is not homeopathic. A 10C homeopathetic "remedy" will be water as
pure as is possible and the probability of there being a single molecule of
the "like" substance in any dose is very close to zero.
If the stuff needs to be swallowed with water, it might be nessessary
to recalculate the concentrations. We don't want to destroy the effect
of the water by diluting it ;-)
True Homeopathic Medicine is based on water because it remembers...
Remember?
I came in late on this but there has already been a major study (and TV
special) on a group that found homeopathetic medicine to be valid. Then
Randi made them do it right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 11:00:06 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:8vjWh.2270$ns5.196@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f05muc$hd2$1@news04.infoave.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods,
double blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it
won't work to use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
.-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are
getting. It would be difficult to keep a secret of who is
getting what if one group is getting pure water and the other
group is getting a foul smelling and tasting brew with small
lumps in it.
Then it is not homeopathic. A 10C homeopathetic "remedy" will be
water as pure as is possible and the probability of there being
a single molecule of the "like" substance in any dose is very
close to zero.
Are you sure? Since some homeopathic stuff sometimes come as pills,
it must be possible to mix it with other substances without
destroying the homeopathic effect. I'm sure they would not make
pills of the water^H^H^H^H^Hremedies without careful studes about
how the extra material influences the patients. (No, I'm serious,
they probably know to a cent how much more people are prepared to
pay for pills compared to water.)
If the stuff needs to be swallowed with water, it might be
nessessary to recalculate the concentrations. We don't want to
destroy the effect of the water by diluting it ;-)
True Homeopathic Medicine is based on water because it
remembers... Remember?
Yes, but you have to shake the water a lot before it remembers
anything. If you just add water without shaking it won't remember.
At the moment I'm remembering the telephone salesman for some
homeopathic company, who tried to sell me some extra concentrated
applecider vinegar pills. (yes, that was concentrated, not diluted)
I came in late on this but there has already been a major study
(and TV special) on a group that found homeopathetic medicine to
be valid. Then Randi made them do it right.
Some nut has mouthed off again about Randi's habit of swallowing
large doses of homeopathic sleeping pills. The nut is going to lose
$1000, unless he can wriggle out of his challenge somehow. :-)
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/041307mag.html
Hmmmm, is it possible to become a homeopathic-sleeping-pill addict?
How late did you come into this? You might have gotten the idea
that I think homeopathy works. I don't, it has the usual placebo
effect, but thats all. I do however suspect that Hahnemanns
original experiment worked as described, the medicines in the early
19th century usually did not do much good and frequently did a lot
of harm. He didn't have the knowledge to interpret the results of
the experiment, nobody knew about bacteria and atoms back then, but
I have no doubt that the experiments themselves could be replicated
using modern methods, that is once the proper placebo substance has
been worked out, and once you have gotten past the ethics committe,
they usually don't approve of feeding poison to people.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 08:38:00 PM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:8vjWh.2270$ns5.196@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f05muc$hd2$1@news04.infoave.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods,
double blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it
won't work to use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
.-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are
getting. It would be difficult to keep a secret of who is
getting what if one group is getting pure water and the other
group is getting a foul smelling and tasting brew with small
lumps in it.
Then it is not homeopathic. A 10C homeopathetic "remedy" will be
water as pure as is possible and the probability of there being
a single molecule of the "like" substance in any dose is very
close to zero.
Are you sure? Since some homeopathic stuff sometimes come as pills,
it must be possible to mix it with other substances without
destroying the homeopathic effect. I'm sure they would not make
pills of the water^H^H^H^H^Hremedies without careful studes about
how the extra material influences the patients. (No, I'm serious,
they probably know to a cent how much more people are prepared to
pay for pills compared to water.)
Homeopathic medicine claims that water has memory and that once the "like
cures like" portion is added to the water, it must be shaken in a particular
manner for the water to obtain the memory of the substance.
Like cure like means that if pepper makes you sneeze then if you are
sneezing, pepper will make you stop sneezing if presented in the right
amount. (Less is more)
True Homeopathetic only works with water.
If the stuff needs to be swallowed with water, it might be
nessessary to recalculate the concentrations. We don't want to
destroy the effect of the water by diluting it ;-)
True Homeopathic Medicine is based on water because it
remembers... Remember?
