Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:... but a parent can vote on their behalf. ...

Which one? What would happen if they disagreed? Lawyers! Give this thought up as its making you look barking-mad.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... but a parent can vote on their behalf. ...

Which one? What would happen if they disagreed? Lawyers! Give this thought up as its making you look barking-mad.

I think probably, in most cases, parents think just about the same politically. I'm sure they could come to a decision on something like this without going to court or hiring an attorney. Please, don't come up with goofy-ass comments like that. If you don't agree with me, just say so, but don't come up with that kind of crap.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:If you don't think the unborn should be entitled to a vote by way of their parents, then why do you think anybody should be entitled to a vote, huh???

Because they demanded and fought for it numbnuts. You think your unborn can do this?

I don't know if you're a man or a woman, but you know as much about nuts as the man in the moon.

bobevenson wrote:I don't know if you're a man or a woman, but you know as much about nuts as the man in the moon.

I'll take your word for this and would not be surprised if you believed in him as well and thought he should have a vote.

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I don't know if you're a man or a woman, but you know as much about nuts as the man in the moon.

I'll take your word for this and would not be surprised if you believed in him as well and thought he should have a vote.

I think "That Infamous Logo" (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/infamous-logo.pdf) pretty much states my position on the subject.

Bark! Bark!

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -satanists

Arising_uk wrote:Bark! Bark!

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea ... -satanists

I take 100% of the credit for Procter & Gamble's decision to remove the moon-and-stars logo from its packaging, and while the company sued many people for millions of dollars for linking P&G to Satan, they never took any action against me (and for a very good reason, I might add).

bobevenson wrote:I take 100% of the credit for Procter & Gamble's decision to remove the moon-and-stars logo from its packaging, and while the company sued many people for millions of dollars for linking P&G to Satan, they never took any action against me (and for a very good reason, I might add).

So much for capitalism and allowing companies to do as they wish.

What was up? Your 'god' told you that candles were evil?

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:I take 100% of the credit for Procter & Gamble's decision to remove the moon-and-stars logo from its packaging, and while the company sued many people for millions of dollars for linking P&G to Satan, they never took any action against me (and for a very good reason, I might add).

So much for capitalism and allowing companies to do as they wish.

What was up? Your 'god' told you that candles were evil?

"That Infamous Logo" says it all. P&G tried to fuck with me, but they didn't realize they were taking on Bob the Baptist, O my brothers in tribulation!

Yup! It says, Bark! Bark!

How did P&G try to 'fuck with you'?

But to their chagrin, my bite turned out to be worse than my bark! They entered into an illegal conspiracy with the FBI to investigate me, and the letter to me from the business reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer, who covered P&G for the paper, concerns that little episode (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/cincinnati-enquirer.pdf).

You're getting like Bill.

What did P&G do to try and "fuck with you"?

Arising_uk wrote:You're getting like Bill.

What did P&G do to try and "fuck with you"?

You don't have to insult me. See my last comment.

bobevenson wrote:But to their chagrin, my bite turned out to be worse than my bark! They entered into an illegal conspiracy with the FBI to investigate me, and the letter to me from the business reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer, who covered P&G for the paper, concerns that little episode (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/cincinnati-enquirer.pdf).

That's a letter from a journalist saying she's going to ask her editor to work on a story concerning you, but doesn't know if he'll agree. She also refers to a letter you wrote to a Cincinnati lawyer and asks you to let her know if Proctor and Gamble indicate that they're going to take legal action against you.

There's nothing in the letter that tells us that anyone ran a story concerning you or that your letter to the lawyer, assuming you wrote one, wasn't immediately dropped into the "crank" pile.

John wrote:

bobevenson wrote:But to their chagrin, my bite turned out to be worse than my bark! They entered into an illegal conspiracy with the FBI to investigate me, and the letter to me from the business reporter for the Cincinnati Enquirer, who covered P&G for the paper, concerns that little episode (http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/cincinnati-enquirer.pdf).

That's a letter from a journalist saying she's going to ask her editor to work on a story concerning you, but doesn't know if he'll agree. She also refers to a letter you wrote to a Cincinnati lawyer and asks you to let her know if Proctor and Gamble indicate that they're going to take legal action against you.

There's nothing in the letter that tells us that anyone ran a story concerning you or that your letter to the lawyer, assuming you wrote one, wasn't immediately dropped into the "crank" pile.

For your information, John, the Powell McHenry she referred to in her letter was the top P&G attorney, but the Cincinnati Enquirer never gave her permission to write her investigative story exposing P&G as the criminals they most certainly are. Remember, she had every reason to consider me a crank and to protect her cushy job covering P&G, but she was willing to put her job and reputation on the line to report the crimes of Procter & Gamble. Anyway, the bottom line is that neither P&G nor the FBI was able to scare Bob the Baptist like they do the rest of the world.