A drunk walks into an upscale pub and, after a while, leans up against the bar.
"A snifter of Louis XIII," he slurs and drops three $100 bills on the bar.
The bartender, taken aback for a moment, looks the disheveled man up and down.
"Big spender!" the bartender says, pouring his drink.
"Life is good," the drunk replies, and promptly tosses back the cognac.
The bartender takes a second look at the man; his hair is a mess and his suit hasn't seen a dry cleaner in a while, and he swears the man smells faintly of urine. Hardly someone who can afford such a fine cognac.
"Inheritance?" the bartender presses.
The man looks up.
"No, no...I bet people. And I always win," the drunk smirks.
"What do you mean always?" the bartender asks.
The drunk takes a moment and looks around the bar.
"Here. You see that glass over there?" He points to a an empty mug of beer at the end of the bar, 20 feet away. "I'll bet you $100 I can piss in it from here."
Impossible! the bartender thinks. "You're on," the bartender says, shaking the drunk's hand (and quickly wiping it off on his apron).
Unsteadily, the drunk climbs up on top of the bar, pulls his dick out and begins peeing everywhere. He stumbles and steps in his own piss, causing him to slip and he plummets off the bar. The bartender looks over the railing and sees the man lying flat on his back, hands flailing, as his piss arcs up into the air and hits him directly in the face. The bartender erupts with laughter at the comical sight, slapping his hand on the bar in triumph.
Suddenly, across the room, a man shouts in anger and rushes the bar. "Are you fucking kidding me?!" he screams.
Surprised, the bartender says "What?! What?"
The angry man points down at the drunk and yells, "He just bet me a thousand dollars that he could piss all over your bar and you'd laugh about it!"

Well, to those who don't realize, Texas is probably doing this kind of stuff just so it makes more sense when they leave the US. Texas is going to be it's own country and probably just kick out everything that doesn't wear a cowboy hat or an apron.

God provides the evidence; that's what I mean about being able to empirically verify my claim. If you want to know if Jesus Christ is God, the way you do that is by praying to Him and asking Him to come into your life. On the other hand, there is no empirical verification for your atheistic naturalism. Its claims are founded upon metaphysical assumptions about reality with no hard evidence what so ever.

If you don't think I am sincere then engage me in further conversation rather than trail me around and say the same thing over and over again. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't sincere.

>> ^kymbos:
Ha! 'Hide behind the apron of true science'. Priceless.
Yeah, @spoco2, stop cowering behind scientific evidence and facts, you big girl's blouse. Be a man like me and believe in something without evidence, then call that belief 'empirically verified'.
I'm still not sure this isn't an elaborate scam. shinyblurry's sincerity, not god's existence. But then, come to think of it...

Ha! 'Hide behind the apron of true science'. Priceless.

Yeah, @spoco2, stop cowering behind scientific evidence and facts, you big girl's blouse. Be a man like me and believe in something without evidence, then call that belief 'empirically verified'.

I'm still not sure this isn't an elaborate scam. shinyblurry's sincerity, not god's existence. But then, come to think of it...

@spoco2

You THINK you know the truth of there even being a god, and you believe you know who this god is. But these are THOUGHTS and are not backed up by ANYTHING whatsoever. 2+2 = 4 is backed up by being able to SHOW it... you can take 2 beads, take another 2 beads, count them, and have 4 beads.

You cannot point at ANYTHING and say 'See, there's my proof that there is a god, he is the one in the bible, and that is true'.

If you prayed to Jesus Christ and sincerely admitted that you are a sinner, asked for His forgiveness and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior, you would come to know there is a God. It is something which can be empirically verified.

And I said that it was fine for you to believe that there was one true god. Go right ahead and believe that you have found that 'truth'. It's your forcing of YOUR belief in this on others, this belief that cannot be shown to be true in any way. This belief of yours that a man who sleeps with another man is damned to hell forever and so should be feared and scorned is horrible.

If it's fine to believe that Jesus is God incarnate, then it is also fine for me to obey His commands, one of which is to preach the gospel. This is a fundamental right that every american has according to the first ammendment. Why should I be censored? You feel free to say what I believe is not correct. Why shouldn't you be censored?

