Originally posted by Jorge

******************************************************************

Did I not bold, italicized and underlined "a bit" ?

A brief lesson for you : 'figurative language' means, among other things, when a word
is used to represent something other than the actual object. Hence, "lights" is used
to represent 'stars'. True, stars 'are' "lights" but they're much more than just "lights".
That was my only point and, as it is a subtle use of figurative language, I said "a bit".
Compare that with, say, the parables or with certain verses in Revelation - not 'a bit'.

And let's not forget the 'biggie' here -- yom (day). That 'day' means a literal day in
Genesis 1-2 is far beyond any reasonable doubt (except, of course, to those that
have presupposed that it means something else). Hence, responding for the 31st
time, 'day' is clearly not figurative in Genesis 1-2. So why do you people not accept
that meaning of that word as GOD intended to communicate it to us? Could it be
because it clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs?

Lesson over ... bill is in the mail. Adios ....


P.S. Instead of arguing over everything I say just for the sake of arguing, do try
harder to get the point, will ya. The same to the rest of you buffoons here.

Jorge

Well, that's the point, right, Jorge? You say that the use of the word "lights" as opposed to "stars" is figurative language — I say it isn't. You say the use of "yom" necessarily means a literal 24-hour period of time — I say it doesn't. To avoid a complete dead-lock, you must present criteria to explain your rationale.

—Sam

Originally posted by Jorge

A brief lesson for you : 'figurative language' means, among other things, when a word
is used to represent something other than the actual object. Hence, "lights" is used
to represent 'stars'. True, stars 'are' "lights" but they're much more than just "lights".
That was my only point and, as it is a subtle use of figurative language,...

Is this like "day" then Jorge?


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Jorge

***************************************************************

Did I not bold, italicized and underlined "a bit" ?

A brief lesson for you : 'figurative language' means, among other things, when a word
is used to represent something other than the actual object. Hence, "lights" is used
to represent 'stars'. True, stars 'are' "lights" but they're much more than just "lights".
That was my only point and, as it is a subtle use of figurative language, I said "a bit".
Compare that with, say, the parables or with certain verses in Revelation - not 'a bit'.

OK Jorge. Let’s just take a look at a few more “bits” and see if they are figurative like you say Gen. 1:14 is.

How about 1:6-8, which describes the creation of a physical structure, a “firmament,” that divides the waters above and below it if is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think there is a solid structure encasing the planet, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

How about 1:16-17, where it describes the Sun, the Moon and stars being physically affixed to the solid firmament if it is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think that the Sun, Moon and stars are actually set into a solid firmament that encases the planet, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

How about in verse 16 where the Moon is described as being a great light or lamp itself rather than merely reflecting the Sun’s light like a mirror if it is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think that the Moon gives off its own light*, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

How about in 1:26-27, where God states that we were made in His image, after His likeness, meaning we are physically modeled after God’s physical, fleshy body if it is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think we are made in God’s physical image, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

Somehow I figure I’ll either receive silence or the typical rant about my being a quasi-Christian unable to comprehend basic English attempting to vilify you because of my rabid anti-YEC biases (or something like that). In either case, content-free.




* Apparently Bill Nye “the Science Guy” ran into flack for noting that Moon only reflected light.

Originally posted by Jorge

And let's not forget the 'biggie' here -- yom (day). That 'day' means a literal day in
Genesis 1-2 is far beyond any reasonable doubt (except, of course, to those that
have presupposed that it means something else). Hence, responding for the 31st
time, 'day' is clearly not figurative in Genesis 1-2. So why do you people not accept
that meaning of that word as GOD intended to communicate it to us? Could it be
because it clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs?

The problem we have is that the very object we use to define or measure the length of a day, the Sun, wasn’t even in existence until the third day, which strongly suggests that the “days” mentioned are not standard 24 hour long days. It isn’t until 1:14 that read about the creation of the Sun and Moon to separate the day from the night and how they can be used as signs “for seasons, and for days, and years” (emphasis added).

