Andy9o8

C-D-G C-D-G Am-Em-Am-Em C-D-G C-D-G There's the entire Bob Dylan repertoire.

Maybe so, but sometimes subjects compel themselves, and "The witness will simply answer the question asked" is not always the best policy. Like when your 10 year old kid calls up from the basement: "Dad, how close can a can of paint thinner get to a burning candle without blowing up?", a responsible reaction on Dad's part should probably be something more than just calling back down, "Oh, I'd say about 30 feet should do it." Must be a lawyer/politician thing; avoid answering the question asked and answer something else instead. Meh. You're spinning.

Sigh. Please stop insulting the intelligence of your audience.

Best I can tell it is not really a court of law. More like an internal review procedure. Although they do call them judges. The trademark was cancelled in 1999 and was overturned on appeal in 2003. And now, the process starts all over. On the bright side, you know who wins in all this, don't you? 3, 2, 1....

if so, that's absolutely inappropriate as a governmental function. we don't need Big Brother making PC, or religious, or moral decisions for private company decisions and branding but nowadays I wouldn't be surprised - it falls over the line into theocracy type behavior and it seems some pigs would LOVE that I agree that a pure view of the 1st Amendment supports what you say - just as, for example, a pure view of it would be inconsistent with FCC regulation or radio & TV broadcasting content. But the practical reality, like it or not, is that some degree of such regulation has been permitted & upheld in the courts.

From the outside looking in, I presume it's more or less for the reason Dan mentions in post #5.

Who says the Washington DC NFL team isn't allowed to be called Redskins? They are allowed to call themselves that, what they have lost is the ability to make a lot of money off the name. Well, in fairness, I do think a reasonable legal argument can be made that that's a constructive denial of a right naturally flowing from intellectual property, and that, as such, it is tantamount, in practical reality, to a prohibition of the possession of that intellectual property. That argument may or may not win the day, but still, it's not a frivolous one.

What is 'the harmony of life'? 60's Motown.

Stop that! You'll get hair on your palms.

This. Everything else is just wanking.

Pope is cool. It is his advisors and Cardinals that are in need of a revamping. Not that I am a student of Catholicism . . . I am very uninformed IMO My thoughts exactly. He seems to have his head screwed on (mostly) the right way. Everyone else in the hierarchy? Not so much. Well when you've got an entire profession (vocation? Whatever) which, thanks largely to the "celibacy" rule, is populated with a far greater proportion of social misfits than the general population, what do you expect? Lawyers LOL

Pope is cool. It is his advisors and Cardinals that are in need of a revamping. Not that I am a student of Catholicism . . . I am very uninformed IMO My thoughts exactly. He seems to have his head screwed on (mostly) the right way. Everyone else in the hierarchy? Not so much. Well when you've got an entire profession (vocation? Whatever) which, thanks largely to the "celibacy" rule, is populated with a far greater proportion of social misfits than the general population, what do you expect?

You forgot to mention that Green Bay promotes the homosexual lifestyle.

Who?

In my church our pastor frequently will choose one or two folks to come up on the platform and give testimony as to what Jesus Christ has done in their lives. When Christians share with other Christians we understand and experience shared joy. Why doesn't personal experience count as evidence? No. To illustrate the point: If, for example,a child's belief in Santa Claus has a salutary effect, like motivating the kid to stop anti-social behavior and to strive to be a decent person, the salutary effect is not evidence that Santa Claus actually exists.

You mean like telling people in this thread who are non co-believers that they're going to hell and are in the same company as Hitler and Stalin? As ye troll so shall ye be trolled.

Yes, of course. Well, now you're just fibbing.

Call it what you want, it's an actual bible verse. Nobody disputes that it's there. The Bronze Age people who wrote those verses very conveniently ascribe super-powers to God, when it suits their purpose, and then ascribe very human, non-deific fallabilities to God when they need to do so to keep people in line - like anger, or jealousy, or offense-taking at petty insults, etc. As it's always been: those who write the rules do so to suit their own self-serving agenda first and foremost. Seems like and excellent moral code so far; almost certainly one that existed in human civilizations all over the world for thousands of years before the advent of monotheism in what we now call the Middle East. For many people, it's the part that presumes to necessarily link beneficial human ethics to a deity or deities. You are now clearly telling your fellow DZ.commers reading this thread who are either non-Christians or non-theists that, by default, they're going to Hell and occupy the same standing as Hitler and Stalin. You're oblivious to how ridiculous you make yourself sound. More to the point: it's very sociopathic.

I gotta tell ya, this isn't even funny. No how, no way. "Be ye not deceived, God is not mocked" You can hardly expect to be blessed if you have a tendency to make wise cracks about our Father in Heaven. The quote you cite notwithstanding, you are anthropomorphizing a spiritual concept.

You should totally stalk them.

So you get stalked a lot?

I swear I thought the thread was about dermatitis and fungicide.

Ya think? The obvious missing option was "Strangle kittens".

Gosh. Call me?

Yeah, you go with that spin; let's see how many folks buy into it. Here's my spin: You could have chosen to sound like a sensible ambassador of the sport, making a well thought-out criticism of his taking legal action. Instead, you dig in, and then dig some more, and perpetuate the whuffos' (a/k/a: potential jurors' and govt regulators') stereotype of skydivers as juvenile neanderthals who can't be trusted to be mature shepherds of the industry. On behalf of those of us who've been trying for the past 30 or 40 years to change that: Thanks so much for your help.