Tekton was funny/ Thanks for the laugh!

[K1112]

Ok
you want to get the last word in like we did when we were kids. As Bill O'reily says. I'll give you the last word. That make you feel better? Everyone seen what happped here.

[Stax]

Ok
you want to get the last word in like we did when we were kids. As Bill O'reily says. I'll give you the last word. That make you feel better? Everyone seen what happped here.

I don't care about getting the last word. I care about you answering my point. All that is required for now is a yes or no.

[K1112]

You made no point about anything .....there you go turn it around.... Make it look like I ignored you.... And if that is your way in finding comfort in response to all that was posted in this thread.... and what you could not answer....Than good.... I'm happy for you.

Lions 49
Saints 0

Final

[Eric Schmidt]

Your response to the first one was no response btw

There's a discussion on tektonics on the "sins of the fathers".. Find it and deal with it.

the next one you admit people deserve to be punished not for their sins..... but for the sins of the father

I have not "admitted" anything.

The best one is you can't see that although the word rape was not used, this is what happened.

Actually, I looked up the issue on the Christian Thinktank, and found that Glenn Miller analyzes the relevant passages and concludes it wasn't rape. If you don't like this, find the article and refute it.

The next passage you admit that killing a baby to punish someone else is justified. Good job.
[

The "someone else" was actually the father of the baby. Sin has consequences. It affects those other than the one who sinned.

The last one you fail to see that it is Gods wrath that causes such....the death of children by starvation.

I did not "fail to see" anything. The conditions were created by war, which happened due to the sins of Israel.

Looks like you didn't try to prove any of God's actions were wrong.

I see an effort to try to put up some fight so you don't lay down
in front of me, but your responses were as bad as they get.

I was brief, but... you gave me one-liners, and I gave you one-liners back. If you really want more detailed discussions, they're out there.

Still being no response to the unfilled prophecies this debate is finished.

It's amusing how you keep using the wrong word "unfilled".

[Stax]

You made no point about anything .....there you go turn it around.... Make it look like I ignored you.... And if that is your way in finding comfort in response to all that was posted in this thread.... and what you could not answer....Than good.... I'm happy for you.

Lions 49
Saints 0

Final

How about this?

Again, do you have anything other than arguments from outrage? Do you understand why this is an informal fallacy?

You did ignore me. You haven't answered my question, and the point I'm making is that you have no arguments other than those that commit the informal fallacy of arguing from outrage. As for your assertion that I'm "turn[ing] it around..." and "Mak[ing] it look like I ignored you", you are being hypocritical, as this is exactly what you are doing to me.

So, one more time...

Do you have anything other than arguments from outrage? You only have to give a yes or a no; we can take it from there then.

[K1112]

"Thinktank, and found that Glenn Miller analyzes the relevant passages and concludes it wasn't rape"

oh.... for a second Lets say this is true.... So as a punishment, God is going to have David's wives "f(;&ed in the sight of the sun.... And they like it. Yahwey turns David cuckold That's not consistant with a lunatic no?

"The "someone else" was actually the father of the baby. Sin has consequences. It affects those other than the one who sinned."


Like that makes a difference. That's not killing the innocent ...... Is it? Lol

With that I let it be. That's says it all. Do Christians make fools of themselves on purpose?

Stax

yes
there is an entire thread here of unfulfilled prophecies by me & cl70s posted that no one answered.
I'll give you the last word once again.

[K1112]

As a closer....I would like to show you how much of a winner Yahwey is


God won't let bastards attend church. Neither can the sons or daughters of bastards "even to the tenth generation." So if you plan to attend church next Sunday be ready to prove that your genitals are intact and don't forget your birth certificate and genealogical records for at least the last ten generations. Don't laugh. This stuff is important to God. 23:2 SAB

Numbers 31 Keep the young girls alive for yourselves, but kill everyone else!

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. ..........


Deuteronomy 21 Marry a "beautiful"Captive woman (after she sees her brothers, mother & father killed Num 31) but shave her hair off!)

10 "When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her." (Now that wouldn't be psychologically damaging to a young girl would it)?





EZ 4 Yahway orders barley cakes to be baked using sh#t!