This is a major clue that the psalmist and the author of II Peter knew what they were speaking of (Ps. 90:4; cf. II Pet. 3:8) when they explained that that with God “a thousand years is as one day, and one day is as a thousand years.” And they weren’t stating an algebraic equation: “x = 24 hours, y = 24 hours, ergo x = y” – they were saying that time doesn’t matter to God, or that a generic “long time” (figure of speech) is meant here, not a literal thousand years.

Keep in mind Jorge, the early Church Fathers nearly unanimously agreed that the “days” of Genesis 1 didn’t represent literal 24-hour long days; though they couldn’t come to an agreement as to what they represented.

Originally posted by Jorge

Lesson over ... bill is in the mail. Adios ....

Your two cents shall be deducted from your running tab that you have related to owing for broken irony meters.

Originally posted by Jorge

P.S. Instead of arguing over everything I say just for the sake of arguing, do try
harder to get the point, will ya. The same to the rest of you buffoons here.

Jorge

Perhaps you can take time out for a second from your condemning all non-YECs as being somehow anti-Scriptural and for “inserting” things into the text and explain why you recognize that there was at least one Ice Age since there is no Biblical mention of one. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=133740

Originally posted by Jorge

*******************************************************************

Sorry I missed you guys yesterday from sunny Twin Falls, Idaho.

Today I'm in cloudy (but clearing up) Hermiston, Oregon ...

As for the above post by Mr. VS, it's really quite simple : ALL of those gentlemen will be
at the Darwin Was Wrong Conference (now just one week away). Instead of blathering
like a spoiled brat, why doesn't Mr. VS hop on over and challenge these men directly?

Because I have to work, jackass.

I shan't engage in the sad hero-worship that you do, fwning over hacks who embellish their credential snad lie to impress the rubes.

BTW, I just learned that David Berlinski may also be there. That could be interesting ...

Jorge

Berlinski?

The clown who said he counted 50,000 differences between whales and cows and therefore whales could not have evolved from cows?

That brilliant fool?

Golly, Fraudnandez, your standards are pretty low....

Originally posted by Jorge

As for the above post by Mr. VS, it's really quite simple : ALL of those gentlemen will be
at the Darwin Was Wrong Conference (now just one week away). Instead of blathering
like a spoiled brat, why doesn't Mr. VS hop on over and challenge these men directly?

By the way - I have challenged your co-theorist Werner Gitt directly.

He couldn't answer any of the questions put to him by actual scientists.

He allowed for information to increase at the statistical (nucleotide) level, and when I pointed out that in genetics, the upper levels of information are DEPENDANT upon the statistical level and asked why can't those levels increase, he had no answer...

He - like all your heroes at this amazing con-man conference - are empty suits who can only sell snakeoil to the gullible and scientifically illiterate.


Like you.

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

Well, that's the point, right, Jorge? You say that the use of the word "lights" as opposed to
"stars" is figurative language — I say it isn't. You say the use of "yom" necessarily means a
literal 24-hour period of time — I say it doesn't. To avoid a complete dead-lock, you must
present criteria to explain your rationale.

—Sam

**********************************************************

The lack of intellectual integrity of you people is getting to be more than I can bear.
HOW MANY TIMES am I supposed to present you with what you ask above as if
I'd never presented it before? There is no "dead-lock" here; there are dead-heads
and you people are those.

As for the rest of the less-than-honest buffoons here (O-Mudd, R06, et al.), it doesn't
go unnoticed that you keep avoiding the simple facts ... you keep wanting to change
the subject so as to evade the truth.

Biblical Creationists: "lights" - then ............... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ................. "day" - now

TEs / OECs / PCs: "lights" - then ........... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ............ gigayears - now

We (BCs) retain the same interpretation of the meaning of the words as per sound exegesis
and the rules of their language. You (all other than BCs) retain ONLY what you wish to retain
but when it doesn't fancy you, you take the liberty to distort the text so that it means what YOU
want it to mean. Whatever you need to do to accomplish that goal, you do it. Then you try to
justify it and then you blast away at the people that tell you it's wrong to do that to God's Word.
It's sheer insanity! [God did tell us that in the latter days things would be 'upside-down'].


