That said, It's also probably a good idea to stay well the f*** away from Ratchaprasong or any other red shirt gathering tomorrow.

Proverbs 22 >> New Living Translation

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.

The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

.

I can't believe that you are trying to sell this biblical nonsense in an essentially political thread. Have you exposed your real motivation - to make Thailand a Creationist Christian country?

Edited May 21, 201214 yr by pastitche

That said, It's also probably a good idea to stay well the f*** away from Ratchaprasong or any other red shirt gathering tomorrow.

Proverbs 22 >> New Living Translation

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.

The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

I can't believe that you are trying to sell this biblical nonsense in an essentiallyolitical thread

I can't believe that you can't see the worthiness of a well-worded proverb, irregardless of it's source.

As an atheist, I don't have any difficulty with it.

Not everyone is a Seventh Day Adventist trying to "sell" you something.

Perhaps more than a few of the 150,000 no-shows at the rally agreed with the concept it expressed.

.

Edited May 21, 201214 yr by Buchholz

"Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra maintained her party always abides by the law while declining to comment on the Democrats' move."

"It is dangerous for a national candidate to say things that people might remember." Eugene J. McCarthy

That said, It's also probably a good idea to stay well the f*** away from Ratchaprasong or any other red shirt gathering tomorrow.

Proverbs 22 >> New Living Translation

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.

The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

.

I can't believe that you are trying to sell this biblical nonsense in an essentially political thread. Have you exposed your real motivation - to make Thailand a Creationist Christian country?

I see no problems with quotes from a recognised source, even if it is a work of fiction. Such as

"The truth. You can't handle the truth." A Few Good Men

That said, It's also probably a good idea to stay well the f*** away from Ratchaprasong or any other red shirt gathering tomorrow.

Proverbs 22 >> New Living Translation

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.

The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

I can't believe that you are trying to sell this biblical nonsense in an essentiallyolitical thread

I can't believe that you can't see the worthiness of a well-worded proverb, irregardless of it's source.

As an atheist, I don't have any difficulty with it.

Not everyone is a Seventh Day Adventist trying to "sell" you something.

Perhaps more than a few of the 150,000 no-shows at the rally agreed with the concept it expressed.

.

We have something in common then - we are both atheists.

Personally I would use regardless rather than the neologism "irregardless".

However, if Phiphidon is to be criticised for use of external sources such as the Guardian then your use of a biblical source and other foreign news sources must be equally deserving of criticism.

That said, It's also probably a good idea to stay well the f*** away from Ratchaprasong or any other red shirt gathering tomorrow.

Proverbs 22 >> New Living Translation

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.

The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

.

I can't believe that you are trying to sell this biblical nonsense in an essentially political thread. Have you exposed your real motivation - to make Thailand a Creationist Christian country?

I see no problems with quotes from a recognised source, even if it is a work of fiction. Such as

"The truth. You can't handle the truth." A Few Good Men

I can't see the relevance of your quote but of course I don't have a military background which I believe is the setting.

Proverbs 22 >> New Living Translation

A prudent person foresees danger and takes precautions.

The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.

I can't believe that you are trying to sell this biblical nonsense in an essentiallyolitical thread

I can't believe that you can't see the worthiness of a well-worded proverb, irregardless of it's source.

As an atheist, I don't have any difficulty with it.

Not everyone is a Seventh Day Adventist trying to "sell" you something.

Perhaps more than a few of the 150,000 no-shows at the rally agreed with the concept it expressed.

.

We have something in common then - we are both atheists.

Personally I would use regardless rather than the neologism "irregardless".

However, if Phiphidon is to be criticised for use of external sources such as the Guardian then your use of a biblical source and other foreign news sources must be equally deserving of criticism.

Perhaps when the Bible starts being quoted as a source for current news, then yes.

.

Of course it isn't so why did you use it? While you're thinking about that can you tell me why the Strait Times is a better news source than the Guardian?

Of course it isn't so why did you use it?

You're really hung up about this, eh?

I posted it because it's a nicely worded proverb that dovetailed very appropriately in replying to Insight's post.

While you're thinking about that can you tell me why the Strait Times is a better news source than the Guardian?

Who said it was?

Of course it isn't so why did you use it?

You're really hung up about this, eh?

I posted it because it's a nicely worded proverb that dovetailed very appropriately in replying to Insight's post.

While you're thinking about that can you tell me why the Strait Times is a better news source than the Guardian?

Who said it was?

Apparently from your frequent use of it, you (well you did ask)

Edited May 21, 201214 yr by pastitche

Of course it isn't so why did you use it?

You're really hung up about this, eh?

I posted it because it's a nicely worded proverb that dovetailed very appropriately in replying to Insight's post.

While you're thinking about that can you tell me why the Strait Times is a better news source than the Guardian?

Who said it was?

Apparently from your frequent use of it, you (well you did ask)

Thanks for at least clarifying that I did not say it and secondly, for clarifying that you deem the posting of 4 articles over a 2 year span containing 10,340 posts as "frequent"....

.

Of course it isn't so why did you use it?

You're really hung up about this, eh?

I posted it because it's a nicely worded proverb that dovetailed very appropriately in replying to Insight's post.

While you're thinking about that can you tell me why the Strait Times is a better news source than the Guardian?

Who said it was?

Apparently from your frequent use of it, you (well you did ask)

When you've dug yourself into a hole, the best advice is to stop digging.

Or start digging sideways, the commonly favored option