Welcome, one and all, to 2007 AD.
As many of you know (and hopefully most of you remember), last night was the time when the calendar heartily says, 'Congratulations! It sure was tough, but wow - you made it through the year! Now here, have another.'
I started my year off with a 'Woot', quite literally, spending the last few hours of 2006 with Ben, Amy & Clare. It was a good night - laughs a plenty (always a certainty with Clare), great dinner from Amy, and Dame Edna Everage impersonations by Ben (we played Cranium).
But that's all quite distinctly in the past now, and what follows is another 12 months of persevering with the Gospel for the sake of Christ, and whatever else we might get up to behind the scenes.
I still have two more weeks before starting work at the Hospital, and am slowly saying goodbye to the last decent holidays I'll ever have. Not to worry.
Between now and the start of next semester, I'll be joined in my house by Chris (permanent resident), Keagan and Vernon (college students temporarily seeking accommodation in Townsville). That makes two engineers, one pharmacist and one pharmacologist - the battle-lines seem evenly drawn.
Well I'm off to buy a paper to see if my letter to the editor was published - as for the rest of the day, I think some house-cleaning's in order.
Scott
199 comments:
so much for a more regularly updated blog this year... but I guess you've just become a full time worker.
Yeps I checked your blog- it was more of the same- no updates- hey what do u guys says we get like a conversation happening here- don't tell scoot and we'll see how long it goes for. I pick the topic that the world neads people that have degrees in some sort of science root far more than engineers- med is science. but journalism is not.
Tim, I definitely agree, but I believe the word needs them as opposed to neads them.
And Doctors in the public system don't get paid enough.
I believe also that it is the world who needs them rather than the word...don't I feel like a jackass
well you could argue that the word being Jesus needs them to do his work in preaching the word. However The engineers destroy God's living testimony the environment which is annother avenue of showing the word.
Tim, you would make a marvelous addition to any PR team with that kind of spin on things.
There might be a few jobs going at hillsong possibly with all the press they have gotten :) Did you see that in The Bulletin (not the townsville one) Front page: "Jesus Loves Money: Gospel According to Hillsong. There's a point- Do you think Brian Houstan fits in the Engineering side or science? (head pastor at hillsong)
Hillsong gets a bad wrap for money. There are pleanty of theological problems there, but I don't think money is a major one. Every time I have been to one of their conferences or heard one of their people speak (including Brian Huston) it seems as though they have a very clear idea that money is used for the glory of God, same as everything else in life. And I have never heard "Prosperity Gospel" preached there. "Fulfilment Gospel" perhaps, that is, "There is a God shaped hole in your heart that only He can fill" but thats another issue entirely.
And for the record, Brian Huston is almost certainly Arts. Oh. Low Blow.
I'd probably argue that- I've only been there once but He did say that "If your not making money your sinning and need to consult God why"... I mean it wasn't his main point- just a throw away line but still....
JOURNALISM IS NOT ENGINEERING... anyone who says that obviously doesn't know a lot of about Journalism so they just aren't worth listening to so :P
Actually, I'd almost rather journalism was considered engineering. Science can be very dodgy.
There's a good reason Hillsong get a bad wrap for money - they pretty much launched the prosperity doctrine in Australia - too much focus on the Old Testament blessings to the Jews and not enough understanding of biblical theology for my liking.
Journalism is neither related to science, or engineering - but without journalists nobody would understand the importance of science or engineering - journalism is the only way these fields can connect with the masses.
Journalism takes some of the elements of each field (questions and observes like science does and constructs and applies like engineering does). Journalists are society's gatekeepers - and should be afforded appropriate respect.
Science asks 'Why?'. Engineering asks 'How?'.
Journalists ask 'Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?'.
That's what I learn at school. So go figure. :P
I would say Journalism says "How can I twist these facts to fit in with my/culture/publication's agenda?" Which of course everyone has an agenda (find me a completely un-biased reporter and I'll find you a Liar) Thus Journo are Engineers
Ok about this on- What do you value most about Scooter? That way when he does check this he'll have a warm and fuzzy.
What value most about scooter is that he accepts you for who you are- doesn't judge and just his Godly personality which is a challenge for me.
He puts others before himself
Before I read any more of the comments, just so you know, I've changed my mind. Journalism is engineering.
*goes to read other comments*
Bahahaha. I like Michelle's take on things. Journos are both scientists and engineers! Go us.
As for Scooter, he listens and is interested in what you talk about :)
I think the next topic that needs discussing on this blog is candidates for the worst job in the world.
I recently went up to Wallaman falls camping where they have decomposing toilets (the toilets themselves don't decompose, just the human waste). Apparently every 3-5 years the waste is carried away and used for fertiliser. The guy who does that must have trouble getting up in the morning, even if it only comes around every 3-5 years.
Hey, you never know. Maybe there's this guy out there who tours the country emptying toilets...
Head of the UN
Journalist... just kidding. although what about like editor of a gossip magazine- deciding which stuff is trashy enough to print. what about poeple who check the swers for blockages
my e button is being cranky I of course ment sewers
Is your "a" button being cranky to, and you actually meant to say "meant?"
late arrival to the conversation, but great idea Tim!
If you'll forgive my going back to previous topics and commenting on them all sequentially...
I agree with what you had to say about Journalists Tim, all out to twist things to their own agenda - was hoping someone would say it when I was reading all the posts. Mind you, I have met some that report things reasonably accurately. And despite all their manipulation of things, they make short work of a hard job - making news and boring things vaguely interesting.
As for Scooter...ditto on all the comments. The 3 things I would have said were: Godliness, genuine selfless love for others, and an utmost Gentleman.
As for worst job in the world...being a policeman has probably got to be a pretty thankless job, especially the ones that parole around with their speed camera units. Mind you, I sometimes wonder if some of them don't get some sort of sadistic pleasure out of every person that they book...:)
Journalists don't have an agenda to twist things to. Their editors and sponsors do. They have to write things the way they are told or they get fired. Truly ethical journalists wouldn't go along with that, but most just want to keep their job.
Yeah, I guess you're right Leah. Sorry. I guess it's the journalists that get the flack for it though, because they're the ones more in contact with the public.
The people who have the biggest agenda- more so than sponsors and editors (and the editors only have an agenda to keep these people happy)- are the owners. People like Murdoch. You'll notice all Murdoch's papers say the same thing about the government. Same goes for Fairfax, etc. If you work for a Murdoch (News Ltd) paper, you write things how he wants it, or you get fired (and his eyes in each paper are the editor, hence why I said editors have an agenda. Which is a bit unfair on them too, because really, they're just keeping their job too).