The point about the "dome" is one that I have answered in the past and have linked
to several AiG articles addressing it. Regarding 'yom' I put forth a challenge that
was never answered (a lame attempt was made and I quickly dispensed it - R06's
very own link ended with the conclusion that 'days' are to be taken as literal days).

From 1999 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp

From 2009 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...th-a-solid-sky

In this thread we ONCE AGAIN see the dishonest evasion of "but there was no sun
and so how could they know what a day was" or "a day is like a thousand years".
Each of those has been answered so many times that it's sickening.

Until you people come to the realization that you have CHOSEN to go against what the
plain, clear Word of God says, you will continue making fools of yourselves plus you
will continue showing yourselves as being less than honest.

There truly is no nicer way of saying this : you people need to be honest with yourselves.

Edited to add : Got'ta run ... off to Sacramento, CA. I'll 'be back' sometime this evening.

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

*************************************************

The lack of intellectual integrity of you people is getting to be more than I can bear.
HOW MANY TIMES am I supposed to present you with what you ask above as if
I'd never presented it before? There is no "dead-lock" here; there are dead-heads
and you people are those.

As for the rest of the less-than-honest buffoons here (O-Mudd, R06, et al.), it doesn't
go unnoticed that you keep avoiding the simple facts ... you keep wanting to change
the subject so as to evade the truth.

Biblical Creationists: "lights" - then ............... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ................. "day" - now

TEs / OECs / PCs: "lights" - then ........... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ............ gigayears - now

We (BCs) retain the same interpretation of the meaning of the words as per sound exegesis
and the rules of their language.

Bunk. YECs like you fabricate arbitrary rules about the Hebrew language in order to support your claims such as when you assert that when the word “yom” (day) always means a literal 24 hour day when used with a number. This YEC-declared “rule,” which is falsified by Zech. 7:14, was never documented in the original culture, but was instead invented thousands of years later based on a very limited body of writings.

So here we have YECs willing to make up rules in order to get Scripture to support their narrow, overly-literal interpretation yet you claim that you “retain the same interpretation of the meaning of the words as per sound exegesis and the rules of their language.”

Originally posted by Jorge

You (all other than BCs) retain ONLY what you wish to retain
but when it doesn't fancy you, you take the liberty to distort the text so that it means what YOU
want it to mean. Whatever you need to do to accomplish that goal, you do it. Then you try to
justify it and then you blast away at the people that tell you it's wrong to do that to God's Word.
It's sheer insanity! [God did tell us that in the latter days things would be 'upside-down'].

Well as a non-YEC, and therefore in your judgment, a lesser, second-class Christian, perhaps you can enlighten us with a display of your wisdom and tell us how to properly understand the following which I posted yesterday:

Originally posted by rogue06

How about 1:6-8, which describes the creation of a physical structure, a “firmament,” that divides the waters above and below it if is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think there is a solid structure encasing the planet, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

How about 1:16-17, where it describes the Sun, the Moon and stars being physically affixed to the solid firmament if it is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think that the Sun, Moon and stars are actually set into a solid firmament that encases the planet, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

How about in verse 16 where the Moon is described as being a great light or lamp itself rather than merely reflecting the Sun’s light like a mirror if it is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think that the Moon gives off its own light*, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

How about in 1:26-27, where God states that we were made in His image, after His likeness, meaning we are physically modeled after God’s physical, fleshy body if it is taken literally – “as GOD intended to communicate it to us”? Do you think we are made in God’s physical image, and if not is it because it “clashes with your chosen, anti-scriptural beliefs”?

So Jorge how do you as a YEC answer these without introducing distortions? But then again, you have your own meaning for “distort” don’t you which is something by your definition only non-YECs can engage in.

Originally posted by Jorge

The point about the "dome" is one that I have answered in the past and have linked
to several AiG articles addressing it. Regarding 'yom' I put forth a challenge that
was never answered (a lame attempt was made and I quickly dispensed it - R06's
very own link ended with the conclusion that 'days' are to be taken as literal days).

