:love: irigonegarayMy friends mom is dating him. Also, he is defending my neighbor from charges of enslavery or something.
Garden of Evil
A Kansas school board member lurks in the slime.
By C.J. Janovy
Published: Thursday, October 21, 2004
I haven't read Connie Morris' book, From the Darkness: One Woman's Rise to Nobility. It's out of print, but the online book-jacket synopsis suggests that Morris is a woman of extreme grace.
"From sexual abuse and violence at the age of 12, to a miraculous conversion and recovery, Connie Morris' remarkable story will inspire and transform you," it reads. There are also words of praise from Kansas' U.S. Rep. Jerry Moran, who says Morris' book is "a compelling story of what faith in Jesus Christ can do to change a person's life for the better."
Morris is a member of the Kansas State Board of Education, representing the western half of Kansas. But despite the title of her memoir, she hasn't quite grasped the concept of nobility.
Morris was elected two years ago, having run on a single issue: that taxpayers shouldn't educate the children of illegal immigrants.
At the time, Ranjit Arab was a University of Kansas Journalism School graduate working in Lawrence. Part of his job involved reading out-of-state newspapers, and when he went back to film school he made a class project about the intensifying controversy over educating the kids of illegals. Called El Jardin (The Garden), the 26-minute documentary examines the true meaning of "no child left behind."
After long shots of a Kansas highway headed west, viewers arrive in Garden City, where nonwhites slightly outnumber whites in a town of 32,000. There, immigrant workers put in long days at nasty meatpacking jobs. They also host colorful festivals and cook excellent food. And they send their kids to school. The teachers don't ask students whether their parents are legal. They don't care. The film's most moving moment might be when one white teacher, radiant in her platinum bouffant, says, "I love diversity. I love the challenges it brings into our society and to our schools. It makes me a richer person."
Not all Kansans feel that way, though, and Arab knew his film wouldn't be finished without comments from Morris. In March 2003, he began e-mailing her, requesting an interview. Morris said she didn't have time. "If you would still like my input," she wrote back, "please email 2-3 questions and I will respond. I applaud your efforts."
Arab tried to get a few minutes of face time with Morris at a public meeting in Topeka that May. The resulting footage shows Morris arriving five minutes before the meeting. She smiles when she sees a camera and a microphone. But when Arab asks his question, her expression turns to faux bewilderment and she hurries past. During a break in the meeting, she hides in the bathroom.
Arab's film won a couple of awards at the KAN Film Festival in June. And because the subject was of general interest, The Hutchinson News recapped the controversy on October 3.
That was when Morris told Harris News Service reporter Sarah Kessinger that she'd reported Arab to the FBI, "to ward off any possible stalking or terroristic behavior."
"If there's any further trouble, at least we have documented the beginning of the trouble," Morris tells me.
In the movie, watching Arab approach Morris is a little like watching Dave Helling's skinny nephew approach a third-rate Kay Barnes. Nonetheless, Morris claims, "I can assure you that the scene in the board room was aggressive and violent, nearly violent. It frightened me."
But was he really acting like a terrorist?
"Yes. And he crossed the rules of proper journalistic etiquette. And if he isn't going to learn from his classes how to behave, he does need to learn somewhere the proper way to get a story."
Um, Arab spent months politely asking for an interview.
"There may be times I will choose to give an interview, and I have when I am treated with respect and I feel like the report is going to be fair and honest," Morris says. "But I didn't receive that treatment from this young man from the very beginning."
This is clearly a load of rich Kansas manure. And maybe Morris knows it, because she starts giggling.
"I try not to take things too seriously," she explains when I ask why she's laughing. "I think this whole thing is funny, that it's a story. I think it's silliness."
Ranjit Arab isn't laughing.
To find out whether his own name is on some terrorist list at the FBI, Arab has had to file a Freedom of Information request.
"I doubt she would have cited 'terroristic behavior' if it had been a white filmmaker, simply because I asked a public official a question in a public forum," says Arab (his parents, both citizens, came to the U.S. from India in the '60s). "But she can just throw it out there, and it was printed in the newspaper. There it is: my name in the same sentence with 'terroristic behavior' and 'FBI.'"