I would dispute that. I maintain there is no neutrality everyone has their own agenda to push just some people push theirs stronger than others and some try to push it down for some stories. (currently I'm biased against journalists :) ) P.S. welcome esther to the scooter blog comments I was starting to think it was just joel, nathan, leah and I with infrequent comments from michelle- hmmm kinda the same as my blog :)
sorry my last post wasn't wrtitten in responce to yours rather at the same time in responce to your previous one.
"currently I'm biased against journalists"
...so is the rest of creation... we're kinda used to it.
Whoops sorry Tim you were right... we were at 30 comments... haha and it was me who was #30 :D
Scooter is going to feel so loved when he finally checks this.
pngI think its one of the girl's turns to pick a topic-
The football!! Aaargh. SO. BAD. And you know what's stupid? The article about the game on the NRL site said the stadium was only half-full. Ok, I know maths is not a journalist's strong point, but COME ON- 17,000 in a stadium that seats 25,000 is MORE than half full!! And really, the Cowboys, what an awful game... grrrr. And I had obnoxious Rabbitohs fans in front of me. Grrrrr.
*end rant* (tried putting that in < > but it was like "Your HTML cannot be accepted: tag is not allowed. Silly Blogger.)
Ok, now for a real topic... global warming. Does it exist, and what's/ who's responsible for it?
Global warming, perhaps there is partial truth in it, but at times I wonder if it is not just a figment of people's imaginations. Things have been known to heat up before (or so I thought I read somewhere)...but if it is happening, well most of the world is responsible for it. And that's my biased, moderately informed opinion that hasn't been much thought out. :)
well on our island in png the high tide water level is about 6 fet higher up the beach than it used to be and on average 4 foot higher so plus lots of coral is dying. Of course this could all be explained away by the fact that there are more fat poeple in the water due to obesity which is raising water levels and temp... (tim is off for a run)
I think global warming is happening, but not to the extent alarmists would have us believe. (ie. I reckon sea levels will rise by a few inches maybe; melting ice caps don't hold THAT much water to make the WHOLE WORLD'S OCEANS rise by 20 feet!!) I also don't think it's really humans' faults. Jupiter is also undergoing a type of global warming, I'm sure that's not our fault :P The sun is, too! Now, there's a thought... maybe the sun's increasing heat is heating up the earth? ;P
I tend to agree with Leah. I think that "Global warming" is a natural process that occurs every few hundred years or so (or maybe longer). Because we as humans have this idea that we are in control of everything (I think because not being in control of something scares us) we think that it is our fault. Of course, if we did it, then there is something that we can do to undo it. If we didn't do it, then we can't change anything and thats much to scary to be acceptable.
We may have had something to do with it, but certainly not as much as people say. And even if we did, well, its a good thing our hope isn't in this world, hey?
Interesting thoughts Joel. I'd never really thought about it that way before but it kind of makes a lot of sense.
Whether or not we had anything to do with it, I don't think there's anything we can do to change it. Maybe stop it getting worse...
Anyhow, who chose a boring topic like global warming? Oh, sorry Leah, it's an excellent topic, I'm sure. :P
Bah. You just think it's boring coz you're boring and uncontroversial.
If you were on death row, and you had one last meal before being executed, what would it be?
I would be torn. On the one hand I could go for something really expensive and delicate, like a filet mignon with a nice bottle of red. On the other hand, I could go for the essential burger experience: Fergberger from Queenstown, NZ. You haven't tasted a real burger until you have been to this place. They taste fantastic and they are about the size of Bert Newton's head.
Wouldn't you ask for something impossible to make, so they spend forever trying to make it, as your last meal, and since you never get your last meal, you never get killed....
Yes, but then you would spend the rest of your days waiting for your last meal and die of starvation.
Bah... there's better alcohol than wine :P *hides from Joel and Andre*
... I have no idea what I'd choose. It would probably be something really boring but yummy... like Subway :D Yeah kidding... hmmm, nope, don't know sorry. Might get back to you :P
All you can eat sea food buffet- That way you can keep going back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and backand back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and backand back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and backand back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and next thing you know it is desert time when you can go back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and also a wine bar where you can go back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and back and next thing you know the execution is delayed until they get the guiness book of records people in to confirm it. Also they'll need a bigger chair, stonger platform, more lethal drugs though i supose thy could still shoot you or make you listen to never ending Cd of Nelly Futado.
Wouldn't an all you can eat buffet be better than a strictly sea food buffet? That way you have more variety.
Ok, next topic, Who Do You Think Will Win The NRL Premiership/Who Will Miss Out On The Final 8/ General Forecast For The NRL Season.
I personally don't know who will win, but I think the Storm, Sea Eagles, Cowboys, Titans, Warriors, Sharks, Rabbitohs, and Team X (maybe the Broncos or Bulldogs if they pick up their game?) will be the Top 8.
Warriors are definitely giving an answer to last season, they had a shocker last year but have played well this year. Rabbitohs have picked up too, and Titans have really surprised me, they are climbing that ladder pretty fast. And of course the Storm, Cowboys and Sea Eagles are the most successful teams in the NRL so far this year.
Broncos will win again. They will pick up their game. They will.
Mmm, I doubt they'll win. There are too many in-form teams for them to battle their way through (Storm, Sea Eagles, Cowboys). Not only do they not have Webcke anymore, but they will probably struggle once Origin comes around (will be interesting to see how the Cowboys cope and what happens with Bowen), and I'm guessing their morale struggles too.
I saw this and couldn't resist copying it in relevence to a past discussion. Some of you may know joe from NTEs his site is http://joewblogs.blogspot.com/ and well worth a read.
On the Offensive.
Fred Nile is constantly ripped to shreds by the left leaning Australian press. All journalists in this country (with the exception of a couple of columnists brought in to restore the balance - Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devine to name some) are lefty sympathising scum bags who push their hidden agenda to the detriment of good God fearing, law abiding citizens like you and I.
Fred Nile from the Christian Democratic Party (CDP) cops a barrage of criticism from these political low lives for showing some good Australian common sense on immigration and values. The CDP is the educated person's Family First - in my opinion FF don't go far enough to promoting Australian values - they are in fact unAustralian. Nobody can accuse the CDP of having poor political priorities or misplaced values systems.