Your statement above is demonstrably false, and whether deliberate or caused by delusion I don’t know. The link acknowledged that Zechariah 7:14 appears to be an exception to the YEC made-up rule about yom and numbers and the section covering Zech 1 in this article actually concludes that “The result is that no dogmatic statement should be made either way.”

You should really think twice before bearing false witness Jorge.

Originally posted by Jorge

From 1999 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp

From 2009 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...th-a-solid-sky

In this thread we ONCE AGAIN see the dishonest evasion of "but there was no sun
and so how could they know what a day was" or "a day is like a thousand years".
Each of those has been answered so many times that it's sickening.

Excellent. Then you should be able to answer the questions above yourself with little if no effort instead of arguing via weblink.

Originally posted by Jorge

Until you people come to the realization that you have CHOSEN to go against what the
plain, clear Word of God says, you will continue making fools of yourselves plus you
will continue showing yourselves as being less than honest.

There truly is no nicer way of saying this : you people need to be honest with yourselves.

Edited to add : Got'ta run ... off to Sacramento, CA. I'll 'be back' sometime this evening.

Jorge

Waiting for your answers Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

This thread is about the Darwin Was Wrong Conference (DWWC)
to be held at Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, California on Nov 13-14.

Ten presentations will be given at the DWWC by scientists such as
J. Sanford, J. Baumgardner, S. Austin,, J. Bergman and others.
Each presentation begins: "Darwin Was Wrong About .............."

I have twelve business-related stops before the Conference but, God
willing, I will be there. I helped Dr. Charles Ware put together his talk :
Darwin Was Wrong About Race.

In this "Year of Darwin", there can be no better goal than to expose to
the world the mountain of errors that Darwin believed, promoted and
helped to create. This will be a great conference to attain that goal.

Stay tuned ...

Jorge

Here you go Jorge... A resource for your Darwin was wrong bash. Kevin Padian’s Ten Myths about Charles Darwin. No thanks necessary.

Originally posted by rogue06

Zechariah

And speaking of Zechariah, there are all those verses in Job, Psalms, Nahum and Zechariah which 'prove' that our daily weather phenomena (frost, rain, snow, wind, ...), are directly caused by a supernatural agent, namely God. That is, these are not natural phenomena but are supernatural phenomena.

So does Jorge deny meteorological science in exactly the same way he denies biological science? Or does he distort the 'real' meaning of scripture in the same way he accuses you folk of doing it, just to accommodate modern meteorological science?

Who knows, because Jorge always runs away when asked questions such as this.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Jorge

**********************************************************

The lack of intellectual integrity of you people is getting to be more than I can bear.
HOW MANY TIMES am I supposed to present you with what you ask above as if
I'd never presented it before? There is no "dead-lock" here; there are dead-heads
and you people are those.

As for the rest of the less-than-honest buffoons here (O-Mudd, R06, et al.), it doesn't
go unnoticed that you keep avoiding the simple facts ... you keep wanting to change
the subject so as to evade the truth.

Biblical Creationists: "lights" - then ............... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ................. "day" - now

TEs / OECs / PCs: "lights" - then ........... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ............ gigayears - now

We (BCs) retain the same interpretation of the meaning of the words as per sound exegesis
and the rules of their language. You (all other than BCs) retain ONLY what you wish to retain
but when it doesn't fancy you, you take the liberty to distort the text so that it means what YOU
want it to mean. Whatever you need to do to accomplish that goal, you do it. Then you try to
justify it and then you blast away at the people that tell you it's wrong to do that to God's Word.
It's sheer insanity! [God did tell us that in the latter days things would be 'upside-down'].

Well, now you're backtracking, Jorge. Earlier, you said that there was a bit of figurative language in the Creation account and you were asked what that was and how one would go about determining what was literal and what was figurative. You used the "lights" example, which you now seem to agree isn't figurative language.

