Comments by Peacebeuponme

51. US school district sued over homophobic 'witch hunt'

Comment #234449 by Peacebeuponme on August 21, 2008 at 11:32 am

Many in the community support Davis and feel outsiders are forcing their beliefs on them.

We are a small, rural district in the Bible Belt with strong Christian beliefs

These are typical comments in this kind of case, and are wonderfully hypocritical. What about the female teacher in question - is she not also part of the community? Are the christians not forcing their beliefs on her?

52. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234377 by Peacebeuponme on August 21, 2008 at 9:16 am

Tyler Durden

"The "Spirituality and Healing in Medicine" conference sponsored by Harvard Medical School in 1998 brought reports that 86 percent of Americans as a whole, 99 percent of family physicians, and 94 percent of HMO professionals believe that prayer, meditation, and other spiritual and religious practices exercise a major positive role within the healing process."

Really? "a major positive role within the healing process." Prove it.

It's actually been proved the other way. A double-blind test on group of patients showed that those who knew thery were being prayed for got worse than the ones who were not prayed for, or were paryed for without knowing!

53. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234367 by Peacebeuponme on August 21, 2008 at 9:04 am

Irate_Atheist

It's like deliberately playing the piano badly - but not too badly - for comedic effect.

Are you suggesting isthatclear might be infested with the spirit of Les Dawson?

54. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234356 by Peacebeuponme on August 21, 2008 at 8:47 am

Isn't Conservapedia just delightful:

Atheism and Mental and Physical Health

55. Pastor Rick's Test

Comment #233826 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Stevezar - Is that just a coincidence that you have a similar name to Steve Zara. Would another tag be better?

56. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233809 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Your willingness to admit imperfection certainly distinguishes you from the crowd on this site.

I think that statment is entirely wrong.

57. Evangelically Serious Science

Comment #233790 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Irate_Atheist

"What we're dealing with here, is a complete lack of respect for the law." - Justice T. Buford

What we're dealing with here, is a total lack of respect for the law.

I don't know my Buford, but I do know my Prodigy.

(sorry for the pedantry)

58. Losing my religion

Comment #233775 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 11:52 am

People who are now humanist heroes - Marie Stopes, for instance - were of the opinion that the gene pool needed cleaning (she stopped talking to her son when he married someone with glasses).

What does introducing a fact like this add to the argument? Marie Stopes had some weird opinions about eugenics, so....

What can this possiblty have to do with adherence to catholicism or the existence of god?

Could just as easily have put in there "Betrand Russell was a bit of a racist you know."

Its just a worthless historical fact. It does not support one argument, or another.

59. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #233710 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 10:01 am

Aztek

Keep it coming.

wooter/clearmind/isthatclear has been posting and posting here for an inordinate length of time now. It has gone beyond a joke. We really want him to stop.

60. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233696 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 9:36 am

Pythagoras

I found some of the comments dogmatic.

I find that comment makes you sound like a theist.

I don't think it's rational to automatically dismiss all alternative therapies.

Don't need to automatically dismisss them. When they are submitted to double-blind trials they don't work. Show us some evidence that they work and we'll go for it. This evidence needs to be a little stronger than this though:

I can't honestly say whether my treatment worked any better than a placebo would have

61. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233693 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 9:29 am

J Mac

You can take your anecdotal "evidence" and shove it. Especially those of you who admit your anecdotes don't apply to anyone else - you say it applies for you, then you share it with other people. Fuck off, that's all I've got to say to that.

It kind of like on talkshows. The host will talk to an expert in the audience who will give his/her opinion on something after years of research and epxerience, and then someone will pipe up with "I think you are wrong, because last year I...".

Very annoying.

62. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233688 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 9:20 am

I'd show this article to my wife, but it would start the "you're so close-minded" argument again.

A most frustrating, but sadly common response. Ask her if she is open to your 2 2 = 5 theory.