A man who tells a lie, steals something, blasphemes the name of God, or looks at a woman with lust is on his way to hell. One sin isn't necessarily worse than any other sin; the wages of sin is death, and all have sinned. So the man who lies is just as guilty as the man who sleeps with another man. God cares so much about the well being of His Universe that He punishes all sin with eternity in hell. He cares so much about us that He gave His only Son to take our place in punishment, so we could be forgiven and have eternal life. Those who reject His mercy will have to face His justice.

My beliefs, those of science and observable phenomenon, do not say anything about how people choose to live their lives. My morals state that anyone is free to be with whoever they want to. They can live however they want, including believing in an invisible man in the sky with a long, flowing beard, as long as that way of living doesn't try to do harm to others.

You are doing harm to others. Mumford and Sons are not.

Many of your views may hide behind apron of true science, but I can guaranatee you that the presuppositions of your worldview are not based on empirical testing. As far as who is doing harm, if you saw someone in a burning building, would you not stop to try and rescue them? At least one atheist understands this:

http://videosift.com/video/Penn-Jillette-gets-a-Bible

>> ^misterwight:

How does she keep a black apron so spotless around so many cats? That's inconceivable!


That's what the said about Jesus, dude. HALLELUJAH!

Okay, two burning questions:

1. How does she make that trilling sound? That's extraordinary.

2. How does she keep a black apron so spotless around so many cats? That's inconceivable!

Brilliant. I just pan-fried a steak as it is too cold to bbq here in Canada. Hence the stumble upon. I liked the mere-blessing he did with the rosemary. I would like to add that the pepper should not be added til later - as it burns on the pan and tastes less.

*edit - also, wear a bloody apron or you will be soaking your gear in baking powder, or dawn, or whatever gets out olive oil.

woe woe is I, I lost my pants.


**_** UPDATE : at 2:00 pm I found my pants, wrapped in my apron, as it was a buffer between my hot hot soup and my sensitive sensitive naughty bits. **_**

yes, potentially harmful.

but not my number 1 issue at the moment. i'm waffling around with which issue is number 1.

oops sorry, didnt mean to to make this a profile reply.
In reply to this comment by nock:
So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

So we're saying the same thing...? That these are potentially harmful?

>> ^peggedbea:

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

>> ^nock:
These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

you're right. the kvp of a scout film is certainly higher than these images. these images will not penetrate as deeply into the body, but scout films aren't (usually) directed at the entire body. also, at a smaller kvp you get a greater amount of backscatter because the dose isn't strong enough to penetrate the body. backscatter is the reason radiology techs stand behind lead walls, wear lead aprons, and wear dosimeters. and the reason radiology techs who have had cancer are generally taken off the floor and become managers.

even still, i'm not too terribly worried about the radiation issue for most of the general population. you will be exposed to far more radiation during your flight.

but on top of this being a 4th amendment issue, i don't think needlessly exposing the entire flying population of the US to some extra radiation is an effective way to fight terrorism.


>> ^nock:

These scans are different from scout films for CT scanners. Scout films are basically chest xrays. They use Xrays with keV that penetrate tissues. My understanding of these scanners is that the total body radiation may be less, but the amount of surface (read: skin/eyes/testicles) radiation is increased because of the simple fact that the keV is smaller, which explains the UCSF letter regarding concerns for AIDS/cancer patients and the elderly/young. Medical physicists and radiologists are taught very early on that with regard to ionizing radiation, there is no level of exposure at which the risk of harmful biological effects is zero. Until peer-reviewed evidence is provided to suggest otherwise, these scanners should be considered potentially harmful.

lol...new hot kitchen item:
"Rim the Chef" aprons

>> ^Xax:


Uh, it gets cool in the Fall, hellooooo.


Yeah but I see people doing it in the middle of summer when it's 80+ out there, and if it's getting cold then maybe it's a subtle hint that Birkenstock season is over. I live in Minnesota where year round sandal wearing is not recommended.

>> ^00Scud00:

Really, whats the point of a low-cut neckline if you're not looking to show a little cleavage? This and people who wear socks under their sandals, I just don't get it.


Uh, it gets cool in the Fall, hellooooo.