And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

15 Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith.

Malachi 2:3 Yahway threatens to spread sh#t on the faces of the priests!

Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it.




Num 31 Human sacrifice of 32 women as Yahway's tribute!

31 And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

33 And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

34 And threescore and one thousand asses,

35 And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

36 And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

37 And the LORD'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

38 And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve.

39 And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one.

40 And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons

Num. 5 Yahway tells us what to do if you think your wife has cheated on you. Yahway says she must drink water with dust thrown in it from off the floor!

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.

16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. "

Remember this is if he suspected. How many innocent women had to drink dust out of suspicion of a controlling lunatic husband? This is called trial by ordeal.

This had to do with the immune system. A stronger immune system would prevent the swelling of the abdomen.




Leviticus 25 Yahway condones slavery!

44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

[jpholding]

No new canards to offer, huh.

Carry on all.

[fm93]

A buffalo with diarrhea oughta dump it's load on your mouth for you sodomizing such a brilliant film.

Seriously, though...that's mean. You should be ashamed of yourself, Andius.














































No buffalo would be cruel enough to treat its own diarrhea like that.

[fm93]

There's an awfully strong stench of hypocrisy coming from you. You claim that everyone ignores your arguments, but once we've responded to them, all you do is rant "That's not an answer" without actually showing HOW it's not an answer, and then proceed to post entirely new lists of arguments for people to refute. That's intellectually lazy, dishonest and hypocritical.

A questions, by the way:

1. Is God committing moral evil when he orders that children be punished, or nations be wiped away? If so, what determines evil? That is, from where do you get your moral standards?

2. Do you believe that there are responses to your arguments, or is your mind already made up, before anyone can respond, that there can't be a rebuttal?

3. How would you like it if I simply copied and pasted a list of 100 arguments from God's existence, ignored your responses, and then proceeded to post 100 more arguments, ad infinitum?

[K1112]

There you go

like Yahweys barley cakes, you take right after him.

[fm93]

Pssst...hey, K1112, guess what? The Hebrew world WASN'T your world. Back then, more desperate measures were needed to survive. Human excrement was actually a pretty decent fuel for baking things.

Oh, by the way...when you were younger, you didn't accidentally confuse the barley cake with the excrement, did you? "Cause if you did, then that'd explain the quality of your "arguments."

[K1112]

Doesn't matter how bad the world was... Since we handle things fairly and smarter and not killing babies animals...having people have sex with your wife as a punishment....having a guy have his wife drink dust off the floor...having a baby killed for a sin David did.....God is held to a higher standard than man.

Answer to 1
both. & morals come from common sense

2
anyone can make up a response. Doesn't mean it solves the issue. This is why court cases are lost everyday.... The responses don't cut the mustard. Starting with 70s on page 5 it appears you were all in trouble then. It appeared you were trying to respond to the contradictions..... But he posted 2 prophecies unfulfilled by Till.... that is when the pie topic started .... I started to post .... You all responded until once again.... I Added a few more unfulfilled prophecied ...you all ignored them and addressed other things I posted. It appears you are not prepared for them, but will not admit that.
The last post I was just pointing out if you believe god said such BS.... Not that there were contradictions in the text so a response was not expected.

I'll sum up the prophecies one more time.... and I'm out of here....



EZEKIEL'S FAILURES
"Possibly the most pessimistic of the Old Testament prophets, Ezekiel proclaimed impending doom upon everyone from Judah itself to the enemy nations surrounding it. The failure of his prophecies to materialize as he predicted makes a compelling argument against the Bible inerrancy doctrine. In one of his doom's-day prophecies, Egypt was to experience forty years of utter desolation:

Therefore, thus says Yahweh God: "Surely I will bring a sword upon you and cut off from you man and beast. And the land of Egypt shall become desolate and waste; then they will know that I am Yahweh, because he said, `The River is mine, and I have made it.' Indeed, therefore, I am against you and against your rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from Migdol to Syene, as far as the border of Ethiopia. Neither foot of man shall pass through it nor foot of beast pass through it, and it shall be uninhabited forty years. I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate; and among the cities that are laid waste, her cities shall be desolate forty years; and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them through the countries" (29:8-14).
Talk about extravagant rhetoric, we certainly have it in this passage. No such desolation has ever happened to Egypt; there never has been a time in recorded history when Egypt was not inhabited by man or beast for forty years, when its cities were laid waste and desolate, when its people were all dispersed to foreign lands, etc. Bible defenders, of course, resort quickly to figurative and future applications, but their strategy just won't work. Future fulfillments are excluded by patently clear references that Ezekiel made to contemporary characters who were to figure in the fulfillment: "Son of man, set your face against Pharaoh king of Egypt, and prophesy against him" (29:2). Although Egypt still survives as a nation, its rule by pharaohs ended long ago. Furthermore, Ezekiel identified Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, as the instrument Yahweh would use to bring about Egypt's desolation: "Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage, and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:19). Clearly, then, Ezekiel had in mind a contemporary fulfillment of this prediction. As for spiritual or figurative explanations of the prophecy, just what events in Egyptian history were so catastrophic in the days of Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs that they could justifiably be considered a figurative desolation of forty years? Unless bibliolaters can identify such a catastrophe, their figurative interpretations must be regarded as just more attempts to sweep aside another embarrassing prophecy failure.
Ezekiel just as rashly predicted the utter destruction of Tyre, a prediction whose failure has become even more embarrassing to bibliolaters than his doom's-day prophecy against Egypt: "
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html


"Jerusalem never to be entered again by the uncircumcised and unclean:"Awake, awake; put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for from now on there shall no more come into you the uncircumcised and the unclean" (Is. 52:1, ASV). This verse is only the beginning of an entire chapter that promised a permanent, perpetual deliverance of Jerusalem and its people from foreign domination. To say that this prophecy was ever fulfilled would require a blatant disregard of known historical facts. Various armies from nations that did not practice the rite of circumcision have since occupied Jerusalem, and even today tourists and visitors from various cultures that reject the rite of circumcision have free access to Jerusalem. The "uncircumcised" pass in and out of the city each day.

Bible fundamentalists try to circumvent these problems by speaking of "spiritual" and "figurative" or even "future" fulfillments of this and similar prophecies like the one predicting the permanent security of Jerusalem. This is a common ploy. When historical facts contradict the prognostications of their cherished prophets, bibliolaters turn to spiritual, figurative, or yet future applications. Their equivocations, however, cannot survive the scrutiny of contextual criticism. Examined in context, this and the permanent-security prophecy of Isaiah, as well as many of his others, seemed obviously intended to comfort a people weary of foreign oppression. At least in the case of Isaiah 52:1, the expression from now on plainly denotes that this was so. The expression means "from this time forth," so why would the prophet have said, "from now on (this time forth) there shall no more come into you the uncircumcised and the unclean," if he were speaking of something that would not occur until some time in the distant future? Thereafter would have been the appropriate word to use. "

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html


"For the moment, let's notice that Matthew's application of the statement was typical of his writing style. No contemporary event seemed too insignificant for him to see prophecy fulfillment in it. This fact doesn't seem to faze Bible fundamentalists. If Matthew said it, that's good enough for them. What they seem completely unable to understand, however, is that just because this is good enough for them doesn't mean that it's good enough for people who use logic to determine what should or should not be believed. Matthew, for example, saw fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 in the flight into and return from Egypt of Joseph's family, (2:15). And what does Hosea 11:1 say? "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." The context of this statement shows very clearly that Hosea intended this statement as a reference to the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Bibliolaters can talk from now until doom's-day about the "double intention" of some prophecies, and the truth will still remain: if Matthew had not imaginatively applied this statement to Jesus, no one would have thought it referred to anything but the Israelite exodus. Matthew sretched and distorted Old Testament scriptures in this way, yet bibliolaters expect us to swoon over his claim that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem fulfilled Micah 5:2.