Morris has used this technique before. She did it in the summer of 2002, when she accused Garden City Mayor Tim Cruz of being an illegal immigrant. "I find it appalling that a person can break the law and enter the country illegally and end up as mayor," she said.
Cruz is a third-generation Garden Citian. A manager at Sears, he spent eight years on the city council and was twice elected mayor. He's served with the United Way. A couple of years ago, he was inducted into the local high school's hall of fame.
During her campaign for the state school board, though, Morris used Cruz as fodder for stirring up anti-immigration sentiment.
"She was sending e-mails out to hate groups, talking about me being an illegal alien," Cruz tells me. "The e-mails started circulating in our local newspaper and TV stations. Finally, one of the newspapers got hold of her and somehow convinced her, or she convinced herself, that I wasn't an illegal. She called and asked if she owed me an apology. I told her that was up to her. Finally she did, but that was after weeks and weeks of talking bad about my name."
Morris is among the majority of Kansas Board of Education members who are expected to put the anti-evolution debate back on the table in the months ahead. They've also been talking about scrapping world history lessons, preferring that the focus be kept on Kansas and the United States.
My friends mom is dating him. Also, he is defending my neighbor from charges of enslavery or something.
Restaurant owner, allegedly forced illegal immigrants to work there and live in his apt, paying less than minimum wage. Also beat them. Apparently - I like the food though, and he's a nice guy.My friends mom is dating him. Also, he is defending my neighbor from charges of enslavery or something.
self or perkins?
It took 2 Billion years for us to come from Ooze.
God isperfectimaginary.
God isperfectimaginary.
fyp, bra
God isperfectimaginary.
fyp, bra
God isperfectimaginary.
fyp, bra
so is evolution. so i guess we're both at square 1
God isperfectimaginary.
fyp, bra
so is evolution. so i guess we're both at square 1
(http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/Christianity-Explained-1267.jpg)
evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
Its fine, we don't have to get into a thing. But there some evidence of micro-evolution, not so much for macro-evolution. and as far as having any clue on how life began, you and I could create a guess and it would be on par with the other ideas or theories out there.Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I love how everything we know about explosions or violent collisions show an end result of destruction, yet we're gonna be alike "yea, but this one explosion or collision actually created life." forgive me if say :bs:
No, one explosion did not create life - it created the universe.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
Its fine, we don't have to get into a thing. But there some evidence of micro-evolution, not so much for macro-evolution. and as far as having any clue on how life began, you and I could create a guess and it would be on par with the other ideas or theories out there.Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I love how everything we know about explosions or violent collisions show an end result of destruction, yet we're gonna be alike "yea, but this one explosion or collision actually created life." forgive me if say :bs:
evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
Its fine, we don't have to get into a thing. But there some evidence of micro-evolution, not so much for macro-evolution. and as far as having any clue on how life began, you and I could create a guess and it would be on par with the other ideas or theories out there.Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I love how everything we know about explosions or violent collisions show an end result of destruction, yet we're gonna be alike "yea, but this one explosion or collision actually created life." forgive me if say :bs:
Well, all I can say is that you are blatantly wrong on both counts.
I don't want to get into "a thing"
Quote from: sdI don't want to get into "a thing"
you're on your own rube
Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I heard George Smoot talk at a conference about the big bang. It's impossible to dispute scientifically.
Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I heard George Smoot talk at a conference about the big bang. It's impossible to dispute scientifically.
It's impossible to dispute God scientifically.
Think about what you're saying before you say it.
Yep, they can co-exist. Until he is disputed, scientifically.Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I heard George Smoot talk at a conference about the big bang. It's impossible to dispute scientifically.
It's impossible to dispute God scientifically.
Think about what you're saying before you say it.
I never disputed God in any one of my posts. Think about what you post before you make yourself look like an even bigger retard.
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I heard George Smoot talk at a conference about the big bang. It's impossible to dispute scientifically.
It's impossible to dispute God scientifically.
Think about what you're saying before you say it.
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
guys,
please stop. it's like seeing dad hit mom all over again. :frown:
let's talk more about what everyone gets at chipotle. and how about their chips. too much salt or not enough? don't get me started.