These wacko nut job communist ferals should move back to their marijuana smoke filled humpies in Nimbin and leave running the country to admirable characters like Fred Nile who will uphold the common beliefs we should all have as Australians. Muslims are subverting the things we hold dear - like the ability to eat regularly killed meat straight from the slaughterhouse and walk around like uncovered meat - as it is our prerogative to do as Australians. Good on him for speaking out - and the more stupid people he offends the better I say... Until next time - rack off lefty scum - and vote Liberal - we put the fun back into economic fundamentals.
Storm. due to the lack of rep forwards and how nobody picks players from down south for origin games- think how long Cameron smith had to be the best dummy half before picked for Aussie.
Tim, you make me laugh.
On to the footy.
Billy Slater, Greg Inglis, Matt King, and Cameron Smith are all Storm/ Origin players.
The Storm have a good chance but I don't think it's because of a lack of their players going to Origin.
Go Marrons.
Go Cowboys.
Ok, that’s my football enthusiasm over for the month.
Anyway, onto other things… Ever heard of the Canavan disease? It’s a genetic disease that gives you brain damage…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canavan_disease
And do you know how annoying it's getting scrolling from the bottom to the top of this page??
haha... Canavan disease... brain damage hey...
and it's not annoying scrolling to the bottom if you use the scroll bar :P
Does anyone else find it interesting that Michelle was looking up "Canavan?" The only question is, is it Mark or Tim that you are interested in?
Hahaha... hmm, sorry Joel, think you're probably a little off target there... but have fun with your theories while they last ;P
Funny coincidence- our canavans are from the irish side but there is fair bit of mental conditions amound the sydney canavan 3 or 4 generations back. Brian Canavan who is the CEO of the Sydney roosters is one of the few in his family not in mental institute- although with some of his comments you could argue he belongs there
Last meal - the head of my executioner... failing that, his/her hands.
Joe's blog is awesome - anyone with topic suggestions should let me know and I'll pass them on, he's getting a little slack.
Go the Mighty Manly Sea Eagles all the way...
Joe's blog, for the most part, is boring :P
Leah! You take that back! Far right wing fanaticism is NEVER boring!
Joel, if you had an interesting last name, I'd look that up too.
But so Tim doesn't feel too bad: :P
Williams syndrome (also Williams-Beuren syndrome, sometimes called Pixieism) is a rare genetic disorder...
Symptoms:
It is characterized by a distinctive, "elvish" facial appearance, along with a low nasal bridge; an unusually cheerful demeanor and ease with strangers, coupled with unpredictably occurring negative outbursts; mental retardation coupled with unusual (for persons who are diagnosed as mentally retarded) language skills; a love for music; and cardiovascular problems, such as supravalvular aortic stenosis and transient hypercalcaemia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_Syndrome
I do have an interesting last name. Wight has an Isle named after it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_wight
Joel, I think EVERYTHING has an island of some description named after it :P I mean there's Cat Island, Shark Island, Snake Island, Goat Island (10 points to whoever can tell me the other name for Goat Island WITHOUT looking it up AND without hovering over the link to see the address it links to- I might not know if you're cheating, but God will!!- HINT: it's a well known island in NSW), and Green Island. Islands are boring ;P
And as for Joe's blog... it's just mindless ranting :P There's a certain degree of cleverness in there, but I daresay he has an awful lot more he needs to tap into to make a truely entertaining blog. Or maybe it's just a difference in humour. I go more for dry humour, like you'd find on Nathan's blog, Heidi's Space or Scooter's blog (the last two, obviously only when they actually update ;P).
You're just Jealous because there is no famous Williams Island or Leah Island. *Google searches* Okay so there are both but the definitely aren't as cool as the Isle of Wight.
Hence the whole "I think EVERYTHING has an island of some description named after it" :P
Well mine is an English county so there :p
So is Goat Island :P
No, Goat island is part of an English colony, and half of the world has that claim.
Oh soz... when you said Country I thought you said Country :D
*When you said COUNTY I thought you said Country :P
Lol ok Joel... now you get to feel twice as special... not only is there an Isle of Wight, but there is an Isle of Wight Disease... a honeybee disease :D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Wight_disease
Also, in the works of JRR Tolkien, a Wight is "corpses with a part of their decayed soul" (related to Wraiths).
Oh, great, now don't I feel stupid... I was going to wikipedia "Gambling" so Scooter didn't feel left out, seeing as this is his blog... then thought "now I wonder what wikipedia will refer me to if i search for 'Gambling'" :P
Yeah I saw the Isle of Wight disease, but decided since it was a disease of insects it wasn't worth mentioning.
And in my nerdy grade 9 Dungeons and Dragons days, my 4th level elvish cleric often came up against Wights. I was such a cool kid.
Here's a question: if you could go on holiday anywhere in the world (ie. not to Jupiter or something) where would you go and WHY?
Depends how I'm feeling.
If I'm in a sadistic mood I would go to France so I can make fun of them.
If I'm in an excitable mood I would go to Queenstown in NZ and do all the crazy things they have there (Bungee, sky diving, jet boats etc).
If I was in an angry mood after seeing a guy who just had a tripple bipass eating maccas, I would go to the US and yell at the fat people.
If I was in a lazy mood, I would go to South America where they have a 3 hour siesta in the afternoon.
If I was feeling depressed about my height, I would go to China (it would be nice to look down on people for once).
But mostly I really want to go to Canada and go skiing over Christmas, which I'm probably doing at the end of the year!
Woo
*jaw drops* Skiing in Canada!! Sooooo unfair! :( *would love to do so sometime* Other than that, Queenstown sounds awsome too, so I'd have to say NZ would be my choice destination, as it has both snow and extreme sports. ...or Canada.... awww, I don't know. Canada maybe, because I'd be able to (eventually) fund a trip to NZ easilier than Canada, but on the other hand, NZ because of all the cool stuff you could do would end up costing the earth anyway.
...so that's my answer. For today. :P
heh... I just realised... "Scott's Realm of Perpetual Ignorance" is certainly living up to its name... ;D
As for where *I'd* want to go on holidays... I think, like Joel, it would depend on my mood. If it was culture and history I was after, I'd go to Italy, France and Austria. That region of Europe.
If it was fun & adventure I was after, it would be either NZ or Canada.
If it was laziness and relaxation, it would be a Pacific Island (or the Maldives).
I think that pretty much sums it up.
Why not holiday in North Queensland - the tourism capital of the world. All the experiences you're after can be had at your doorstep.