Most other so-called prophecy fulfillments of the New Testament cannot survive contextual analysis any better than those just noted. Upon examination, they show flaws so obvious that only the very credulous can accept the tenuous claims that they are fulfillments of prophecy, yet some of them are widely considered remarkable examples of divine foresight. Possibly the best example of these is Matthew 1:23 where it was claimed that an angel's announcement to Joseph that his betrothed wife Mary would give birth to a child conceived by the Holy Spirit was done to fulfill a prophecy spoken by Isaiah: "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call his name Immanuel." In the original context, however, Isaiah made this statement as a sign to Ahaz, king of Judah, that an alliance recently formed against him by Rezin, the king of Syria, and Pekah, the king of Israel, would not succeed in defeating him. The Lord (Yahweh), as he was prone to do in those days, had sent Isaiah to reassure Ahaz that the alliance would not prevail. Isaiah begged Ahaz to ask for a sign that his prophecy was true. Finally, Isaiah said to him, "Hear now, O house of David! Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will you weary my God also? Therefore Yahweh Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Hence, the context clearly shows that this so-called prophecy was made not to foretell the birth of Jesus some 700 years later but the birth of a child to that time and that situation. How could a birth that would happen 700 years later, after Ahaz was dead and the battles had long since been fought, have been a sign to him that the Syrian-Israelite alliance would fail? The premise is too absurd even to contemplate.

"In Matthew 2:18, for example, we are told that Herod's decree to kill all male children under two in and around Bethlehem fulfilled a prophecy of Jeremiah: "A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation, weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted, Because they are no more." If, however, one reads this statement in its original context in Jeremiah 31 and the two preceding chapters, he will see that the passage was addressing the problem of Jewish dispersion caused by the Babylonian captivity. Time and time again, Jeremiah promised that the Jews would be recalled from captivity to reclaim their land. Finally, in the verse quoted by Matthew, he said, "Thus says Yahweh: `A voice was heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no more'" (31:15). That Jeremiah intended this statement to apply to the dispersion contemporary to his times is evident from the verses immediately following, where he promised a return of those who had been scattered: "Thus says Yahweh: `Refrain your voice from weeping, And your eyes from tears; For your work shall be rewarded, says Yahweh, And they [Rachel's children] shall come back from the land of the enemy. There is hope in your future, says Yahweh, that your children shall come back to their own border" (vv:16-17). If verse 15 (the weeping verse) was indeed a prophecy of Herod's massacre, why would the rest of the passage, which promised the re-turn of Rachel's children, not also be prophetic? Indeed, it would have to be, wouldn't it? Yet there is no claim in Matthew's gospel account that the children slaughtered under Herod's edict were ever brought back to their border, which would have necessitated a restoration to life. Hence, in this case, Rachel's "work" was never "rewarded," and these children of hers never "came back." Aside from this, children was obviously being used by Jeremiah in a figurative sense to mean the descendants of Rachel, adults as well as children, and not to designate literal children only, as would have to be the case if events in Matthew 2 are to be interpreted as fulfillment of a "prophecy." The conclusion, then, is inescapable: Jeremiah 31:15 was a prophecy of Herod's massacre only because Matthew distorted it into one.

Aside from this problem with Matthew's claim of prophecy fulfillment in Herod's massacre of the innocents, we have good reasons to suspect that no such event ever even happened. None of the other gospel writers mentioned it nor did any secular historian con-temporary to the times. Except for Matthew's reference to it, history is strangely silent about this exceptionally barbaric act, and in some cases the silence is significant enough to cast serious doubt on Matthew's claim that it happened. The Jewish historian Josephus chronicled the reign of Herod in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews. In doing so, he made no apparent attempt to whitewash Herod's character. He related, for example, Herod's execution of John the Baptist, an event related by three of the gospel writers, but he said nothing about the massacre of the children at Bethlehem, which would have undoubtedly been the most heinous crime that Herod committed. If the atrocity actually happened, as Matthew claimed, for a historian of the era to omit it in detailing the life of the political ruler who ordered it would be comparable to a modern historian writing about Adolph Hitler but omitting any reference to the massacre of the Jews that happened under his dictatorship.

