[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text]

Feb 17, 2010 08:30 AM
by Drpsionic

They didn't have furnaces to keep them warm.
Chuck the Heretic  

In a message dated 2/16/2010 6:52:40 P.M. Central Standard Time, writes:

obviously you are not a neo-mini ice ager.  Hey those that didn't  migrate, 
froze to death!

>From: "

_ ( _Drpsionic@aol.Drp_ 
( _" <_ ( _Drpsionic@aol.Drp_ 
( _>
>To: _ ( _theos-talk@yahoogrotheos-t_ 
>Sent: Wed, 17 February, 2010  2:51:44 AM
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bad  text]
>Yes, we actually have weather. I remember  in college going to the loop 
>one frigid January morning when it was 20  below and a 20 mph wind coming 
>the lake and when I got off the  train I never felt more alive than when 
>blast hit my  face.
>And they think we will be impressed by a little  snow!
>Fie upon them.
>Chuck the  Heretic
>In a  message dated 2/15/2010 5:47:57 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
>Augoeides-222@ writes:
>Yep,  26 beow zero icy frozen everything, and that wonderful 50 mph breeze 
>blowing acroos thge 1/2 mile of ice on the shore of Lake Michigan  begin 
>reaching any of us chicagoans lol!!! Sbow was higher than I was  when I 
was kid 
>in Chicago. We used to grab a ride and shoe surf on the  ice by holding 
>onto the back bumpers of the cars ! Wheee what fun!!!  And the MONSTER 
>electrical storms amde my mom disappear b_ecause  she was hiding in the 
>And it was estatic to wake up drenched  with wet sheets in the hot summer 
>time of Chicago. I also said "Whats  the big deal?" we had snow like that 
>every year back on the 40-50's!  
>----- Original Message ----- 
>_ (_ ( _http://www.charlesc_ 
(http://www.charlesc/) _<WBR>) _Drpsio
>To: _ (_ ( _http://www.charlesc_ 
(http://www.charlesc/) _<WBR>) _theos-talk@  
>Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 8:14:59 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada  Pacific 
>Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: [bad text] 
>I can remember a number of years where 95% of the US was under  snow and 
>cold so bad it froze the oil in car engines. This year is  nothing. Oh the 
>East Coast had a snow storm and the southerners got to  make snowmen, but 
>from Chicago, I live in Wisconsin and  you ain't gonna impress me with 
>As far as the  planets being aligned with the Milky Way, the planets are 
>always  aligned with something. The Mayans were simply nuts, or is it the  
>folks who are taking them seriously who are nuts? Sorry, I'm not  
>Chuck the Heretic  
>In a message  dated 2/14/2010 7:35:43 P.M. Central Standard Time, 
>_ (_ ( _http://www.charlesc_ 
(http://www.charlesc/)<WBR>) _silva_cas
>Hi Chuck 
>Seeing we have no recorded evidence of all  the planets being in alignment 
>with the Milky Way (which is all the  Mayans predicted) we have no way of 
>knowing what, or cannot predict,  how or if this event will impact the 
>We have had pole  shifts in the past and survived them, we have had ice 
>mini  ice ages, so what I am saying, is not that the earth will be  
>annihlated but what is causing these climatic changes such as 95  percent 
>of the USA 
>under snow? 
>We have  evidence of islands sinking and evidence of mountains reemerging, 
>and  if a chamber was found in the sphinx foot it would suggest that it 
>constructed to hold something which could have been removed. As Cayce  was 
>a christian perhaps the Jesus thing was more about the Christos  thing.? 
>Are there no more clairvoyants left in the TS?  
>In AgnosticsRefuge@ yahoogroups. com,  "HumanCarol" <humanist@> wrote: 
>> > 
>> >  Unable to correctly attribute material to the correct author,  
>mangummurdock <no_reply@> alleged: 
>> >  
>> > > Richard Dawkins argues in Chap 3 of his book "The  Dawkins Delusion" 
>> > 
>> > It  is already know that that is a lie. 
>> > 
>> >  << "it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a `Big Bang  
>singularity' or some other physical concept as yet unknown" to account  
>existence of the universe. The word parsimonious is  meaningless in 
>Whatever it might denote, how could it  be measured? But conjure is the 
>verb, suggesting as it  does both misdirection and inattention. 
>The Big  Bang singularity does not represent a physical concept, because 
>cannot be accommodated by a physical theory. It is a point at which  
>theories give way. Inattention: The physical concept  in which Dawkins has 
>placed his confidence is something that is either  infinite and 
>or otherwise unknown. Men hav_e come  to faith on the basis of far les_s. 
>This is, I suppose, not  surprising. His atheism notwithstanding, Dawkins 
>believes that he i_s  a "deeply religious man." He simply prefers an alien 
>> > 
>> > Why don't you correctly attribute that  passage? 
>> > 
>> > Here is the context and a correct  citation: 
>> > 
>> > ---begin excerpt--- 
>>  > 
>> > > > 
>[Non-text  portions of this message have been removed] 
>[Non-text portions  of this message have been removed] 
>[Non-text portions of this  message have been removed]
>_ (_ ( _http://www.charlesc_ 
(http://www.charlesc/) _ osima
>[Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]

Yahoo!7:  Catch-up on your favourite Channel 7 TV shows easily, legally, 
and for free at  PLUS7.!7:  

[Non-text portions of this  message have been removed]

_ ( 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application