So we need from you either a valid example of figurative language in the Creation account (along with an explanation as to why it's figurative) or the assertion that nothing in the Creation account was meant figuratively (along with explanations of how modern astronomy fits with the ANE cosmological expressions).

Because, you see, it does us no good for you to be preaching the "truth" if it doesn't even have internal coherence.

Rouge addressed the rest, so I'll leave it at that.

—Sam

Originally posted by Jorge

From 1999 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp

From 2009 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...th-a-solid-sky


Jorge

Yes Jorge, two articles of several thousand words length each to try to explain why the plain and literal meaning of Genesis 1:6-8 is not what it appears to be. That's nice. The question is, and remains:

Why do you know that Genesis 1:6-8 is not simply a description of some barrier between the waters above and the waters below that contains the sun, moon, and stars. What tells you that it needs to mean something other than it's most obvious meaning? What tells you that you need to look beyond the most straight forward conclusion?. And why is the conclusion we have now about what it means completely different from what nearly every exegete came up with prior to Galileo - Jewish or Christian? Even Augustine, who could see that 'day' might not be literal, understood the firmament was meant to be firm by the text. And why did he also know that these 'waters above' needed to be to some extent figurative?

It is not that someone can't come up with some way a wiggling out of the most obvious reading Jorge. It is not that there might be some rather direct way of looking at it (like day=general period of time, or firmament is something other than a rigid expanse as the word would imply). It is not that there might be a whole host of things it 'could' mean.

It is what is it that tells you the most obvious rendering (something strong - likely something related to metal - something understood to be firm and solid even to Galileo - up there that has the sun and stars in it and separates the waters above from the waters below) is not correct?

I'll give you a hint. It is not in any Hebrew text found in Genesis to Malachi.

And it is the same thing that tells us 'day' does not mean what its most obvious meaning is either.



Jim

Originally posted by Jorge

**********************************************************

The lack of intellectual integrity of you people is getting to be more than I can bear.
HOW MANY TIMES am I supposed to present you with what you ask above as if
I'd never presented it before? There is no "dead-lock" here; there are dead-heads
and you people are those.

As for the rest of the less-than-honest buffoons here (O-Mudd, R06, et al.), it doesn't
go unnoticed that you keep avoiding the simple facts ... you keep wanting to change
the subject so as to evade the truth.

Biblical Creationists: "lights" - then ............... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ................. "day" - now

TEs / OECs / PCs: "lights" - then ........... "lights" - now ; "day" - then ............ gigayears - now

We (BCs) retain the same interpretation of the meaning of the words as per sound exegesis
and the rules of their language. You (all other than BCs) retain ONLY what you wish to retain
but when it doesn't fancy you, you take the liberty to distort the text so that it means what YOU
want it to mean. Whatever you need to do to accomplish that goal, you do it. Then you try to
justify it and then you blast away at the people that tell you it's wrong to do that to God's Word.
It's sheer insanity! [God did tell us that in the latter days things would be 'upside-down'].


The point about the "dome" is one that I have answered in the past and have linked
to several AiG articles addressing it. Regarding 'yom' I put forth a challenge that
was never answered (a lame attempt was made and I quickly dispensed it - R06's
very own link ended with the conclusion that 'days' are to be taken as literal days).

From 1999 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp

From 2009 : http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...th-a-solid-sky

In this thread we ONCE AGAIN see the dishonest evasion of "but there was no sun
and so how could they know what a day was" or "a day is like a thousand years".
Each of those has been answered so many times that it's sickening.

Until you people come to the realization that you have CHOSEN to go against what the
plain, clear Word of God says, you will continue making fools of yourselves plus you
will continue showing yourselves as being less than honest.

There truly is no nicer way of saying this : you people need to be honest with yourselves.

Edited to add : Got'ta run ... off to Sacramento, CA. I'll 'be back' sometime this evening.

Jorge

*************************************************************************

From sunny and warm Sacramento, CA ...

After reading the posts that responded to the above, all I can say is, "I GIVE UP!!!"