North Queensland is great, Nathan. I've holidayed there many times. But I can see that whenever I want :P
You mean you can (snow) ski and snowboard in North Queensland?!? :P
Of course you can you just have to be creative as you do it- put wheels on skis and go down castle hill- I guarentee you'll get a bigger buzz than you ever will on snow.
Actually Tim, I think I'd disagree. I'm pretty sure I'd get a bigger buzz out of skiing at the snow. There's just something intoxicating about it...
Do you think we should tell scooter about this when it gets to 100 comments?
Well that was Tim's idea, that we'd tell Scooter once it hit the big hundred...
Michellllllllllllllllllllllle.... I hate you! How the hell is reading all this supposed to cheer me up. However....
1) Psychology says you're all absolutely mental.
2) YAY Cowboys! What the heck happened last night... twas embarassing.... GO QLD!!!!!!
3) Island ARE boring...
4) Scott is totally lazier than I am!!! And I now have proof! Let me know when we hit 100 comments so that I can bag that cousin of mine out, k?!!
And that is all I feel I have the time to comment on. I still don't feel much better Michelley, but I have effectively procrastinated away an hour of my study time thanks to this. Cheers for that! :D
-Tenille
this has been sitting on 85 comments for too long...
We need a new topic to get us to 100. Leah, you have what most would call an unhealth obsession with Johnny Depp and POTC. Have you seen the new one yet? What did you think? I saw it last night. What does everyone else thing?
>_> I do NOT have an unhealthy obsession with Johnny Depp. POTC, maybe, but not Johnny Depp. He is superawesome in POTC, yes, but the only other Johnny movie I've seen is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I haven't seen POTC3 but I did see "the making of" the other night (it was only a short, about 20 minutes long, on TV at midnight). I didn't have high hopes for it but "the making of" made me think it won't be as awful as I expected. I think it will be better than #2 but nothing will ever beat #1.
And I want to beat Gore Verbinski over the head for doing a fourth and fifth POTC movie. They are going to kill that movie. In the most painful way possible. PLEASE, JUST LET IT HAVE ITS GLORY... DON'T KILL IT. Aaaaargh.
Second suggested topic for the week... Sally Elisabeth Earnshaw!! YAY!!! May 27th, 1:47pm, 51cm, 9.5 pounds.
hey joel how to the calculate the length of the baby?? what if it curls up say in the fetal position. they could injure it stretching it. Or make thats what the chinese gov do in their quest for the next generation of basketball stars.
What? Measure them when they're a baby?
Sally... I like that name...
And what size is an average baby? What's big and what's small?
Chelley, I think 5 or 6 pounds is average. Joel can correct me if I'm wrong :P
5-6 is a bit on the small side. 7-8 is fairly normal. 9.5 pounds is pretty massive, but she was a week late so that is to be expected.
As for Tim's question, firstly let me say that grammar and punctuation is key. Actually, just proper English would be nice. I think you're asking how does one measure a baby. It is done with a tape measure. Yes you stretch the baby (or straighten it, more accurately), no that doesn't make them taller later in life, and no the chinese will never be good at basketball.
blah i speak 4 languages and can't spell any of them :)
Did anyone notice that with Simeon Walker's initials being SAW and Sally Elizabeth Earnshaw's initials being SEE between the AFES staffworkers we have a See-Saw...
Where do you find the time to come up with this stuff?
More accurately, Sally was almost 2 weeks late (she would have been 2 weeks on Tuesday).
Joel- grammar and punctuation; not key! The only issue we should be concerned with is the gospel. Anything else is just peripheral and NOT KEY...
haha... sorry... that's just what i think of anytime someone uses the phrase "not key" or "key" ;P
Hey, I'll bet Josh Walker will be happy... On kick-off camp, he said he wanted it to be a girl.
Mind, he was also offering to give away his younger brother...
Hey guys... I was wondering...
Tenille, leave your name.
Oooooh goody, it worked that time!!!
Hey I was wondering if, even though I cheated and commented twice, that since you've reached 100 comments, I can now stop worrying about this thing and ignore the link Michelle often sends me randomly, or are you going to aim for 200 now?
-- Tenille (Scott's cousin, btw...)
I sent it too you again because you asked for it. :P
And rather than being anonymous, you click 'Other' and leave your name.... :P
I was like "YAY! Over 100 comments!!" ...then realised it was michelle and tenille purposely trying to reach the 100 >_<
Cheaters :P
It was all Tenille... I was just conversing with her. :)
I think its time for one of us to tell Scott now.
I emailed him and said "on behalf of Tim and Joel" for ya's ;P
I also e-mailed him and said there was a great web site he should look at.
Hmm..
I'm sensing a weird feeling, like you're hinting at me to do something...
..but what could it be?
I'd better go away and think about it.
scooter- did you actually go thru and read all 100+ comments?! (You should, they're funny ;D)
Scooooooooootttteeeeeerrrrrr
He's back.......... I knew he wasn't dead.
OK lets see how many corny quotes we can come up with from movies when people appear alive.
Do you mean appear alive after they have been thought to be dead?
"Quick, Igor, the leaver!!"
"IT'S ALIVE!!!"
"AAAAAAAAS YOUUUUUUUUU WIIIIIIISH"
Yes Joel- Sorry I don't speak doctor :)
Let me try it this way
Ok Finding out, that due to adult baptism, and in particular the goodness of humanity, the person who was chosen by election or suffering limited atonement reappeared by his own free will without any perseverance of the saints. What comments happened due to this inglorious God limiting reserection for all. (wow I speak Baptist) :)
P.S. you know I love you
Oh Tim, I do love it when you put words in my mouth. Its so....whats the word....Presbyterian of you.
Mm.. thanks team. I whittled away my afternoon yesterday, enjoying, being confused by, being fuzzied by, being disinterested by (football) all your lovely comments.
Though to spite you all, I think I've just resolved never to post on this blog again - just see how long the conversation gets going. I think a Guinness world record is within reach, for the most posted responses to a single blog entry.
..at least until Michelle gets RSI from scrolling so much.
As for my quote, how about,
"I thought you were dead!"
"inglorious God limiting reserection"-- *bursts out laughing*
And putting words into people's mouths isn't Presbyterian, having meetings is.
But then again, we might need to form a committee to come to a consensus on that.
Clearly we have to form a subcommittee to nominate the people we put on the committee before bringing it up at a special AGM where we have to have 72% of communicant members.
BTW joel isn't the baptist church actually Calvinist professing in theory?