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
my theory is that :ustupid:I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
my theory is that :ustupid:I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
If I'm going to either vote in favor of:
a) An invisible, all-powerful being that can't be seen or heard
or
b) The idea that creatures change through generations to better fit their surroundings
not that hard, really. Science has evidence of evolution. The burden is on you to prove that a god exists, and you can't do that.
Big bang theory is supported by science - universe is constantly expanding, and background radiation w/ temperature of 2 degrees centigrade.evolution: the belief that you came from an ooze or explosion, or whatever, yet there is no scientific evidence to support it. again, whats the difference? :dunno:
Yeah, so, I'm religious or whatever but this isn't true. There is an unbelievable amount of evidence for evolution. It's really not even arguable. I don't want to get into "a thing" about it but it's fact.
I heard George Smoot talk at a conference about the big bang. It's impossible to dispute scientifically.
It's impossible to dispute God scientifically.
Think about what you're saying before you say it.
I never disputed God in any one of my posts. Think about what you post before you make yourself look like an even bigger retard.
(http://glennhager.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/straw-man.jpg)
The idea that you can't disprove something scientifically doesn't make it true in the opposite.
Did Darwin disprove the existence of God by showing that the Bible was just a book full of allegorical nonsense stories written by random dudes 2000 years ago?
The idea that you can't disprove something scientifically doesn't make it true in the opposite.
I never said it was. Everything you've posted has been a strawman. :flush:
I heard George Smoot talk at a conference about the big bang. It's impossible to dispute scientifically.
Did Darwin disprove the existence of God by showing that the Bible was just a book full of allegorical nonsense stories written by random dudes 2000 years ago?Non-sequitur.
The idea that you can't disprove something scientifically doesn't make it true in the opposite.
I never said it was. Everything you've posted has been a strawman. :flush:
Yeah, you did. You listened to one guy. Take a look at what you said.Quote
I heard George Smoot talk at a conference about the big bang. It's impossible to dispute scientifically.
So, is that his words or yours?
Did Darwin disprove the existence of God by showing that the Bible was just a book full of allegorical nonsense stories written by random dudes 2000 years ago?
What horrific public policy might be implemented?
The possibility that Creationism is taught in the background while 15 year olds who don't pay attention anyways eye-rape every girl in the class and think about what is on MTV that night.
What horrific public policy might be implemented?
The possibility that Creationism is taught in the background while 15 year olds who don't pay attention anyways eye-rape every girl in the class and think about what is on MTV that night.
ahh high school... good thing I never became a teacher
But as for public policy--this sort of thing gives people the "right" in their own minds to discount the value of scientific research, and just assume that whatever they pulled out of their ass or read in scripture is every bit as valid. Scientists aren't infallible, but they (the honest ones) come to conclusions based on the evidence presented to them. (please let's not turn this into a global warming debate kthxbi)
guys,
please stop. it's like seeing dad hit mom all over again. someone here is going to get hurt and i'm going to have to spend the night at my aunt's house. :frown:
let's talk more about what everyone gets at chipotle. and how about their chips. too much salt or not enough? don't get me started.
LOL
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
my theory is that :ustupid:I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
LOL
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
my theory is that :ustupid:I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
Somebody took that crapty philosophy of religion class at KSU.
LOL
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
my theory is that :ustupid:I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
Somebody took that crapty philosophy of religion class at KSU.
still an interesting thought...but no class at ksu, thats just basic youth group logic
LOL
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
my theory is that :ustupid:I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
Somebody took that crapty philosophy of religion class at KSU.
still an interesting thought...but no class at ksu, thats just basic youth group logic
What happens if someone makes up a religion where you go to Heaven II which is twice as awesome as Christian heaven. You go to Hell II if you don't believe which is twice as crappy as Christian hell. :dunno:
If you are completely honest, and really want to learn something about evolution and modern biology, start here:
If its so factual, why is it called the evolution theory? They can't prove it, not sure what you've read or seen, but they can't. Its not there. I heard known evolutionists say they have an idea or theory on how life started, but have the evidence to prove it.
