On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:34:52 GMT, exquisite witch peachy
<ExquisitePeach@hotmail.com> wrote in message <MXv8f.914$zT6.909@trnddc06>:

i live in a world with borders. i reject that entire concept.
every human being should have the right to go anywhere in the world without
hinderance. nationality should not exist.

And your show of protest is to stay home?

no.
i just don't have a good enough reason to go to all the trouble that is
required to get a visa.

Well.. okay.
What would be a good enough reason?

guaranteed profit. at least $1 million.
i wouldn't go to meet some woman.

Then you are safe from me. Lucky boy!

unless you have over $1 million in short term cash deposits and are easily
persuadable.

Nope, sorry. No can do.
I'm a mom and starving college student, you'll have to look elsewhere.

i can pretty much do anything to you if i give you $1000, huh?

On Tuesday 25 October 2005 04:49 am, Jon wrote:

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 07:05:22 GMT, M� <m��M�׹@�sSrEmOvEr.��m> wrote in

On Monday 24 October 2005 02:06 pm, Jon wrote:

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 01:14:22 GMT, M� <m��M�׹@�sSrEmOvEr.��m> wrote in

Jon wrote:

On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:37:07 GMT, M� <m��M�׹@�sSrEmOvEr.��m> wrote in

Cape Town is a first world city, which you would know if you had
actually been here before

May be a paradigm shift kinda thing for ya, but one man's castle is
another man's outhouse.

well obviously you've never been here.

Spend a week or more in Vermont, Colorado, or Montana and I guarantee
you'll see what I'm talking about.

like i said previously, i would have to jump through a number of hoops
to get a visa to visit the US.
i'm not cared enough to do that. i live in a world with borders. i
reject that entire concept.
every human being should have the right to go anywhere in the world
without hinderance. nationality should not exist.

like some sort of new world order..

you have so much fear.

not fear.. amusement at watching the ignorance of those that feel
government is truly looking out for their best interests instead of
undermining, manipulating, and profiting from the very people they're
supposedly governing.

Are you at least talking a _white_ family?

sure.
just end your notice with "kaffirs need not apply".

.."unless one of you works in a diamond mine"

if you stumbled across a rough diamond, you'd throw it away.

How do the kaffirs tell?

they're smarter than you.

kaffirs have over 3 times your earning power.. what's that like?

some black people earn much more than that. good for them. i don't
begrudge them their success.
but the vast majority do not.

We don't give blacks that type of opportunity in the U.S. If they can't
run a 4.2 Forty or shoot three-pointers all day, they're fucked.

Africa doesn't give them many opportunities. South Africa does.

The only bit of South African culture Americans have been exposed to is the
ZA Diplomats in Lethal Weapon 3 that smuggle Krugerands, shoot people at the
slightest provocation, and hate 'kaffirs' as much as Hitler hated Jews.

In article <g4z%e.16212$7b6.10545@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
dda@rr.rochester.com says...

Incorrect. The fault is with Jesus for not displaying enough common
sense to know that sand is a form of rock. I'm just pointing out how
silly his oversight was. Yes, we all know what he was trying to say,
but, as usual, he fucked it up, just like he fucked up the golden rule
and many alleged bible citations. If jesus existed at all then he was a
very mediocre rabbi.

First off there were no "Rabbis" in Jesus' day, that is a myth.

Jewish rabbis certainly codified hundreds of years of teachings into the
talmud. However, the NT epistles and gospels make numerous references to
rabbis and these documents are dated to between 50 and 150CE. Even
though jesus was not real, the stories told about him include many
references to rabbis. Jesus was tried, after all, by the great
sanhedrin, which certainly had to be made up of rabbis. In acts 22 paul
claims to have studied under the great rabbi Gamaliel.

"Rabbis" are a product of the Talmud, a huge idiotic commentary
on the OT

Yeah, it's pretty fucking boring, though good for some laughs at spots.
If I ever have trouble falling asleep in a hurry then a tractate can come
in handy.

<schnippp>

Second, in an area where you've got a little bit of fertile soil
along a river running through a place where there's nothing but
fucking sand and rocks, sand vs. rock is an important distinction.

Actually, in any place you've got bedrock if you go down far enough. In
desert areas the sand often gets carried away and one is left with
"desert pavement".

You've got sand and you've got rock. So now a big wind comes along,
and the sand blows around but the rocks stay put. Jesus was talking
in terms the locals could understand.

Naw, it might be more easily understandable for me to tell a 3-year-old
that the moon is a big piece of cheese, but that still doesn't make such
a teaching factually accurate. Jesus talked about rock being distinct
from sand because he obviously didn't recognize that sand is a form of
rock.


If he was in New Orleans

he'd be talking about brick houses on hills vs. wood frame houses
down below sea level.
(Paraphrase) "Your soul is like a brick house up on a hill in a
white neighborhood, your body is like a wood frame house down
by the levee in a black neighborhood."

That analogy ought to earn you the Bill Bennett Racial Sensitivity Award.
Unfortunately, I think he might have lost his last one in a poker match.
But I'm sure that if you wear your whitest sheet to the next clan rally
that you can find someone willing to part with one.

Are you getting this?

Oh I understand what you think you're trying to say, though you don't
have much of actual substance to say. Jesus was still wrong to presume
that sand is not a form of rock. He could have said, "Build on solid
rock foundations only which do not include things like sand or
sandstone." It's not like Jesus didn't have other awkwardly worded,
bizarre teachings.

Just curious ...

If the Torah is the law and Jesus said "I have come to
fulfill the law", doesn't that mean any true Christian has
to believe the creation story, etc? I don't think most do
any more but, isn't there a real disconnect here -- given
the NT part of the bible is supposed to be the **true** word
of god that is also called the new covenant and is the very
essence of christianity? How could anybody be a christian
and doubt those first 5 books?