For anybody who puts faith in homeopathy, I'd like to ask this:

Let's say you are suffering from some ailment x. You are offered the choice of two pills, both lab-created 'conventional' medicine. One has passed double-blind clinical trials, the other, though based on sound medical theory, has not undergone any testing. Which would you prefer?

If the former, then you obviously hold clinical testing to be important. If you demand this testing of conventional medicine, you should also demand it of other types of 'medicine'.

63. A flea we missed?

Comment #233644 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 6:55 am

David Robertson

Can I ask then, how do you (or the church generally) define faith?
Peace - another good question. Thanks. As in the OED above - trust in a person. Such faith is reasonable. The difference between faith and reason is that we do not claim to understand or know everything. Indeed everyone lives their life with a mixture of faith and reason.

Now this is interesting.

Faith as in having faith one's wife won't cheat, or house guests won't steal - is this the kind of faith you are talking about? That is reasonable, though of course it is based on a lot of evidence of a person's character that has been built up.

There is also the related type of faith, which is really just 'support'. That is, faith that one's children will do well in school, or that your football team would get promoted.

Is it really this kind of faith though you mean when you talk about having faith in god? Faith that god will essentially do the right thing? Once you have defined god the way you do, and reasoned that it exists, this seems to be hardly a great leap to make. I doubt there are many theists out there who believe in the chistian god, but don't trust him!

On that bit about the difference between faith and reason. I don't entirely follow. It is entirely reasonable to state that we don't know everything. It is also entirely reasonable to make contingent hypotheses about things we don't know for sure: no faith is required.

64. A flea we missed?

Comment #233640 by Peacebeuponme on August 20, 2008 at 6:36 am

David Robertson

if Davies is such a convinced atheist why does he endorse Collins book 'the language of God'?

Just picked this one up via Steve's comments. I must say, I'm surprised about this, if it's correct. The arguments put forward in defence of christianity by Francis Collins in that book are extremely poor (and in at least one case concerning the justification of the rape of his daughter, abhorrent). You have provided a better defence on the threads here and Collins' best stuff has been nicked from C. S. Lewis (and are easily dealt with).

I know Richard has publically mocked Collins' piece on his conversion in which he talks nonsence about the Grand Canyon. I also know Richard was highlyu critical when told that Collins believed in the literal resurrection. Maybe Richard was praising the scientific elements of the book (and even here, Francis Collins seems to be mostly an administrator).

EDIT: I've just realised that says Davies and not Dawkins! I must be going blind. Gonna leave my post there anyway...

65. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #233331 by Peacebeuponme on August 19, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Diacanu

I don't think that I did that.

You didn't. Sorry, my piece was not aimed directly at you, was just a general comment.

You and crowmagnus kicked the thread off again, which made me post. I just picked out your last comment to work off. Probably a confusing idea.

66. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #233324 by Peacebeuponme on August 19, 2008 at 5:01 pm

My reason for posting was going to be how the amazing swimmer who has 14 golds to his name is called Michael Fred Phelps and how unfortunate that was, but I got sidetracked.

Cheers for the American who bigged up the GB medal haul also. Thanks. Were are enjoying some long awaited success, though a lot of british people still can't turn off the cynicism tap (which is probably why we normally do so bad).

67. The Most Hated Family in America

Comment #233322 by Peacebeuponme on August 19, 2008 at 4:58 pm

Diacanu

I saw the headline, and somehow instinctively knew it would be the Phelpses.

I have a real problem with the media attention given to the phelps. They are extremely unusual, not a test case for religious in general, and not part of the real problem. They are just out there. A sideshow.

The documentary in this article is, however, one of the greatest pieces of documentary journalism I've ever seen. Theroux has a way of getting to the heart of things in such a simple and unobtrusive way. He brings out the humanity in everyone.

For all the conservative idiots out there who like to point the finger and shout 'evil' at everything they don't like, he shows how basic and unhelpful this attitude is.

The Phelps clan, in the main, genuinely think they are doing good and are actually quite pleasant people. They are just horribly wrong.

There is one bit where he is talking to one of the young daughters about boys and she just accepts that no one would want to be invovled with someone as freaky as her. You can see she thinks about Theroux's point for a little bit, and then shuts it down. I almost cried.

These are people who need our help if anything. Their actions are abhorrent but dismissing them as 'evil' does not solve the problem.

They are also not the religion or theism we are really fighting against.

68. A flea we missed?

Comment #233199 by Peacebeuponme on August 19, 2008 at 9:52 am

bugaboo

If so would that mean he and his flock would have to see that type of faith as virtuous and so would have to respect the faith of other christian groups who use that definition of faith- catholics and transubstantiation for example?

Yes, well. They all talk about respecting each others' faiths don't they? But if they define faith as being based on reason, they must actually find all other faiths to be unreasonable, and therefore not really worthy of respect.

69. A flea we missed?

Comment #233195 by Peacebeuponme on August 19, 2008 at 9:31 am

David Robertson

Well, in that case, why call it faith at all? Surely the whole point of faith is that it has no need of evidence, or reason, but is rather a stong virtuous personal conviction, lauded precisely because it is uncynical, unsceptic and devoted?
Yes - that is the definition in the atheist dictionary - according to RD. But it is not the position that Christians hold. Still why argue against what is being really said - when you can just make up an argument to argue against? At least then you will have some change of winning!

You didn't address my wider point, though I shouldn't complain given my dismissal of you earlier.

Can I ask then, how do you (or the church generally) define faith?

My view is that Richard Dakwins defines it very narrowly at one end of the spectrum as 'belief without evidence', whereas theists often talk about having 'faith based on evidence', which would seem to put it more near the other end of 'belief based on evidence', or at least 'belief based on reason'.

Richard's definition may not meet yours, but at least it is clear and provides a good basis for his arguments against theism (you may define the word differently, but as Richard sees it, you do have faith as he defines it).

A definition on the other end of the scale though, would seem to be meaningless. 'Faith' becomes almost a synonym of 'reason'. So my point was, in that case, why talk about faith at all? Why is having deep faith seen to be so fundamentally virtuous, whereas reason is not lauded in the same way?

70. A flea we missed?

Comment #233188 by Peacebeuponme on August 19, 2008 at 9:15 am

Diacanu

Myself, I find the notion of "bad words", to be as childish and superstitious as religion itself.

Indeed. I'm tired of people dismissing any swearing as low grade and cheap.

Word's like 'black' and 'bastard', or 'hook' and 'nose' can become extremely offensive if combined in certain sentences, yet are not individually tagged as offensive. Everything depends on context and usage. We should treat words like 'fuck' in much the same way, though recognising that usage is designed to be offensive most of the time.

We can construct offensive or strident sentences when we want to using a whole array of words. Whether these sentences include profanity or not is beside the point.

David Robertson

So you would be quite happy to see racist terms like 'nigger' being used on this website?

We had a whole discussion on this a while back. The trouble with racist words like 'nigger', 'kike' or 'paki' is that there is little other use for them and so it would be shocking to see them used in an exchange.

'Nigger' has so much more historical loading behind it as well, and therefore needs to be handled delicately. If it were a word more like, say 'faggot' (1. Extremely offensive homosexual slur, 2. 'reclaimed' term used within the gay community and 3. A piece of wood.), then I would have no problem using it at times, if the context was clear that I wasn't being racially offensive.

So, the problem with nigger is not the word itself, but the fact that its virtually impossible to use it outside of a racially offensive context.

Note the important factor here as well is that it is racially offensive, going beyond attacking one person because of their arguments, into attacking the way they are and by extension the whole group of which they are a part.

Plain offence on the other hand is specifically aimed at at times during an exchange (See Richard Dawkins' comments about restaurant critics) and should not be a problem. Some achieve this using words like 'fuck' and 'cunt' among others, others don't.

71. A flea we missed?

Comment #232450 by Peacebeuponme on August 18, 2008 at 6:24 am

David Robertson

Our forum before was ruined by being taken over by people whose eccentricities, emotional anger and inability to express themselves made the whole thing deeply unedifying. Perhaps RD net should take note.

In a similar way, Tianenmen Square is not being ruined for the populace by eccentric and emotional protesters.

Free speech comes at a price that's worth paying. Your forum can never be objective as a result of your restrictions.

72. A flea we missed?

Comment #232444 by Peacebeuponme on August 18, 2008 at 6:12 am

Steve

Sorry, but I guess I don't have the correct sense of humour either. But I'm not going to nag anyone if they aren't being offensive.

However, [whack] doesn't just work for me as an argument :)

Missed all this nonsense, but that seems a pretty sensible statement. There is no need to get overly grumpy about it all.

Two points I'd want to make though:

1) The balance of 'fun' comments, as oppossed to serious ones seems (or seemed?) to have tipped the wrong way over the last few weeks. It makes the site a little less attractive. There is a place for banter, but in seemed to get excessive.

2) 'Fun' comments of an almost spamming volume over multiple threads has meant many interesting comments have got lost in the ether.

73. A flea we missed?

Comment #232431 by Peacebeuponme on August 18, 2008 at 5:44 am

Diacanu

One based on evidence, reason, logic, experience etc.
Guess you're gonna keep it to yourself, eh?

There seems little point in engaging with David Robertson. He really can't see the inconsistencies and absurdity of his position, and prefers to repeat the 'fundamentlist atheist' mantra ad nauseum rather than respond clearly to questions.

I did find the comment to which you have responded above interesting though. This is something we hear often from theists: their faith is rational and based on evidence.

Well, in that case, why call it faith at all? Surely the whole point of faith is that it has no need of evidence, or reason, but is rather a stong virtuous personal conviction, lauded precisely because it is uncynical, unsceptic and devoted?

If the conviction is only held because of reasoning and an intepretation of evidence, the church could get rid of the word 'faith' totally couldn't they? Why not just use the word 'reason', as in "He is a deeply reasonable Christian"?

But for some reason 'faith' is amazingly important to theists and spoke of often. Respect is earned for having deep faith. Not for weighing up the evidence and concluding rationally (this is not precluded, but is not talked about in the same hushed tones). No, pure faith is the thing most important to the church.

Curious.

74. Richard Dawkins Lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #231915 by Peacebeuponme on August 17, 2008 at 10:06 am

I wish Richard hadn't done that bit 'challenging' god to intervene and settle matters. It's a bit cheap and unsophisticated.

75. The God Delusion

Comment #230088 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 8:47 am

decius

In my opinion, a new-comer, anywhere, is welcome as long as he or she doesn't presume to subvert all established etiquette at his or her whim. This is universally accepted as basic rule of thumb in all social contexts. In kkelly's case this has never happened. He started from day one to literally vomit all the worst (and trite, he isn't even original) internet sleaze and to attack people at random with venomous remarks that he calls "humour", without ever being provoked.

I said something like this to him a while back here and http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2901,Sydney-brothels-say-Popes-visit-will-give-business-a-leg-up,AFP,page4#219730

76. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230033 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 7:21 am

Tyler

Blasphemer!!! I'll get the stones...

Make sure you don't get ones that are too big. Death by stoning must be done with stones not large enough to kill instantly.

77. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #230031 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 7:19 am

I'm just waiting until David Roberson appears and we can all have a reasonable discussion with him

Irate you arsehole. I had to go to a meeting (these employers of mine really are bastards) and was going to post that when I got back.

I really thought David was going to pop in and say something like "pardon me for interrupting the highbrow debate here...". He is that much of an arse.