Aha! See Leah, I'm not the only one who is "disinterested by (football)". :P
And I think 'professional' blogs would entail an extremely high number of comments... would be nice to get a record, though. :D
You know, if this gets long enough, we could print it all out and turn it into a book. *Copies and pastes into Word* It's already over 30 pages...
I think historically it is. Now we just listen to what Jesus says :p.
On a serious note, are you actually a 5 start Calvinist Tim? Leah? Jury is still out for me on perseverance of the saints, and as for limited atonement, I think that is a stupid doctrine that shouldn't even be called a doctrine. Not because its wrong necessarily, but because the bible doesn't say it and it can only cause division.
I'm not a 5 star anything, I'm a Christian.
Do I believe in total depravity? Yes.
Do I believe in unconditional election? yes.
Do I believe in limited atonement? Yes. You have to realise with limited atonement, though, that many theologians agree it is a misleading term, and that perhaps "particular" atonement or "definitive" atonement are better. This particular doctrine is NOT saying "Jesus' sacrifice is only worth the lives of X amount of people", it is saying "Jesus only died FOR X amount of people". The VALUE of his sacrifice is infinite, but the GOAL of it was only for a limited number of people. Which is completely logical if you believe in unconditional election (or the 'p' word :P).
Do I believe in Irresistable grace? Yes.
Do I believe in perseverance of the saints? Yes and no. Another thing you need to realise with this point is that it doesn't mean "once saved always saved". It seems like a direct contradiction to the fact that if someone, who was a Christian, actively lives in unrepentant sin, then they can lose their faith. It seems contradictory, but the guy who spoke at our church camp explained it well. Just one of those things that are in tension in the bible. I used to believe "once saved always saved" but I'm not sure now. As for perseverence of the saints, I think so, but not 100% sure.
Did a quick Google on record blog comments and came up with these guys who were trying to get 2000 comments in one week (but only have 189 and it's been almost two months)(http://blog.payperpost.com/2007/04/largest-blog-comment-chain-world-record.html). But from there found out of a place which regularly get hundreds of comments per blog (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/).
But even there I didn't see anything over 400., although apparently they get 500+. Though that still isn't that much.... I wonder what the real record is. There must be blogs out there with heaps of comments.
Leah, I agree with everything you said exactly. But you didn't answer my objection to the doctrine. My objection is not to the actual content of the doctrine, but rather the fact that it was written. I understand that it was written to refute universalism, but anyone with half a brain knows that that is stupid. I think the doctrine of limited atonement is NOT something that the bible is explicit about or even talks about, and its not applicable. All it can do is cause division. Well, thats where I am at at the moment. Help me to see otherwise.
As for Michelle's point, I know what you mean, but that is being selective about what some parts of the bible say. How do you deal with the many passages in the bible that speak about falling away? Hebrews 6 is a good place to start. I don't think there is a neat answer to this, although if there is I would really like to know!
Most Calvinist would call it particular redemption but then it doesn't spell TULIP but rather TUPIP :) and there are 5 points because these are the 5 points directly refuting the 5 points of Arminius or however u say his name. Is it divisive and controversial YES- but so is the cross and resurrection and many other things that we believe in. Matt 10 indicates to me that God has chosen who he has chosen to save (Keep expanding your objections though)
To back up Leah on Percerverence of the saints- I'm just trying to recall where in the bible it talks about this but maybe our definition of salvation is flawed. Become a Christian isn't a quick on a again off but rather there is the whole aspect of living in Christ and continuing to do so. If our definition is focused on the continuation of a Christ- centered life. But there is define differnce in such verses like "
All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:3-40) and Heb 10:26.
But do we really know who is a Christian? No but God does and thus each of us should "work out [their] own salvation" Philippians 2:12 and "make [their] calling and election sure" (2 Peter 1:10)
Joel, the 5 points of calvinism weren't established for the heck of it. Arminius and his followers tried to get the church to change their teaching to that of Arminius', so the church basically held a massive meeting to debate it (they're presbyterian, i swear they were pressies) called the Synod of Dort. They ended up deciding Arminius' ideas were wrong and would not be taught within their church. In their response, they included their refutations to each of Arminius' points. These responses became known as the Canon of Dort, or more commonly known, the 5 points of calvinism.
So, nobody set out to write a doctrine on limited atonement. It was a necessary rebuttal to someone who wanted to introduce the opposing doctrine into the church.
To Joel, on his comment on Hebrews 6 (NIV):
Hbr 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,
Hbr 6:5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
Hbr 6:6 if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because[fn2]to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.
fn2: 6:6 Or repentance while
If you read this passage with the footnote in mind, there is no problem with it. While someone is actively rebelling against God, they cannot "be brought back to repentance". But perhaps, if they stop this rebellion, they could repent.
Otherwise, without the footnote, you could say it is simply theoretical, in saying that a Christian who has fallen away cannot be saved, *because* a true Christian can't truely 'fall away'. Maybe. That last point is just a suggestion. But the other one (seems to) make sense (to me).
What do you reckon?
Hee hee I got my post in first :D unlucky leah
To Tim:
I know the Gospel is devisive, and it is supposed to be. But the Gospel is "key" and this is not, which is where the difference lies.
To Leah:
I know that they were written as a rebuttal to an incorrect doctrine, but that doesn't mean that 1. the rebuttal itself was correct, or phrased correctly, or interpreted correctly by those who come after, and 2. necessary. From what I understand of Arminius (which isn't much, so correct me if I'm wrong) he was teaching universalism - Christ died for all therefore all are saved, regardless of faith or repentence etc. Limited atonement is NOT the way the bible addesses this issue. The Gospel itself addresses this issue very clearly.
To Michelle:
I don't disagree with your first statement. The second one about the hypothetical isn't right - he wouldn't have said it if it was never going to happen, plus thats a bit cryptic.
I have often understood this passage as being similar in nature to the "Unforgivable sin" in Mark 3 and Matthew 12, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. By rejecting the spirit, you actually reject the Son, which is unforgiveable because you are cutting yourself off from the source of forgiveness.
But regardless of this, the fact remains that the passage says "If they fall away," which implies that one can.
Consider the parable of the sower and the seed (the Gospel). In some people it takes root and grows, only to be choked or whithered. Some might argue that these people were never actually Christians in the first place, but if I understand the rest of the NT correctly, recieving the Gospel makes you a Christian. Whilst Tim rightly pointed out that salvation is continual faith in Christ, there is still one single moment of justification.
