The Seven Deadly Sins

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
Good grief! Do I have to point it out, AGAIN?

I'm all for helping people, but I refuse to help anyone who refuses to help themselves (oh, and getting millions beacuse a McDonalds coffee was too hot)

You stated you know the details behind that case. Therefore, you know the 81 year-old woman was not out to make a buck; she was not out for monetary gain. However, you still lump that case in with your indictment of people who refuse to help themselves. How was she refusing to help herself?

ok, let me do this once, BARNEY STYLE

notice the word AND between the two statements? therefore they both reference the original comment, not eachother. The original comment about the monetary reward was based on the "Wealth Without Work" statement, NOT the "helping themselves" comment. so your question "how was she refusing to help herself?" does not apply.

again, please stop confusing facts an opinions

Ok, that takes me back to my original question. Now, was this 81 year-old woman out to gain monetarily? She wasn't seeking the wealth. And, was she asking for help? No, she only wanted her medical bills paid.

 

[Baltazar325]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
Good grief! Do I have to point it out, AGAIN?

I'm all for helping people, but I refuse to help anyone who refuses to help themselves (oh, and getting millions beacuse a McDonalds coffee was too hot)

You stated you know the details behind that case. Therefore, you know the 81 year-old woman was not out to make a buck; she was not out for monetary gain. However, you still lump that case in with your indictment of people who refuse to help themselves. How was she refusing to help herself?

ok, let me do this once, BARNEY STYLE

notice the word AND between the two statements? therefore they both reference the original comment, not eachother. The original comment about the monetary reward was based on the "Wealth Without Work" statement, NOT the "helping themselves" comment. so your question "how was she refusing to help herself?" does not apply.

again, please stop confusing facts an opinions

again, please stop confusing facts an opinions

If people stopped doing that, then P&N would cease to exist!

 

[halik]

what wrong with stemcell from dead babies? Is't that analogous to donating organs post mortem?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Way too oversimplified and ambiguous in my opinion.

Wealth without work,

There must be a whole lot of bad Waltons, du Ponts, etc..

Pleasure without conscience,

I need to figure out how that applies to mastribation.

Knowledge without character

#4 Moral or ethical strength.

(Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
)

Newton aquired vast knowlege while essentially locked in his room for a couple of decades. I don't think his character had any bearing on the outcome.

Commerce without morality

Morality is far too subjective in general, and subject to wide variations depending on chronological and geographical parameters.

Science without humanity,

Galileo humble! Tesla humble! LOL But who can deny their contributions to science.

Worship without sacrifice,

N/A I have no belief in mystical beings of ancient folklore.

Politics without principle.

2.
a. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
b. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.

3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.

I imagine Bush thinks of himself as a man of principle. I just think his principles are seriously flawed.

 

[geecee]

Originally posted by: Train
Ghandi was a smart man, these are still so true today...

i've also seen this under the title "Things that will destroy you"

Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice, and
Politics without principle.

- Mahatma Gandhi

Not to pour gasoline on the fire but if McDonald's coffee is hot - don't spill it on yourself. Or, don't go to McDonald's. Either way, you'll live longer.

Smart dude that Gandhi fellow. Even if I do end up thinking of Ben Kingsley and not the real thing.

EDIT: I agree about them being a bit vague though. But then again, so was the Constitution. Just makes it all the more open to interpretation and applicable in varying situations.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The ?great soul? was a fool who?s actions may well lead to the worlds first full-scale nuclear war.

His quotes are things that sound obvious at first and fall apart under scrutiny.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
Good grief! Do I have to point it out, AGAIN?

I'm all for helping people, but I refuse to help anyone who refuses to help themselves (oh, and getting millions beacuse a McDonalds coffee was too hot)

You stated you know the details behind that case. Therefore, you know the 81 year-old woman was not out to make a buck; she was not out for monetary gain. However, you still lump that case in with your indictment of people who refuse to help themselves. How was she refusing to help herself?

ok, let me do this once, BARNEY STYLE

notice the word AND between the two statements? therefore they both reference the original comment, not eachother. The original comment about the monetary reward was based on the "Wealth Without Work" statement, NOT the "helping themselves" comment. so your question "how was she refusing to help herself?" does not apply.

again, please stop confusing facts an opinions

Your "Mcdonalds Reference" was a "socially ignorant" reference to frivolous finacial gain and Lawsuits.

Thats Fine except you claim you are not ignorant of the case and Facts, Yet you cite this as an example.

I accuse you of spreading Ignorance, and I think Conjur did also.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
Good grief! Do I have to point it out, AGAIN?