My original post on this thread was about Johan's comment:

You cannot say that Mohamed's decision to marry a young girl has to be judged by the standards of his time, and then demand that we follow his moral standards to the letter.

I think that's a devastating argument for muslim theologians and muslims in general to deal with.

78. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229941 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 5:30 am

The whitepearl reminds me of something too. What was it? That's right another silly cunt who just woke up.

Guys, do you reckon we could get them to mud-wrestle?

79. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229926 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 5:23 am

Darwin's Badger

Kate, it was post-modern misogyny, steeped in irony. Don't you worry your pretty little head about it.

Fucking fantastic!

80. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229911 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 5:15 am

TWP

Whoohoo dude are you comparing me to BFKate?

Just a bit of a joke

Cause we'll have a discussion..the three of us. You, me, bat. :)

I quite like the sound of that. Perhaps I could use a paddle instead though?

81. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229883 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 4:45 am

thewhitepearl

Oh a battle of the words going on I see, guess I'll grab the popcorn this time.

You disappoint me. I thought you were an 'alpha female' as well?

82. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229869 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 4:28 am

Kate

Sorry Peacebeuponme - The one to Logicel.

Ok. Sorry, mine was not so much about you, but about Logicel being fair.

83. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229850 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 4:09 am

Kate - which of my comments are you referring to?

84. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229848 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 4:06 am

Logicel

Kate is an alpha female it seems. Good for her.

I find this disappointing from you, Logicel. You spend a lot of time calling sexism on this site, which I agree with almost all the time. However, if Fanusi's and Kate's genders were switched I don't think you would defend Kate in this way.

85. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229842 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 4:00 am

Kate

My Dick and Ball comments were in response to being called a Militant man hating feminist and a bit of nasty sexual innuendo. Apologies if I have caused offense to you.

No offense caused...

You may want to reevaluate your views on Fanusi's motives though. I really don't think that's his style.

86. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229830 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 3:48 am

BFKate

To agree with me that Hari is a preening little egoist you'd need to do a lot of reading. It's my view. I can't do anything other than say that.

Ok. I can accept that. If you have read extensively and have found plenty of disagreeable articles by Hari. I would have been genuinely interested in seeing some examples.

However...

Hari has never once said anything thought provoking.

On the basis of the articles he writes in the Indpendent, of which I have read many, I think that's extremely unfair. The example above is one such article. Watch how much this thread grows (even when discounting the squabbling posts).

You seem to be more occupied with dicks and balls though than having a sensible discussion. That's a shame, and stepping back and looking at the thread, its easy to see why you have been jumped on (if you'll pardon the expression).

EDIT:

My Mother died when I was three you cunt.

And this is just pretty low. Fanusi used a pretty standard 'didn't your mother tell you how to behave' line. He cannot possibly have known your personal circumstances.

87. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229767 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 2:50 am

BFkate

No. I just dared express a view about Hari that isn't in line with his neo con groupies.

Internet discussion rule #238: Whenever your view on a public individual is opposed by 3 or more people, group them together as 'followers' or 'groupies' of said person. This attacks their objectivty and avoids actually dealing with the issues they bring up.

88. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229764 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 2:46 am

BFKate

Thanks for telling me not to have an opinion. Silly bastard.

I don't recall saying that. More an appeal for you to back up your position instead of just laying down unsubstantiated insults. I didn't ask you to stop posting.

When a theist calls Richard Dawkins 'vitriolic' I would argue that point in the same way.

Whe you have opinions, and post them on the web. you will find that people disagree with you and ask you to defend them.

89. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229759 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 2:38 am

BF Kate #229735

From his wikipedia page.

Great quotes you have there Johan has stood up and called all of those on yor list for some pretty nasty, or at least controversial (and therefore worthy of strenuous rebuttal) comments. I don't see the problem.

I'm not sure how he could oppose those views, as a writer, without attracting accusations of preening or self-publicism from you.

90. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #229754 by Peacebeuponme on August 14, 2008 at 2:33 am

You cannot say that Mohamed's decision to marry a young girl has to be judged by the standards of his time, and then demand that we follow his moral standards to the letter.

What an excellent point.

Hari has produced another well written, thought-provoking article. Increasingly one of the best voices of reason in the UK.

BFKate: Please provide examples of this 'preening' you talk about, or else resist laying down such thoughtless rubbish.

91. Richard Dawkins replies to Libby Purves

Comment #227987 by Peacebeuponme on August 11, 2008 at 6:57 am

I've just worked out why I haven't been able to see the list of articles on the right hand side for the last few weeks. Apparently I had clicked on "Newer" next to "Top story".

Bit of a pointless function and annoying!

92. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226376 by Peacebeuponme on August 8, 2008 at 3:01 am

ggg

feel free to criticise me, even as being sexist but thats why im writing it...i want peoples opinions on the matters and the quality of marking etc...

Well, girls do outperform boys, generally. That's a fact. That shouldn't be slur on an individual boy though.

I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence, but rather application. There's perhaps a better tendency for girls to knuckle down and cover off the wide range of subjects they need to deep enough for school.

At university however, I think boys are more generally predisposed to 'zone in' on one subject and do better.

In the office I find that girls seem to know everything that's going on and are up to date on everything they need to be, while I appear to be a disorganised mess. However, give me a problem to solve and I can shut the world out and attack it with all I've got.

This is all generalising and speculation, so I expect to be shot down.

93. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226355 by Peacebeuponme on August 8, 2008 at 2:18 am

TonyA

Yep, tits everywhere

Richard Littlejohn and 'Gaunty' being prime examples.

94. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226354 by Peacebeuponme on August 8, 2008 at 2:16 am

Quetz

I was joking (badly).

Sorry! I wish I disn't need those damn smiley faces to guide me!

95. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226352 by Peacebeuponme on August 8, 2008 at 2:14 am

Layla

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong, since I'm not British) he is referring to some of the more well-heeled, better-educated parts of London, which are grossly unrepresentative of the general population.

You kind of have it. But its not just that its well-heeled and educated: he would have better chose Kensington or Park Lane of that was the case.

Rather its that Islington is known for its largely liberal artistic/media types. The chattering classes. Exactly the sort of opinionated people who think they can sort the world's problems out over dim sum and mohitos.

96. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226341 by Peacebeuponme on August 8, 2008 at 1:59 am

Quetz

There's nothing wrong with celebrating achievement.

Of course. But check out the Times and Telegraph on results day. Its not the successful boys or plain girls they concentrate on.

It's back door titilation, and typically hypocritical of the broadsheets.

Epeeist

Exactly. I'm sure your wife's school didn't just happen upon those two particular girls for the shoot.

97. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #226328 by Peacebeuponme on August 8, 2008 at 1:53 am

Epeeist

no tits and a little less concentration on celebs.

No tits of course, but A-level season does give them the opportunity to adorn their front page with smiling, young lovelies collecting their results.

98. Richard Dawkins, the naive professor

Comment #225835 by Peacebeuponme on August 7, 2008 at 12:22 pm

private conviction that there is nothing out there.

What the FUCK do people mean when they say this?

What the fuck can they possibly mean by something 'out there'?

What exactly do they think Richard is denying?

Define something properly and then we can talk about it, for fuck's sake.

99. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224331 by Peacebeuponme on August 4, 2008 at 1:22 pm

ggg

Eshto: never seen that commercial, (im both from the UK and my milkman was probably still in college) it's pretty darn awful though, even if the message might be worthy!

From the UK, but still use the phrase "pretty darn awful"?!

Quick say "bloody" or "rotter" and redeem yourself now!

100. Do they really think the earth is flat?

Comment #224311 by Peacebeuponme on August 4, 2008 at 1:04 pm