Gogo jili 777,Makakuha ng libreng 700pho sa bawat deposito

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:14:55 +0000

Thanks for the tip!

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:45:20 +0000

Videos have been linked, but I haven't had a minute to look at them...

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 04:19:14 +0000

I know what you mean. I was being a bit sarcastic. But I do think there is truth in that kind of “weaselly” talk. It could give the sense that there is more going on here than meets the eye. And it forces one to question whether our own personal experience is a trustworthy guide for what everyone else ought to believe.

Glad you’ll be coming back. Always looking for more conversation partners here.

By: Fred

Fred — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:16:59 +0000

Thank you for the welcome! I’m interested in the range shown in your articles. I think I’ll be returning often.

I wouldn’t say “we think about our personal experiences differently” – too weaselly for me. I prefer the plain spoken even when I disagree.

By: Nathan

Nathan — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 12:39:05 +0000

Perhaps you can say, "We think about our personal experiences differently." Thank you for visiting here! Also, thanks for the list of other posts about the event on your blog (the correct link is here).

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:59:28 +0000

Personal experience, yes. But what can you say to someone who discounts even their own personal experience? No wonder Walker Percy put aside demonstrating the existence of God and instead set about to demonstrate the self and its problems (Lost in the Cosmos). As Theophilous of Antioch wrote: “You will say to me, “Show me your God.” And I tell you, “show me first the man who is in you, and then I will show you my God.”

By: Nathan

Nathan — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:14:01 +0000

Personally, I agree with you! My discussion of Novak’s book, linked to in the post above, makes clear that I am in favor of dialog, which is what Albacete is attempting. By speaking of Albacete as a “wimp,” I refer to how he came off compared to Hitchens in the overall performance. My sarcasm should be clear when I suggest that the “ill-formed quandary” came off free-from self-defeat. But maybe it’s not!

By: Kim

Kim — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 13:58:58 +0000

Why is Albacete a wimp? Because he didn’t come out like a bully, wanting to pulverize and demonize Hitchens?

Hitchens was clearly unprepared for Albacete and he was rendered impotent by the Monsignor’s temperament.