Yes, but you have to shake the water a lot before it remembers
anything. If you just add water without shaking it won't remember.
Not a lot, there is a precise method and it involves tapping the container
as well.
At the moment I'm remembering the telephone salesman for some
homeopathic company, who tried to sell me some extra concentrated
applecider vinegar pills. (yes, that was concentrated, not diluted)
Apple cider vineagr is another thing that will cure everything...
I came in late on this but there has already been a major study
(and TV special) on a group that found homeopathetic medicine to
be valid. Then Randi made them do it right.
Some nut has mouthed off again about Randi's habit of swallowing
large doses of homeopathic sleeping pills. The nut is going to lose
$1000, unless he can wriggle out of his challenge somehow. :-)
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-04/041307mag.html
Hmmmm, is it possible to become a homeopathic-sleeping-pill addict?
How late did you come into this? You might have gotten the idea
that I think homeopathy works. I don't, it has the usual placebo
effect, but thats all. I do however suspect that Hahnemanns
original experiment worked as described, the medicines in the early
19th century usually did not do much good and frequently did a lot
of harm. He didn't have the knowledge to interpret the results of
the experiment, nobody knew about bacteria and atoms back then, but
I have no doubt that the experiments themselves could be replicated
using modern methods, that is once the proper placebo substance has
been worked out, and once you have gotten past the ethics committe,
they usually don't approve of feeding poison to people.
You could never poison anybody with homeopathic medicine unless they drank
to much water. The probability of there even being one molecule in a dose is
very close to zero and would be even if you started with a mole of the
substance rather than a single drop.
I have a pill for sale that taken with water will reduce thirst.
Taken with a 4000 calory a day diet will gain weight and taken on a five
mile walk every day will reduce weight and improve your health.
Take one before eating chocolate and you can eat as much as you want. If you
don't swallow.
It has other wonder properties but you must buy a bottle to find out what
they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
22 Apr 2007 02:14:40 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Y%yWh.11853$YL5.10674@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:8vjWh.2270$ns5.196@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
<...>
How late did you come into this? You might have gotten the idea
that I think homeopathy works. I don't, it has the usual placebo
effect, but thats all. I do however suspect that Hahnemanns
original experiment worked as described, the medicines in the
early 19th century usually did not do much good and frequently
did a lot of harm. He didn't have the knowledge to interpret the
results of the experiment, nobody knew about bacteria and atoms
back then, but I have no doubt that the experiments themselves
could be replicated using modern methods, that is once the
proper placebo substance has been worked out, and once you have
gotten past the ethics committe, they usually don't approve of
feeding poison to people.
You could never poison anybody with homeopathic medicine unless
they drank to much water. The probability of there even being one
molecule in a dose is very close to zero and would be even if you
started with a mole of the substance rather than a single drop.
The poisoning would be done by Hahnemanns *original recipie. You know,
the standard early 19th century medication. I didn't get far enough in
the research to find the original ingredients, but I would be very
surprised if it did not include stuff like poisonous plants, arsenic
and rat turds. That's the part I think an ethics committe would have
some problems with, not the (homeopathic) water.
I have a pill for sale that taken with water will reduce thirst.
Taken with a 4000 calory a day diet will gain weight and taken on
a five mile walk every day will reduce weight and improve your
health. Take one before eating chocolate and you can eat as much
as you want. If you don't swallow.
It has other wonder properties but you must buy a bottle to find
out what they are.
Eat as much chocolate as I want? You work on that little detail about
not swallowing it and get back to me on it. :-)
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
23 Apr 2007 12:05:35 AM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:Y%yWh.11853$YL5.10674@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:8vjWh.2270$ns5.196@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net:
<...>
How late did you come into this? You might have gotten the idea
that I think homeopathy works. I don't, it has the usual placebo
effect, but thats all. I do however suspect that Hahnemanns
original experiment worked as described, the medicines in the
early 19th century usually did not do much good and frequently
did a lot of harm. He didn't have the knowledge to interpret the
results of the experiment, nobody knew about bacteria and atoms
back then, but I have no doubt that the experiments themselves
could be replicated using modern methods, that is once the
proper placebo substance has been worked out, and once you have
gotten past the ethics committe, they usually don't approve of
feeding poison to people.
You could never poison anybody with homeopathic medicine unless
they drank to much water. The probability of there even being one
molecule in a dose is very close to zero and would be even if you
started with a mole of the substance rather than a single drop.
The poisoning would be done by Hahnemanns *original recipie. You know,
the standard early 19th century medication. I didn't get far enough in
the research to find the original ingredients, but I would be very
surprised if it did not include stuff like poisonous plants, arsenic
and rat turds. That's the part I think an ethics committe would have
some problems with, not the (homeopathic) water.
I have a pill for sale that taken with water will reduce thirst.
Taken with a 4000 calory a day diet will gain weight and taken on
a five mile walk every day will reduce weight and improve your
health. Take one before eating chocolate and you can eat as much
as you want. If you don't swallow.
It has other wonder properties but you must buy a bottle to find
out what they are.
Eat as much chocolate as I want? You work on that little detail about
not swallowing it and get back to me on it. :-)
I'm working on it.
Tonight I sacrificed the last of the peeps in the microwave so will get back
to the chocolate solution.
Which, if you like sweet is, best prepared by substituting one cup of
condensed sweetened milk for regular milk.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 10:03:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:38:00 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <Y%yWh.11853$YL5.10674@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
:
Homeopathic medicine claims that water has memory and that once the "like
cures like" portion is added to the water, it must be shaken in a particular
manner for the water to obtain the memory of the substance.
Like cure like means that if pepper makes you sneeze then if you are
sneezing, pepper will make you stop sneezing if presented in the right
amount. (Less is more)
True Homeopathetic only works with water.
:
"True Homeopathic" does not work water, nor anything.
It does not work at all.
Full stop.
It is a crock of *****, from beginning to end.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
22 Apr 2007 12:06:14 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:38:00 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <Y%yWh.11853$YL5.10674@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
Homeopathic medicine claims that water has memory and that once
the "like cures like" portion is added to the water, it must be
shaken in a particular manner for the water to obtain the memory of
the substance.
Like cure like means that if pepper makes you sneeze then if you are
sneezing, pepper will make you stop sneezing if presented in the
right amount. (Less is more)
True Homeopathetic only works with water.
"True Homeopathic" does not work water, nor anything.
It does not work at all.
Full stop.
It is a crock of *****, from beginning to end.
I'm sure most of us are aware of this. I was describing the claims
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
22 Apr 2007 01:34:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 22:06:14 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <a2CWh.6290$H_5.2997@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 01:38:00 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <Y%yWh.11853$YL5.10674@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
Homeopathic medicine claims that water has memory and that once
the "like cures like" portion is added to the water, it must be
shaken in a particular manner for the water to obtain the memory of
the substance.
Like cure like means that if pepper makes you sneeze then if you are
sneezing, pepper will make you stop sneezing if presented in the
right amount. (Less is more)
True Homeopathetic only works with water.
"True Homeopathic" does not work water, nor anything.
It does not work at all.
Full stop.
It is a crock of *****, from beginning to end.
I'm sure most of us are aware of this. I was describing the claims
Even the claims are mostly contradictory and confusing.
For every one homeopathetic, we have at least 2 different claims of
modality!
It is a bit like the two conflicting claims in the biblical Genesis,
only worse.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
22 Apr 2007 12:25:11 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
<snip>
Even the claims are mostly contradictory and confusing.
For every one homeopathetic, we have at least 2 different claims of
modality!
It is a bit like the two conflicting claims in the biblical Genesis,
only worse.
That's because they don't follow the True Path and heritics have stepped in.
They have even corrupted me!
I said " True Homeopathetic only works with water." and found out I was
wrong.
Hahnemann used "sugar of milk" and alcohol.
Drink two beers and call me in the morning does have a nice ring.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holmes.html
It's an interesting read and gives a graphic idea of the dilution involved.
"A calculation nearly like the following was made by Dr. Panvini, and may be
readily followed in its essential particulars by any one who chooses.
For the first dilution it would take 100 drops of alcohol.
For the second dilution it would take 10,000 drops, or about a pint.
For the third dilution it would take 100 pints.
For the fourth dilution it would take 10,000 pints, or more than 1,000
gallons, and so on to the ninth dilution, which would take ten billion
gallons, which he computed would fill the basin of Lake Agnano, a body of
water two miles in circumference. The twelfth dilution would of course fill
a million such lakes. By the time the seventeenth degree of dilution should
be reached, the alcohol required would equal in quantity the waters of ten
thousand Adriatic seas. Trifling errors must be expected, but they are as
likely to be on one side as the other, and any little matter like Lake
Superior or the Caspian would be but a drop in the bucket."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
22 Apr 2007 03:32:24 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 17:25:11 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <XTMWh.11903$YL5.10646@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
<snip>
Even the claims are mostly contradictory and confusing.
For every one homeopathetic, we have at least 2 different claims of
modality!
It is a bit like the two conflicting claims in the biblical Genesis,
only worse.
That's because they don't follow the True Path and heritics have stepped in.
They have even corrupted me!
I said " True Homeopathetic only works with water." and found out I was
wrong.
Hahnemann used "sugar of milk" and alcohol.
No wonder then that Milk Stout is considered a sovereign remedy for
all ills!
:
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 04:20:13 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:00:04 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <8vjWh.2270$ns5.196@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f05muc$hd2$1@news04.infoave.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods,
double blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it won't
work to use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
.-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are getting.
It would be difficult to keep a secret of who is getting what if
one group is getting pure water and the other group is getting a
foul smelling and tasting brew with small lumps in it.
Then it is not homeopathic. A 10C homeopathetic "remedy" will be water as
pure as is possible and the probability of there being a single molecule of
the "like" substance in any dose is very close to zero.
If the stuff needs to be swallowed with water, it might be nessessary
to recalculate the concentrations. We don't want to destroy the effect
of the water by diluting it ;-)
True Homeopathic Medicine is based on water because it remembers...
Remember?
I came in late on this but there has already been a major study (and TV
special) on a group that found homeopathetic medicine to be valid. Then
Randi made them do it right.
And it turned out to be a 0C dilution of pure *****.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 10:15:30 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:bplj235kt1fhk7cdilq72retbhpvga23fe@4ax.com:
And it turned out to be a 0C dilution of pure *****.
Considering the context, I suggest that the proper word for it is
ratshit.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 06:04:24 PM |
|
|
On 21 Apr 2007 15:15:30 GMT, Lisbeth Andersson <lisand@bredband.net>
wrote:
- Refer: <Xns9919B848AF8C2lisandbredbandnet@66.150.105.47>
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:bplj235kt1fhk7cdilq72retbhpvga23fe@4ax.com:
And it turned out to be a 0C dilution of pure *****.
Considering the context, I suggest that the proper word for it is
ratshit.
I accept your quite proper technical correction with equanimity.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
21 Apr 2007 11:05:50 AM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f05muc$hd2$1@news04.infoave.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Toby A Inkster <usenet200703@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote in
news:o759f4-4kp.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk:
Lisbeth wrote:
I thought about repeating the experiment that started
homeopathy but doing it according to scientific methods,
double blind and all that. [...] For obvious reasons it won't
work to use pure water in a double blind test.
Why not? That's what they do in real homoeopathy.
.-)
True, but double blind means nobody knows what they are getting.
It would be difficult to keep a secret of who is getting what if
one group is getting pure water and the other group is getting a
foul smelling and tasting brew with small lumps in it.
Put the water/foul brew into something like liqui-gels (like the
Nyquil medicine comes in or like a paintball is made) where you'd
have no way to know what's inside. Now for something that
requires a large dosage, that might mean swallowing several of
them but it'd allow for the double-blind with no problem.
That might work. How good are they at hiding taste and texture of the
stuff inside?
Perfect. I don't believe you're in the USA, are you (you said once
something about working on your english, if I recall)? Not sure if they
have them where you're at but a lot of medications come in the
liqui-gels now. Basically, all they are is a gelatin shell with a liquid
inside and they dissolve in the stomach.
More importantly, how expensive are they to make?
No idea what it'd cost for a small lot. In bulk, they're probably cheap
to make (based on the fact that the liqui-gel form of Nyquil and other
medicines cost about the same per dose as the other forms of the same
brand.)
Remember, the point of the excercise is to relieve Randi of his
$million, and it has already been reduced too much because the
volunteers wants too much of it (ignoring for the moment Randi's
ethical rules).
If the stuff needs to be swallowed with water, it might be nessessary
to recalculate the concentrations. We don't want to destroy the effect
of the water by diluting it ;-)
You'd need some water to take them, just as for any other pill/capsule.
But I doubt that would affect the medicine that much (as long as you're
getting the same amount of the active ingredient, the amount of fluids
shouldn't affect it unless you're drinking a gallon of water or some
such huge amount.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
22 Apr 2007 02:01:35 PM |
|
|
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f0dcp8$fld$1@news04.infoave.net:
That might work. How good are they at hiding taste and texture
of the stuff inside?
Perfect. I don't believe you're in the USA, are you (you said
once something about working on your english, if I recall)? Not
sure if they have them where you're at but a lot of medications
come in the liqui-gels now. Basically, all they are is a gelatin
shell with a liquid inside and they dissolve in the stomach.
Interesting, I'll keep them in mind if I ever can think of another
reason to replicate Hahnemanns experiment, or something like that.I
suspect we have them in this part of the word too, although I cannot
recall taking any myself. I'm Swedish, and live in the Stockholm area.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
24 Apr 2007 01:25:07 PM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f0dcp8$fld$1@news04.infoave.net:
That might work. How good are they at hiding taste and texture
of the stuff inside?
Perfect. I don't believe you're in the USA, are you (you said
once something about working on your english, if I recall)? Not
sure if they have them where you're at but a lot of medications
come in the liqui-gels now. Basically, all they are is a gelatin
shell with a liquid inside and they dissolve in the stomach.
Interesting, I'll keep them in mind if I ever can think of another
reason to replicate Hahnemanns experiment, or something like that.I
suspect we have them in this part of the word too, although I cannot
recall taking any myself. I'm Swedish, and live in the Stockholm area.
The following link shows how paint balls are made. "Liquigels" (or
liquid-filled gelatin capsules for medicine) are made pretty much the
same way except they're an elongated shape (like a hard pill) to make
them easier to swallow and are smaller than a paint ball in overall size.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6300354640369281174&q=%22how+paintballs+r+made%22+playable%3Atrue
BTW, your english is rather good (especially compared to some idiots in
this newsgroup.) :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
25 Apr 2007 10:39:50 AM |
|
|
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f0li23$ev4$1@news04.infoave.net:
Interesting, I'll keep them in mind if I ever can think of
another reason to replicate Hahnemanns experiment, or something
like that.I suspect we have them in this part of the word too,
although I cannot recall taking any myself. I'm Swedish, and
live in the Stockholm area.
The following link shows how paint balls are made. "Liquigels"
(or liquid-filled gelatin capsules for medicine) are made pretty
much the same way except they're an elongated shape (like a hard
pill) to make them easier to swallow and are smaller than a paint
ball in overall size.
If I can convince the opposing team that homeopathic paintballs is a
good idea, I might try it some time. :-) My team does not believe in
homeopathy,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6300354640369281174&q=%22h
ow+paintballs+r+made%22+playable%3Atrue
BTW, your english is rather good (especially compared to some
idiots in this newsgroup.) :)
Thank you. (I think!)
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
25 Apr 2007 11:35:53 AM |
|
|
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
BTW, your english is rather good (especially compared to some
idiots in this newsgroup.) :)
Thank you. (I think!)
That was both a compliment to you and an insult to some of the other
posters here (who supposedly speak English as a first language and yet
speak it worse than someone who speaks it as a second language.)
:)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lisbeth Andersson" |
|
| Title: Re: Guide to Bible referencing |
26 Apr 2007 02:13:18 PM |
|
|
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote in
news:f0o019$vdh$2@news04.infoave.net:
Lisbeth Andersson wrote:
BTW, your english is rather good (especially compared to some
idiots in this newsgroup.) :)
Thank you. (I think!)
That was both a compliment to you and an insult to some of the
other posters here (who supposedly speak English as a first
language and yet speak it worse than someone who speaks it as a
second language.)
:)
I sometimes wonder if reading newsgroups is good or bad for my English
knowledge. It makes me use the stuff by writing which is good, but
OTOH after a while some common mistakes seems normal (heresay, mean
time) which is not so good. I've given up on keeping English and
American separated, and while I haven't caught myself using 'Strine
yet, it's probably only a matter of time. :-)
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
