new Pepsi can

[doechsle]

 I hear Pepsi is coming out with a new can that is supposed to be patriotic with the American flag and the pledge of allegiance,which is good. But I also hear that they ommited the phrase "under God" in it , they don't want to offend anyone. Well I guess they didn't realize that the Christians just may be offended. This politically correct crap is getting out of hand. I am sick of this crap. These people that our EFFING Judges are so worried to protect by removing out 10 commandments and God out of everything knew that America was based and built under God. If they don't like it get the Hell out! I am so sick of the way my tax money is spent on taking away my priveledges and giving to people who would just assume kill us off. I guess in God we trust will be next coming off our Dollar bills. I wanna puke!

[ChargerRob]

 

[41husk]

If anyone no longer wants there money with "in god we trust" printed on it, please send it to me.  I don't care what it says on it as long as they take it at the parts store  

[RD]

 

[Andrew]

If they don't like it get the Hell out! I am so sick of the way my tax money is spent on taking away my priveledges and giving to people who would just assume kill us off.

They pay taxes too ya know (most of them) and not all non-christians are out to kill everybody.

[Old Moparz]

It's just a friggen can of soda, drink some beer & don't worry about it.  

[41husk]

It's just a friggen can of soda, drink some beer & don't worry about it.  

[Vainglory, Esq.]

I wrote a paper last night on Keith Donnellan's and Saul Kripke's distinction between the referential and attributive uses of definite descriptors in non-assertoric sentences, and I happened upon this website while doing a little research.  It's a propos for those who were wondering.

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/thoughs_on_the_.html

[4402tuff4u]

On all your correspondence/mail you send out such as bills, letters, cards, etc..., write in the back "In God We Trust"!

[41husk]

I wrote a paper last night on Keith Donnellan's and Saul Kripke's distinction between the referential and attributive uses of definite descriptors in non-assertoric sentences, and I happened upon this website while doing a little research.   It's a propos for those who were wondering.

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/thoughs_on_the_.html

Whaaaa

[Vainglory, Esq.]

Oh just read it.

[bull]

There's a little truth and a lot of BS in this story: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/undergod.asp

[bull]

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/thoughs_on_the_.html

That was an over-philosophised and verbally-bloated attempt at sounding intelligent. But it's more likely written by some college student (or old hippy) after several bong hits while sitting alone in the dark on his computer listening to Green Day. Case in point: "So these advocates want to force atheists to make themselves irrational. And they want to force teachers to issue commands that their addressees should regard as automatic failures." No dude, we just want you to sit down and shut your mouth if you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance. Or simply close your mouth and skip the beat that includes the words "under God" and leave the rest of us alone. These knuckleheads really do think there's a conspiracy to control their minds, don't they? Why would we try to control their minds when they can't even do it themselves?

['CUDA360]

I don't care what they do with their "cans" 


Just don't change my Mountain Dew 

[Vainglory, Esq.]

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/thoughs_on_the_.html

That was an over-philosophised and verbally-bloated attempt at sounding intelligent.

You're entitled to the rest of your opinion, but I thought this was funny.   It's not over-philosophized at all, as the referential/attributive distinction is a basic idea in systematic philosophy.   It's also not verbally bloated at all, since dealing with systematics requires a very tight and careful use of the language.   After all, when analyzing what, exactly, the language means, you cannot have extraneous words or any ambiguity from verbal bloat.

I think you're just not used to it - not to mention the fact that you completely missed the point of the article while trying unsuccessfully to tear down its linguistic constructs and making completely unfounded and ridiculous assumptions about hippies and bong hits (anyone who's just hit a bong will be entirely unable to deal with systematics).

Don't take this personally bull (not that you won't), but seriously, I just posted that because I thought it was an interesting point of view that people here wouldn't have considered before.   I was trying to add a dimension to the discussion and you respond by getting your panties in a wad.   Why assume that every article you don't agree with is taking a personal swipe at you?   Why respond with personal swipes of your own?   I know you've mentioned on many, many (many...) occasions that you're older than I, but seriously... grow up.

[Carlwalski]

Powerade Rules. 

[greenpigs]

I don't care what they do with their "cans"  


Just don't change my Mountain Dew  

I like Coke Classic, pepsi is to syrupy.