But then I come to passages like the ones Tim brought up, and I get stumped. What I want to try and avoid is finding a neat answer to all of this (unless there actually is one, which i don't think there is), because I think the tension on this topic in the scriptures is deliberate. I don't want to change what scripture says, or interpret something in a way that it wasn't meant to be interpreted for my own peace of mind. I'm not for one moment suggesting that anyone who goes one way or the other on this topic is doing that, but it is something we all need to be careful of.
Its an antinomy. I guess we will find out when we get to heaven.
To Joel:
I agree with what you said in your last paragraph. I was thinking about that before, and realised you can twist most things to sound like whatever you want them too.
My second comment could well be completely incorrect, it wasn't well thought through and was just a second thought.
I agree people can 'fall away' and know of people who claim to have done so, but also believe they will be brought back.
And to everyone:
What's the go with the unforgivable sin?
Mat 12:31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Mat 12:32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Is it really inforgivable? Especially in light of verses such as (which specify ALL sins):
Psa 85:2 You forgave the iniquity of your people
and covered all their sins.
Selah
(What is Selah?)
Jer 33:8 I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me.
1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Or is it that someone who "speaks against the Holy Spirit" would never be one of the elect?
Joel- you said yourself you agree with what I said (and therefore, agree with the doctrine). You simply said you didn't think it was necessary to have established it as a doctrine. I explained why it was established as a doctrine, and now you turn around and say well maybe it isn't true. What's your opinion? Is it true or not?
Michelle- The unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the spirit, that is, completely refusing God/Jesus and refusing to trust or submit to him. This is completely unforgiveable, because Jesus will not forgive someone who does not ask for his forgiveness. And before you say "what if they change their mind", the widely-held belief is that someone who truly does refuse Jesus will never change their mind about it. God will harden their heart... remember Pharaoh?
And yeah, your last comment is pretty much true, someone like this would not be one of the elect.
Joel- as for falling away, who said that means a permanent, denying God type "falling away"?
Joel, here is something to think about- Bruce Christian, the speaker on our church camp, said you cannot believe in "some" of the 5 points of calvinism. If you believe in one, you have to believe in the others because they all fit as one. I coudl go into further explanation of it if you need me to...
Michelle, Selah is generally thought to be a musical term (because many of the psalms were songs.) Sorry for all the additional comments!!! *goes away now*
haha sorry about this Scooter, I don't know if you even know Janel, but I'm going to say it anyway coz I know other readers of this blog do know her ;)
YAY, Janel Brown (nee Schwartz) had a baby girl this morning (3:30am!!), Emily Ronel, 2.4kg, 44cm, just under 7 weeks early.
Another girl! ;) I think we're breaking this trend of "boys first" ;P
I'm currently read the new Adrian Plass book and he has some definitions that i think would help us a great deal (I'm still only in the Cs)
Backsliding: activity shared by wavering Christians and Penguins. Both likely to get into deep water as a result, the difference being the penguins look forward to doing it again a little less than the Christians.
Baptist Church: denomination in which one senses there is an awful lot going on under the surface.
Calvinists: Christians whose theology suggests that they might not bother to book their hotel rooms in advance when planning a holiday because they are absolutely convinced that someone else will have done it for them, and if they haven't there's no use in trying.
Change: rare phenomenon as far as the church is concerned, except when it comes to the collection. Tends to be fairly limited even then.
Tim:
Thats hilarious. I love it.
Leah:
I don't have a problem with limited atonement in the way you explained it, but that is the first time I have heard it explained that way.
And Where did you tell me its purpose? I'm still thoroughly unconvinced that it is an issue that the bible deals with.
As for the 5 points of calvanism being and all-or-nothing thing, I think thats a total load of rubbish. I understand the sentiment; God is sovereign and He dicates everything to do with out salvation. But Calvin isn't infallible - you can use a correct logic and come up with an incorrect conclusion. Watch:
The bible says I'm saved by grace through faith alone.
Therefore I don't have to do anything good.
Therefore I will be bad so that grace may abound.
Paul deals with this kind of logic in Romans 6-7. I'm not saying that this is what Calvin is doing, all I'm saying is that its giving Calvin a bit too much credit to say that if you believe any of his points you have to believe all of them.
But all of this rises and falls on whether or not LA is spoken of in the bible. Show me where the bible says it and I will cease my objections entirely. Because as I see it at the moment, if the bible says it then its worth talking about. If it doesn't then we are wasting our time on something that will only cause division.
As for the falling away thing, I think in the context of Hebrews 6, and being "brought back to repentance" it is a denying God falling away. It has been a long time but I'm fairly sure that the greek word for falling away there (which I think is different to the word used in the parable of the sower, incidentally) means something closer to apostasy. You might want to check that though.
To Michelle:
The unforgiveable sin is a tricky one but I do agree with Leah. Think of the role of the HS to bring people to God - to give them faith, grant them repentance and give them regeneration. Without the HS, there is no salvation. Someone can deny the Son and the HS can bring him to see the error of his ways. But when someone denies or blasphemes the HS, that man is unforgiveable because he is cutting himself off from the source of forgiveness. Does that make sense? It has been said that if that man then comes to Christ, the HS has obviously worked in his life, and therefore will be forgiven. I'm not sure if that man would ever be brought to repentance though, which was Leah's point of the HS hardening the heart. Thats definitely a tricky one but I think I agree with Leah.
Whoa Joel... you said "It has been said that if that man then comes to Christ, the HS has obviously worked in his life, and therefore will be forgiven. I'm not sure if that man would ever be brought to repentance though..."
Are you saying Jesus can forgive someone without them being brought to repentance?? Uhh, in short, I would say, "Wrong!" We *must* be repentant.
Also, I didn't explain the purpose of limited atonement... i explained why it was established as a doctrine. It was in response to its opposite doctrine, thought up by Arminius. Arminius came along and said "I think we shoudl teach THIS..." and the Synod of Dort met and discussed and then said "We are not going to teach that, because we believe it is not true, and that THIS is true..." and explained, for each point Arminius raised, what they felt the truth of the matter was.
"Limited atonement" was not established for the heck of it. It was established to explain why the church was not going to teach Arminius's theory on that topic. I was under the impression you had no problems with the doctrine itself, except for the fact someone had bothered to actually establish it as a doctrine... so i explained *why* it was.
And as for this logic...
"The bible says I'm saved by grace through faith alone.
Therefore I don't have to do anything good.
