Is it wrong for Christians to use ESP talent/similar?

Wow. You are simply an idiot. I can't think of any other reason you could reason your spelling against all of the obvious faults.

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Wow. You are simply an idiot. I can't think of any other reason you could reason your spelling against all of the obvious faults.

I can - pure laziness.

Linkat wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Wow. You are simply an idiot. I can't think of any other reason you could reason your spelling against all of the obvious faults.

I can - pure laziness.

I agree to laziness,
but not PURELY so.

Is it better to:
1 ) work HARD, in a stupid way
or
2 ) to work LAZY, in an intelligent way ?
For MY part, I 'll take the second
and leave the other to u, since u imply that u prefer hard work.

Sound reasoning requires that we shud all be lazy enuf to avoid useless labor.
No good comes from jamming Ls into wud, cud nor shud,
nor does it benefit anyone to add UGH to the word THO.
We shud not worship wasteful, non-functional traditions; we shud abandon them.
We shud only apply our energy to doing that which is WORTHY of being done.

Preserving the atavistic residue of obsolete forms of English
that reflect its Germanic origins ( like Chaucer 's manner of speach ) is unworthy of our efforts.
In earlier centuries, that spelling is the way words were actually pronounced.
David

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Linkat wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Wow. You are simply an idiot. I can't think of any other reason you could reason your spelling against all of the obvious faults.

I can - pure laziness.

I agree to laziness,
but not PURELY so.

Is it better to:
1 ) work HARD, in a stupid way
or
2 ) to work LAZY, in an intelligent way ?
For MY part, I 'll take the second
and leave the other to u, since u imply that u prefer hard work.

Sound reasoning requires that we shud all be lazy enuf to avoid useless labor.
No good comes from jamming Ls into wud, cud nor shud,
nor does it benefit anyone to add UGH to the word THO.
We shud not worship wasteful, non-functional traditions; we shud abandon them.
We shud only apply our energy to doing that which is WORTHY of being done.

Preserving the atavistic residue of obsolete forms of English
that reflect its Germanic origins ( like Chaucer 's manner of speach ) is unworthy of our efforts.
In earlier centuries, that spelling is the way words were actually pronounced.
David

once again, this is not working more intelligently. you already defeated yourself in a earlier post with reference to spanish. you claimed we should spell more phoenetically, like in spanish, when
spanish is not phonetic whatsoever.

Linkat wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Wow. You are simply an idiot. I can't think of any other reason you could reason your spelling against all of the obvious faults.

I can - pure laziness.

I agree to laziness,
but not PURELY so.

Is it better to:
1 ) work HARD, in a stupid way
or
2 ) to work LAZY, in an intelligent way ?
For MY part, I 'll take the second
and leave the other to u, since u imply that u prefer hard work.

Sound reasoning requires that we shud all be lazy enuf to avoid useless labor.
No good comes from jamming Ls into wud, cud nor shud,
nor does it benefit anyone to add UGH to the word THO.
We shud not worship wasteful, non-functional traditions; we shud abandon them.
We shud only apply our energy to doing that which is WORTHY of being done.

Preserving the atavistic residue of obsolete forms of English
that reflect its Germanic origins ( like Chaucer 's manner of speach ) is unworthy of our efforts.
In earlier centuries, that spelling is the way words were actually pronounced.
David

your friend who is very advanced in the "maritial" arts.

I presume you meant marital. And how do you know he can f**** blindfolded?

As there is no such thing as "ESP talent" the question is irrelevant.

no " radio waves " either; rank superstition


and everybody KNOWS what a hoax that " moon landing " was too