[Charger_Fan]

Budweiser.

[andy74]

fuck pepsi

[70 Battle Horse]

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/thoughs_on_the_.html

That was an over-philosophised and verbally-bloated attempt at sounding intelligent.

You're entitled to the rest of your opinion, but I thought this was funny.   It's not over-philosophized at all, as the referential/attributive distinction is a basic idea in systematic philosophy.   It's also not verbally bloated at all, since dealing with systematics requires a very tight and careful use of the language.   After all, when analyzing what, exactly, the language means, you cannot have extraneous words or any ambiguity from verbal bloat.

I think you're just not used to it - not to mention the fact that you completely missed the point of the article while trying unsuccessfully to tear down its linguistic constructs and making completely unfounded and ridiculous assumptions about hippies and bong hits (anyone who's just hit a bong will be entirely unable to deal with systematics).

Don't take this personally bull (not that you won't), but seriously, I just posted that because I thought it was an interesting point of view that people here wouldn't have considered before.   I was trying to add a dimension to the discussion and you respond by getting your panties in a wad.   Why assume that every article you don't agree with is taking a personal swipe at you?   Why respond with personal swipes of your own?   I know you've mentioned on many, many (many...) occasions that you're older than I, but seriously... grow up.

I can sum up that mental masturbation with this......."It depends on what your definition of iIS is"

[bull]

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/thoughs_on_the_.html

That was an over-philosophised and verbally-bloated attempt at sounding intelligent.

You're entitled to the rest of your opinion, but I thought this was funny.   It's not over-philosophized at all, as the referential/attributive distinction is a basic idea in systematic philosophy.   It's also not verbally bloated at all, since dealing with systematics requires a very tight and careful use of the language.   After all, when analyzing what, exactly, the language means, you cannot have extraneous words or any ambiguity from verbal bloat.

I think you're just not used to it - not to mention the fact that you completely missed the point of the article while trying unsuccessfully to tear down its linguistic constructs and making completely unfounded and ridiculous assumptions about hippies and bong hits (anyone who's just hit a bong will be entirely unable to deal with systematics).

Don't take this personally bull (not that you won't), but seriously, I just posted that because I thought it was an interesting point of view that people here wouldn't have considered before.   I was trying to add a dimension to the discussion and you respond by getting your panties in a wad.   Why assume that every article you don't agree with is taking a personal swipe at you?   Why respond with personal swipes of your own?   I know you've mentioned on many, many (many...) occasions that you're older than I, but seriously... grow up.

Oh look, another over-philosophised and verbally-bloated attempt at sounding intelligent.

[doechsle]

 hey who "F ed " up my thread??

[Old Moparz]

hey who "F ed " up my thread??

Like I said, it's just a friggen' can of soda.

[Vainglory, Esq.]

http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/05/thoughs_on_the_.html

That was an over-philosophised and verbally-bloated attempt at sounding intelligent.

You're entitled to the rest of your opinion, but I thought this was funny.   It's not over-philosophized at all, as the referential/attributive distinction is a basic idea in systematic philosophy.   It's also not verbally bloated at all, since dealing with systematics requires a very tight and careful use of the language.   After all, when analyzing what, exactly, the language means, you cannot have extraneous words or any ambiguity from verbal bloat.

I think you're just not used to it - not to mention the fact that you completely missed the point of the article while trying unsuccessfully to tear down its linguistic constructs and making completely unfounded and ridiculous assumptions about hippies and bong hits (anyone who's just hit a bong will be entirely unable to deal with systematics).

Don't take this personally bull (not that you won't), but seriously, I just posted that because I thought it was an interesting point of view that people here wouldn't have considered before.   I was trying to add a dimension to the discussion and you respond by getting your panties in a wad.   Why assume that every article you don't agree with is taking a personal swipe at you?   Why respond with personal swipes of your own?   I know you've mentioned on many, many (many...) occasions that you're older than I, but seriously... grow up.

Oh look, another over-philosophised and verbally-bloated attempt at sounding intelligent.

I'm not going another 15 rounds with you.  I posted something that I thought would add an interesting dimension to the conversation and you come back with a stupid comment about hippies and bongs.  I'll let people draw their own conclusions.

[Shakey]

I'll let people draw their own conclusions.

I already did!