To say that history is silent about Herod's massacre of the innocents is not to say that the story is at all unusual. Parallel versions of it are so common in the folklore of ancient societies that mythologists have even assigned a name to the story and call it the dangerous-child myth. Space won't allow a review of all these myths, but the Hindu version is worth looking at, because it is strikingly parallel to Matthew's story. According to Hindu literature, Krishna, the eighth incarnation of the god Vishnu, was born to the virgin Devaki in fulfillment of prophecy and was visited by wise men who had been guided to him by a star. Angels also announced the birth to herdsmen in the nearby countryside. When King Kansa heard about the miraculous birth of this child, he sent men to "kill all the infants in the neighboring places," but a "heavenly voice" whispered to the foster father of Krishna (who, incidentally, was a carpenter) and warned him to take the child and flee across the Jumna river. (In this Hindu legend, we can recognize many parallels to the infancy of Jesus other than the dangerous-child element.) In Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, author T. W. Doane cited a work by Thomas Maurice, Indian Antiquities, vol. 1, pp. 112-113, which described an "immense sculpture" in a cave-temple at Elephanta that depicts the Indian children being slaughtered while men and women apparently representing their parents are standing by pleading for the children (p. 167)."
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html


THE DOUBLE-APPLICATION DODGE

To deal with contextual problems like the one in Isaiah's virgin-birth prophecy, bibliolaters have invented the double-application doctrine. "Yes, the prophecy in Isaiah did refer primarily to an immediate situation," they admit, "but it contained also, as did many other prophecies, a double-entendre that, in this case, makes it applicable to the birth of Jesus too." Contextual evidence, of course, necessitates their admission that prophecies such as this one were indeed intended for the times in which they were made, but if inerrantists are going to claim a "double-application" of Isaiah 7:14, they have a responsibility to do more than just claim. They must also prove. If Isaiah really had a double-meaning in mind, then who was the virgin of that generation who gave birth to a son? That is a legitimate question, because if Isaiah meant virgin in the strictest sense with reference to a woman who would give birth 700 years later, then he had to mean virgin in the strictest sense for the woman of his time who would bear a son. If not, why not?

The truth is that evidence to prove a double-application theory isn't so easy to come by. In this case, we have nothing--absolutely nothing--but Matthew's unsubstantiated word that the birth of Jesus fulfilled Isaiah's prophecy. Isaiah said nothing in the context of the original passage to imply a double intention, and none of the other gospel writers in recording the circumstances of Jesus's birth in any way related the event to Isaiah's prophecy. This latter fact seems particularly significant in the case of Luke whose gospel account included many more details about both the annunciation of the birth and the actual event itself than did any of the others. Mark and John, in fact, were completely silent about the birth. Doesn't it seem strange, then, that this remarkable "prophecy fulfillment" would have been treated with silence by three of the four "inspired" writers who recorded the life of Jesus? Only Matthew mentioned it, and that is the sum total of the proof we have that Jesus's birth fulfilled Isaiah's "prophecy."

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html

Isaiah
These verses falsely predict that Babylon will never again be inhabited. 13:19-20
Dragons will live in Babylonian palaces and satyrs will dance there. 13:21-22
This verse prophesies that Damascus will be completely destroyed and no longer be inhabited. Yet Damascus has never been completely destroyed and is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities. 17:1
The river of Egypt (identified as the Nile in RSV) shall dry up. This has never occurred. 19:5
"The land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt." Judah never invaded Egypt and was never a military threat to Egypt. 19:17
This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18
These verses predict that the Egyptians will worship the Lord (Yahweh) with sacrifices and offerings. But Judaism has never been an important religion in Egypt. 19:18-21

Jeremiah predicts that humans will never again live in Hazor, but will be replaced by dragons. But people still live there and dragons have never been seen. 49:33

You people addressed enough stuff to degrade me....but NOT ONE OF THESE WERE ADDRESSED! 16 Pages...of BS either address everyone of them without far reaches.. or leave it be. I don't expect anyone to admit they can't...so just let it be, don't change the subject...


I have a lot more

[Raphael]

Tell me something Dum-dum, being a liberal do you think women have a right to choose abortion?

[Andius]

No buffalo would be cruel enough to treat its own diarrhea like that.

Oy, you had me going down for a moment (Given how that comment was far too much for what TWebb allows). But you had me laughin, hehe, what I said was an insult to all respectable buffalos out there. (And I should be more carefull now, given that I be in Buffalo Country in Colorado).