Now let's hear you guys gloat, "We won ... we won!!!"
Yup, you "won" ... you beat me to a bloody pulp.
But be sure to report this event accurately!
You "beat me" because I could no longer deal with
the intellectual dishonesty, the rewriting of history,
the denials and distortions ... etc. Be sure to state
THAT as you gloat, "we beat Jorge".

Will anyone take a bet on this (that they don't!)?

P.S. Tomorrow I start here (Sacramento, CA) but end in
Los Angeles, CA so I doubt that I'll be able to 'connect'. We'll see ...

You guys enjoy ... only 4 more shopping days before the DWWC!

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

*************************************************************************

From sunny and warm Sacramento, CA ...

After reading the posts that responded to the above, all I can say is, "I GIVE UP!!!"

Now let's hear you guys gloat, "We won ... we won!!!"
Yup, you "won" ... you beat me to a bloody pulp.
But be sure to report this event accurately!
You "beat me" because I could no longer deal with
the intellectual dishonesty, the rewriting of history,
the denials and distortions ... etc. Be sure to state
THAT as you gloat, "we beat Jorge".

Will anyone take a bet on this (that they don't!)?

P.S. Tomorrow I start here (Sacramento, CA) but end in
Los Angeles, CA so I doubt that I'll be able to 'connect'. We'll see ...

You guys enjoy ... only 4 more shopping days before the DWWC!

Jorge

Sorry. The only times I catch myself gloating is when I have actually accomplished something. Watching you running off, tail tucked between your legs isn't an accomplishment any more than watching a sunrise is.

Originally posted by Jorge

*************************************************************************

From sunny and warm Sacramento, CA ...

After reading the posts that responded to the above, all I can say is, "I GIVE UP!!!"

Now let's hear you guys gloat, "We won ... we won!!!"
Yup, you "won" ... you beat me to a bloody pulp.
But be sure to report this event accurately!
You "beat me" because I could no longer deal with
the intellectual dishonesty, the rewriting of history,
the denials and distortions ... etc. Be sure to state
THAT as you gloat, "we beat Jorge".

Will anyone take a bet on this (that they don't!)?

P.S. Tomorrow I start here (Sacramento, CA) but end in
Los Angeles, CA so I doubt that I'll be able to 'connect'. We'll see ...

You guys enjoy ... only 4 more shopping days before the DWWC!

Jorge

Jorge - you haven't dealt with the issue at all. I can't gloat, because I haven't 'won' anything. All you are doing here is hiding from the issues that someday you, or those you've mislead, must face. But I can't make you face them.

But there is a truth here - you can't effectively pass this approach of yours on to a next generation. The younger generation, any younger generation, when faced with raw fideism to a tradition shown useless or illogical will almost invariably leave it behind. If you can't take what has been here discussed and process it rationally, facing the issue - (that what drives your 'reading' of Genesis 1:6-8 is your scientific understanding of the world) - and its clear implications as regards your reading of 'day' in the same passage, then you simply will not be able to 'reproduce' your POV in those that will face the data. That means in time your POV will die, just as surely as geocentrism died in the face of Galileo's telescope. The truth can't be hidden but for a short time from those who want to know it.

Fortunately, the truth of the Gospel transcends these issues, and as it did in the face of a heliocentric solar system, it can and will live on - but those who carry it forward will not be hampered by the cognitive dissonance of pretending the witness of nature or scripture is different than it actually is.


Jim

Originally posted by Jorge

Now let's hear you guys gloat, "We won ... we won!!!"

Not really. The problem is you never offered anything for us to beat to a pulp.

One can only beat to a pulp, something which has substance.

Originally posted by Jorge

You "beat me" because I could no longer deal with the intellectual dishonesty, the rewriting of history, the denials and distortions ... etc.

Is that because your conscience was finally pricking you? Stop doing it and months later you won't feel so bad when your dullard conscience finally catches up with your mind.




Regards, Roland

Originally posted by rogue06

Sorry. The only times I catch myself gloating is when I have actually accomplished something. Watching you running off, tail tucked between your legs isn't an accomplishment any more than watching a sunrise is.

At least a sunrise can look beautiful.