I wonder if I create universes every 4th of July?
People that have zero understanding of science and how it works using the word theory incorrectly infuriate me. Just stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
my theory is that :ustupid:I'd much rather believe that creatures evolved to their surroundings over long periods of time than to think that a giant invisible space monster exists. LOL @ u.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
If I'm going to either vote in favor of:
a) An invisible, all-powerful being that can't be seen or heard
or
b) The idea that creatures change through generations to better fit their surroundings
not that hard, really. Science has evidence of evolution. The burden is on you to prove that a god exists, and you can't do that.
I don't have to prove anything. You don't have to believe. If I saw some actual evidence of evolution, that would go along in proving that whole fantasy.
Chingon, bringin a little rationality to the discussion. Very nice sir. To further your point a little bit. Religion and Science get a very wrong and unfair wrap that they are antagonistic, and one has to choose one camp or the other. Not true. The big bang theory was actually developed by a Catholic Priest. Many religious types I know, used to be very "scientific in thought" and have come to realize the need for a higher power once they realized Science could not possibly explain the universe.I mostly agree up to this point. Religion has meddled in science since the beginning. You even mention one example.
Science can only evaluate that which is categorizable, (ie, physical, tangible, etc.) God is not "A BEING" in the universe. He is the creator of existence, our "being" flows from his created hand. Creation was not an event that happened at a precise point in the history of time, creation is still going on. Big Bang and creation are just different terms for the same thing.
Science can describe, learn, and categorize things in the world, but only the Divine can ground things to their deepest and most basic level. Religion and Science are not competing on the same playing field. The two are separate disciplines. The only time the two converge is if there is an ethical reason, and science tries to manipulate the Divine which is always a bad idea.
The problem is that a vast vast majority of people think their religion is a valid way to explain the universe, and that no further investigation is necessary.
thread summary for those just joining::curse: its true!
pgtzac is really stupid. mjrod and okcat are really bad at m'boarding. sd is too nice. chingon loses his sense of humor on the non sports boards. rd beats his wife. everyone else is background noise.
there, you're all caught up.
thread summary for those just joining:
pgtzac is really stupid. mjrod and okcat are really bad at m'boarding. sd is too nice. chingon loses his sense of humor on the non sports boards. rd beats his wife. everyone else is background noise.
there, you're all caught up.
thread summary for those just joining:
pgtzac is really stupid. mjrod and okcat are really bad at m'boarding. sd is too nice. chingon loses his sense of humor on the non sports boards. rd beats his wife. everyone else is background noise.
there, you're all caught up.
'sigh'
okay, i take it all back as long as sys doesn't hate me anymore. :runaway:
:blush:okay, i take it all back as long as sys doesn't hate me anymore. :runaway:
don't worry, i don't hate you, mgtz.
it's like my dog. he doesn't understand science either, but he's super cute.
mjrod and okcat are really bad at m'boarding.
thread summary for those just joining:
pgtzac is really stupid. mjrod and okcat are really bad at m'boarding. sd is too nice. chingon loses his sense of humor on the non sports boards. rd beats his wife. everyone else is background noise.
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
well, if you were a betting man you could think of it this way. you have to put your money on one of these two games.
Bet 1: You can bet on Game A and have a chance at winning some money or nothing.
Bet 2: You can bet on Game B and win nothing.
Just a "theory"
thread summary for those just joining:
pgtzac is really stupid. mjrod and okcat are really bad at m'boarding. sd is too nice. chingon loses his sense of humor on the non sports boards. rd beats his wife. everyone else is background noise.
there, you're all caught up.
okay, i take it all back as long as sys doesn't hate me anymore. :runaway:
don't worry, i don't hate you, mgtz.
it's like my dog. he doesn't understand science either, but he's super cute.
I doubt you are tall enough to rub sys on the head
Spoken like a true "protect" and to "server."I doubt you are tall enough to rub sys on the head
That's what ladders (and tasers) are for. :thumbsup:
Spoken like a true "protect" and to "server."I doubt you are tall enough to rub sys on the head
That's what ladders (and tasers) are for. :thumbsup: