| Sony & Federal Trade Commission [message #79308] |
Wed, 31 January 2007 08:50  |
Neil
Messages: 1645
Registered: April 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
$10 each).
>>>>>>***$1,000 profit, 50 promo copies, no drink coasters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Lou knows how much he can realistically expect to sell within
>>>>>>a reasonable amount of time, based on his last CD's sales,
>>>>>>otherwise he wouldn't be asking about the number 300.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Neil
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>Doug Wellington <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>I believe the measure of someone's spiritual enlightenment comes from
>how much they are willing to embrace the good points of any and all
>faiths, instead of how successful they are at rationalizing, proving,
>and evangelizing their own...
>
>Doug
And I hope that works for you. It is, of course, all purely human
"creative activity". We have a name for that. Heresy.
The good news is that we are to love you, not persecute you
for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Sony & Federal Trade Commission [message #79367 is a reply to message #79345] |
Thu, 01 February 2007 11:10  |
chuck duffy
Messages: 453
Registered: July 2005
|
Senior Member |
|
|
gt;>
>>
>
>Doug Wellington <doug@parisfaqs.com> wrote:
>I am continuously revising
>my definition of "evidence" as I have continued to do during this
>conversation...
Then, one day you will likely settle on a definition.
Answers will follow.
>> And of course, we all know that the church is simply based
>> upon human wishful thinking and the views of those closest
>> to the time of Jesus, and their judgements about the canon,
>> are much easier to critique and revise today, almost 2000
>> years later, right?
>That comes across to me as a quite flippant answer. I truly believe
>that I am asking legitimate questions, and I do not always believe that
>I receive legitimate answers...
Sorry for the tone, but it is 100% legit. It seems that you would
know to ask those questions about the primacy of direct
sources. We assume these first century people to be less
intelligent and in this case, less honest than we. That view will
produce skewed results.
>Being scholarly is not exclusionary to any reality.
This simply isn't true. 'Scholarly" once excluded coelacanths..
And that is it for me. Doug if you want to continue, let me know
and I will get you my email.
best
DC"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>Hey Don, I went over that link. I don't identify/agree with any of the
posts.
> I do understand why you posted that as an example of futility.
>
>Chuck
Futile? Well certainly at changing minds. But I think something
was learned by reading it, don't you? I learned something here
as well.
Here's another one;
http://www.dennisprager.com/samharris.html
In this one, (which is 2 years earlier than the other),
Dennis gets the upper hand at quite a few points,
and I believe that is what caused Sam to come out swinging so
hard in the 2006 debate.
best,
DCWhy are you guys forcing me to read all this????????????? .............it's
not fair!!!!.......it's even worse than the TV I am forced to watch and the
radio stations I am forced to listen to!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The PARIS Forums
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