I'm all for helping people, but I refuse to help anyone who refuses to help themselves (oh, and getting millions beacuse a McDonalds coffee was too hot)

You stated you know the details behind that case. Therefore, you know the 81 year-old woman was not out to make a buck; she was not out for monetary gain. However, you still lump that case in with your indictment of people who refuse to help themselves. How was she refusing to help herself?

ok, let me do this once, BARNEY STYLE

notice the word AND between the two statements? therefore they both reference the original comment, not eachother. The original comment about the monetary reward was based on the "Wealth Without Work" statement, NOT the "helping themselves" comment. so your question "how was she refusing to help herself?" does not apply.

again, please stop confusing facts an opinions

Your "Mcdonalds Reference" was a "socially ignorant" reference to frivolous finacial gain and Lawsuits.

Thats Fine except you claim you are not ignorant of the case and Facts, Yet you cite this as an example.

I accuse you of spreading Ignorance, and I think Conjur did also.

for the umpteenth time, how do the facts of this case, in any way shape or form, have anything to do with me thinking $2.9M is total BS?

oh wait, it doesnt, you guys are just stubborn idiots.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: conjur
Good grief! Do I have to point it out, AGAIN?

I'm all for helping people, but I refuse to help anyone who refuses to help themselves (oh, and getting millions beacuse a McDonalds coffee was too hot)

You stated you know the details behind that case. Therefore, you know the 81 year-old woman was not out to make a buck; she was not out for monetary gain. However, you still lump that case in with your indictment of people who refuse to help themselves. How was she refusing to help herself?

ok, let me do this once, BARNEY STYLE

notice the word AND between the two statements? therefore they both reference the original comment, not eachother. The original comment about the monetary reward was based on the "Wealth Without Work" statement, NOT the "helping themselves" comment. so your question "how was she refusing to help herself?" does not apply.

again, please stop confusing facts an opinions

Your "Mcdonalds Reference" was a "socially ignorant" reference to frivolous finacial gain and Lawsuits.

Thats Fine except you claim you are not ignorant of the case and Facts, Yet you cite this as an example.

I accuse you of spreading Ignorance, and I think Conjur did also.

for the umpteenth time, how do the facts of this case, in any way shape or form, have anything to do with me thinking $2.9M is total BS?

oh wait, it doesnt, you guys are just stubborn idiots.

That's not what you said.


You said you refuse to help anyone who doesn't help themselves or people who win millions in a lawsuit.

The point being that the women who won the lawsuit against McDonald's was not seeking anyone's help, only her medical bills paid. It's a fallacious statement you made meant to evoke a certain sentiment. It failed.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

This thread has convinced me that conjur has successfully taken over Dave's place as this forums biggest idiot. Train makes a blanket statement, obviously in jest, and conjur explodes into one of the most pathetic ego trips ive seen on this board. Passions, steeplerot, and Riprorin can only dream about being as petty and foolish as Sir Conjur, Lord of the Wankers.

 

[sandorski]

Ghandi was a wise man.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli
This thread has convinced me that conjur has successfully taken over Dave's place as this forums biggest idiot. Train makes a blanket statement, obviously in jest, and conjur explodes into one of the most pathetic ego trips ive seen on this board. Passions, steeplerot, and Riprorin can only dream about being as petty and foolish as Sir Conjur, Lord of the Wankers.

Coming from you that means a lot!


As I've said before, I'm anti-BS. And Train was spewing some BS.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HelloDeli
This thread has convinced me that conjur has successfully taken over Dave's place as this forums biggest idiot. Train makes a blanket statement, obviously in jest, and conjur explodes into one of the most pathetic ego trips ive seen on this board. Passions, steeplerot, and Riprorin can only dream about being as petty and foolish as Sir Conjur, Lord of the Wankers.

Coming from you that means a lot!


As I've said before, I'm anti-BS. And Train was spewing some BS.

Be aware that my mood and opinions vary greatly minute by minute. What was uncontrollable anger and rage toword you a few minutes ago, is no longer there. As a matter of fact, I am furious at myself for making an obvious personal attack on another member of this board. I now nominate myself as the biggest idiot on here.

Carry on!

 

[BlueWeasel]

Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Ghandi was moron

Who was the moron again? Or Ghandi's alter-ego was moron?

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: HelloDeli
This thread has convinced me that conjur has successfully taken over Dave's place as this forums biggest idiot. Train makes a blanket statement, obviously in jest, and conjur explodes into one of the most pathetic ego trips ive seen on this board. Passions, steeplerot, and Riprorin can only dream about being as petty and foolish as Sir Conjur, Lord of the Wankers.

Pointing out the stupidity of others doesn't make you an idiot.