Therefore I will be bad so that grace may abound"
That is actually correct logic, to a certain degree. Just because something is correct doesn't make it GOOD... "everything is permissable" but not everything is good. It is true that we don't *have* to do anything good and that being bad will require grace to abound :P That doesn't make it right of us to exercise that.
And it's not a matter of "believe one (Calvinist point) you have to believe all"...well, it is, but not that simple. It's not to do with "God is sovereign and He dicates everything to do with out salvation."
It's a matter of, they fit together like jigsaw pieces. One naturally flows on to the other. Sure, Calvin might have gotten certain details wrong. But as general concepts, i think they're basically right.
And as for how I explained limited/particular/definite atonement... that's the only way I've ever heard it explained :P (Granted, I've only been learning about it specifically for, like, a year.)
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well.
Are you saying Jesus can forgive someone without them being brought to repentance?? Uhh, in short, I would say, "Wrong!" We *must* be repentant.
NO! I'm not saying that at all. What I was saying is that it is the role of the HS to bring someone to repentance. If someone rejects the HS, then they reject the source of forgiveness. HOWEVER if that person then accepts the HS (and along with Him, all that He does), I'm sure God would forgive that man. What I'm not sure about is whether or not the HS would actually grant that man repentance and so recieve forgiveness (the whole hardening of heart thing).
As for the purpose of LA, it might be fair enough, but let me raise a couple of objections based on an assumption that I may need to have corrected.
Assumption: The main teaching of Arminius that LA was meant to oppose was universalism.
Now, Limited atonement deals with that. My issue is that it isn't how the bible deals with it. The Gospel makes it very plain, that if you accept Jesus, you are saved, and if you don't you aren't. Its that simple. Why make a doctrine of LA when it is so obviously written right there in black and white?
And you're still yet to give me a bible passage that speaks to limited atonement :)
HOWEVER if that person then accepts the HS (and along with Him, all that He does), I'm sure God would forgive that man. What I'm not sure about is whether or not the HS would actually grant that man repentance and so recieve forgiveness (the whole hardening of heart thing).
*Frowns* I'm still a bit lost. You appear to be saying that God would forgive the man who accepts the HS, but you don't know if the HS would make him repentant, and so harden his heart. That doesn't make sense. If his heart is hardened, then he woudln't be accepting the HS, and therefore, wouldn't be forgiven. And I thought we both agreed that he *must* be repentant to be forgiven.
Ok, well, in case I didn't explain LA very well last time, the basic point of it is God has, since the creation of the world, chosen out for himself from the mass of fallen humanity, from every tribe, nation and tongue, a people to be his very own.(Unconditional Election.) To accomplish their salvation, he sent his son Jesus into the world to die for their sin as their substitute on the cross. (Yes I nicked that explanation from somewhere :P).
Defining the terms:
ATONEMENT: the action by which sinful men, alienated from a holy God because of their sin, are reconciled to him.
LIMITED: refers only to the INTENDED DESIGN of Christ's work of redemption, not to its CAPACITY to save sinners, nor to the SCOPE of its influence among men.
The guy who wrote this points out that there is a limit on atonement in both Arminian and Calvinist theology. For the ARminian, there is a limit on its effectiveness (because evidently, not everyone ends up turning to Christ, so the atonement cannot be completely effective); for the Calvinist, there is a limit on its extent.
Now, to me, I think this is a matter of logic... if Christ had died with the intention of saving all, surely all woudl be saved. But we know this isn't true. If Christ had died with the intentino of savign all, surely the HS would act in all lives, and we know because of the doctrine of "Irresistable Grace" no-one could resist the HS, therefore all would be saved. Not to mention, the idea of some being hardened to the HS, or predestination, etc, would be shot down. (I guess this also explains how the points of calvinism tie together).
As for bible passages, the main one we looked at if I remember correctly was Ephesians 1:3-10, but to me, it is simply logical. (Now that I explain it to you again it makes even more sense to me).
I'm not gonna try to explain the first thing again, I will just explain what I mean when I see you next. I can see why you are misunderstanding what I'm saying but I can't think how I can word it to make you get what I mean.
As for the logic thing, I think that can be dangerous in an issue like this. Logically if God so loves the WORLD, and its not the will of God that any should be lost but that all should come to repentance, and that God's grace is irresistable, then logically all should be saved. But we know that isn't how it works. Its an antinomy: there are two seemingly opposed ideas that DO fit together, even if we can't puzzle it out.
As for Ephesians 1, I can see where you are coming from, but let me think about it a bit more. Certainly in the sense that you have explained it; that is, Christ's sacrifice is only effective for those whom He will choose, but is still open to everyone. I think I'm starting to see your point. Let me mull over it.
It depends what you mean by Christ's sacrifice is "still open to everyone." I don't think I'd say "open"- that means it gives everyone the chance of salvation when we know from unconditional election that isn't quite accurate. The value of Christ's sacrifice is infinite, and if he so chose, it would be capable of saving everyone in the world. But we know from unconditional election that he hasn't so chosen that... hence the concept that his sacrifice was simply for those he *has* chosen.
Now Leah, you must be procrastinating your study young lady! Two comments before lunch time in swot-vac....tsk tsk.
I'm quite certain this could go on forever, Scooter.
I think sccoter is trying to make a stand- so when he posts- lets ignore that post and keep chatting on this one. (reverse psychology)
And here's you moment of Zen
Sin against the Holy Spirit: there is now widespread agreement among scholars and theologians that this is almost certainly either Scrumping, or failing to fill the ice cube tray after making a cold drink.
Shakers: members of an American Sect who, one assumes from the their title, not only wanted to be the salt in the world, but had found a way of distributing it.
Hmm.. if you'd all done the last bunch of comments as 'five lines max' posts, we'd surely have that record by now.
PS. Mr Canavan, when I want to take a stand, I'll call upon my friend, 'Mr Delete Button'. There's no ignoring him.
Ahh Calvinism... the Christian Clayton's debate (the debate you have when you're not having a debate).
Calvinists, hyper Calvinists and Presbyterians - all too eager to beat others over the head with their doctrines, confessions and catechisms. And I should know... but I would only call myself a 3 point Calvinist - I'm sold on total depravity and half sold on the rest.
There's an old saying that a proof text without context is a pretext to a sub text - or that if you're getting your evidence somewhere that it isn't you're just faking it to back up your views...
Which brings me to Ephesians 1 and 2 and their long held position as base 1 for limited atonement.
Ephesians 1 suggests irrefutably that God calls his people. But Paul makes a clear distinction between the Jews (plural first person pronouns - us, we) and the gentiles (plural second person pro noun - you). We, he says, were chosen (elected) before the creation of the world (verse 4) and predestined as adopted sons through Christ Jesus (verse 5) as the first to believe to the glory of God (verse 12)... the Gentiles (or you) weren't included in Paul's logic until verse 13 - and the idea of preordained election isn't as prevalent - rather the logic suggests it's a grafting in, or an addition to the elect and that salvation revolves around hearing the word and responding. Interesting stuff methinks - and reading Ephesians like that certainly made some sense to me and seemed to fit better with a contextual understanding of who Paul was and who he's writing to.
Nathan, how does the idea of Gentiles being a grafting in prevent them from also being elected? Of course they were elected, all Christian were, there are bucketloads of references all over the New Testament about it.
Oh, and in reference to your comment "Calvinists, hyper Calvinists and Presbyterians - all too eager to beat others over the head with their doctrines, confessions and catechisms."
You will notice it was Joel who started this discussion. Nobody is beating anybody else over the head with their doctrines... we explained them only when somebody ASKED.
NEXT!!
What was the best and worst of this semester for everyone?
GO QUEENSLAAAAAAAND!!!!!!!!!
Annnnd, that's this months footy enthusiasm...
At the Risk of being dubbed Senor Scooter hmm my best and worst.... I really enjoyed a goal i scored in soccer but i dunno if it is the worst- How about u guys tell me what was the best u saw me and the worst- (I wont get offended)
le boo... here i am, sitting in brisbane, not doing very much today... :P So anyways yeah won't be around much while I'm away. Have fun ^_^
My best and worst of for this semester... ummm... wow that's hard why did I choose it? :P Worst would be having to spend most of my holidays away!! (particularly my stoooopid intensive subject >_<). Best... umm.. having only 3 subjects? Reaching the 2 year mark with Andre? That would probably have to be it actually... I don't really know :P
Alright Scooter... I think this has well and truly come to a stand still... you can post new blogs now!! *hint hint*
You seem to be good at that, Tim. :P
hey it worked you came to the site and saw that there was a new message and opened the comments only to be disappointed.
Of course I'm good at it is there anything i'm not good at?
Let me rephrase that- Is there anything important that i'm not good at?
humility :P
Rubbish I'm the most humble person i know
go to bed joel
Tim. You obviously check this site way too regularly.
What are you talking about I haven't checked it for a week
So I noticed. Funnily enough, it seems no one else has either. ...thoses slack people who stayed in Townsville. :P
Great camp, hey?
Learnt lots (even though it doesn't really yet apply to me in very many ways, yet still in some), made friends, got to know people better, annnnnd in general, just had fun.
My legs are still sore. I'm so unfit. :P
Since we aren't getting our pigeon facts from our normal source- hint hint. have a look at this http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_016.html
Ok, why do you think oigions bob thier heads? All of the above? Or does anyone have any new theories for us to contemplate and consider?
Michelle, I do believe they're "pigeons", not "oigions".
Oh, look. I am human after all.
:P
I don't want a pickle.- (guess next line)
I don't want no pickles, I don't want no honey,
I just want a plate and a fork and a bunny!
- Veggie Tales, The Bunny Song
I don't need a tissue when my nose is runny
I just want a plate and a fork and a bunny...
Hi Scooter!
Scott - on the off chance that you actually read this, do you know how you are related to donna? Or to the Dearness's (however you spell it)?
Saying related, I'm speaking very loosely. Through a bunch of marrages etc, I'm related to you. Did you know that?
Is anyone else here related to anyone surprising in the methodist/uniting/presbyterian church in Townsville? I might be able to connect you up into my crazy "family tree".
Oh, and by the way, we're "related" to Talia, too.
I Think its safe to say i'm not related to anyone here :) although there are canavans in home hill
In fact Woody was going out with one. :) Just think I could have been related to Adam wood, scary thought isn't it Matty :)
You know what's scary? Katy Prideaux is engaged to Simon Frewenlord!
Once they're married, my crazy family tree will be going aroung in circles...
I'm not implying anything. I'm simply stating facts.
Tim: "Inbred" is when two people from the same family marry each other.
Not when a person from one family which married another family which married another family which married another family which married another family which married another family marries someone from that last family :P
Alright. That's 180 comments now.
NEW BLOG.
*Yawn* True. This is getting tiring.
able to join facebook but not post... shame scooter shame.
...
Just to see who still checks this...
What is everyone planning for Chistmas? I'm heading of to NTE, then through to Tasmania (Four Australian capital cities in one holiday. Beat that! :P ). Should be heaps of fun. What about the rest of you?
same- We'll i'm going to melb for january- going to The Phantom of the Opera- tennis and having ally and shaun visit me. :D
Sounds like fun. I'm off to have lunch and then go pack...
Why does life have to be so busy?!? :( It's holidays!!!!
:P
Have a great Christmas everyone. :)
MUST REACH 200
That's a high goal to set, Tim.
It's not really a high goal if people who still check this write a couple of lines. That's my contribution towards 200. :)
Fair enough. I didn't realise that anyone really still bothered. :P I thought since it had slowed down so much, there wasn't too much hope of it speeding up again...
Yes, I can understand your thoughts. I did give up checking as regularly since things had slowed down...
Anyway, only 10 more comments to go now, though who's counting? :P
yes there was always hope though. but maybe- we shall over come...
Just trying...
Yay!! It worked!! I haven't been able to comment on this for over a week! I'd begun to think it had blocked me out somehow.
Anyhow, now that everyone's going to jump on and be dissappointed that it was just one person commenting twice... I'll be leaving. :)
i was devastated
yay! 4 more comments. I figured it would have to be you two, Michelle and Tim. :) This is a pointless post, but anyway, now only 5 to go! :)
sorry, I meant a pointless comment...
Well, it can't have been too pointless, as our point is to get to 200...
And Tim, don't lie.
why would I lie michelle?
I mean I check this quite regularly and I thought there was some stimulating repotee. (or however you spell it
WooooHooooooo 200 posts. wow its a party, maybe scoot could do a post in celebration. Is that too much to ask?
...speaking of people commenting twice...
Tim, for Scooter, yes, I think it is.
I think we were the death of this blog (assuming it wasn't dead already).
LOL... I've joined this post about 2 years too late... but it was very entertaining!! Well done team...
203 posts - hurrah!! :)
Post a Comment