[GCFL-discuss] ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED

Tue Jun 15 12:16:57 CDT 2004

              Some one didn't sign again. As far as all the arguing going
on guys: do you really think that is what this discussion list is for? I
mean it was made so everyone could enjoy it not created to be an ARGUMENT
LIST!  I think we all owe John the respect of keeping it toned down a
little. For one thing arguing over e-mail does nothing good. The  other
thing is two people end up getting very mad at each other &  neither one
benefits. There is a certain  point of arguing in fun... Then there's
really meaning it & I think it is really getting out of hand. As much as
Siarlys & I have disagreed  in the past I cannot stick up for someone who
makes comments & doesn't sign there name  SO Siarlys was simply putting
in his opinion.  Perhaps he has come across a bit strong  but hey
fighting won't solve anything will it? I think we should all do our best
to write as if we  were mature adults regardless if we are 10 or 99. 
Trust me guys screaming at each other not only hurts both of you but
changes the mood of everyone on the list because everyone  has to read
you arguments. I suggest if you want to continue your argument to do it
on a more personal private method.  Please don't take what I wrote the
wrong way but do you both see my point?
 Jeff
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:38:15 -0700 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> Clean it up people!
> 
> Lance
> John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you 
> free."
> 
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:36:25 -0700 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> > As much as I agree no-name. Lashing out won't fix anything.
> > 
> > Dajas
> > 
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:29:28 -0700, gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net
> > <gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Do you truly ever quit being so negative? Have you considered 
> > joining
> > > other's that hold your opinion so that we who think you're 
> messed 
> > in the
> > > head don't have to put up with you anymore? We either believe in 
> 
> > our
> > > Nation under God or not! QUIT BEING SO NEGATIVE! I'M TIRED OF 
> YOUR 
> > WILD
> > > OFF THE WALL COMMENTS!
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> =======================================================================
> > > You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be
> > > misquoted and used against you.
> > > 
> > 
> =======================================================================
> > > On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:55:50 -0500 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net 
> writes:
> > > > I haven't read the full text of this opinion yet, but I 
> couldn't 
> > be
> > > > happier with the result that is summarized here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
> > > >
> > > >     ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. v. NEWDOW, No. 02-1624 
> > (U.S.S.C.
> > > > June
> > > >     14, 2004)
> > > >     A father did not have standing to challenge the "under 
> God"
> > > > portion
> > > >     of the Pledge of Allegiance as violating the 
> Establishment
> > > > Clause on
> > > >     behalf of his daughter, because he lacked "next friend" 
> > status
> > > > under
> > > >     California Law.
> > > >
> > > >     To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
> > > >     http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/021624.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are
> > > > appropriate
> > > > in the Pledge of Allegiance.
> > > >
> > > > The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are
> > > > inappropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance.
> > > >
> > > > The Supreme Court did say "get this nonsense out of our face" 
> by 
> > the
> > > > only
> > > > legal process available: saying that the father had no 
> standing 
> > to
> > > > bring
> > > > his suit to court in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > I continue to believe that it was a mistake for Congress to 
> > adopt
> > > > ANY
> > > > "official" version of the Pledge in 1942, much less add words 
> to 
> > it
> > > > in
> > > > 1954 -- but there is not much the courts can do about that.
> > > >
> > > > I also believe that putting the words "under God" into a
> > > > second-rate
> > > > piece of secular verse defiles the Holy Name of God.
> > > >
> > > > But most of all, I believe that reciting a pledge to a flag is 
> 
> > a
> > > > violation of the Second Commandment. That is between me and 
> > God,
> > > > not
> > > > binding on anyone else, and also no business of the Supreme
> > > > Court's.
> > > >
> > > > The court did the right thing, the common sense thing, and 
> > acted
> > > > with
> > > > appropriate humility.
> > > >
> > > >                                 Siarlys
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > ________________________________________________________________
> > > > The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> > > > Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> > > > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> > > > ______________________________
> > > > GCFL-discuss mailing list
> > > > GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> > > > http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > GCFL-discuss mailing list
> > > GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> > > http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GCFL-discuss mailing list
> > GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> > http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> > 
> > 
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://gcfl.net/pipermail/gcfl-discuss/attachments/20040615/43b288a3/attachment.html