The Grub Street Plumber's September 2007 Archives

« August 2007 | Main | October 2007 »

September 30, 2007

iPhone silliness...

This next quote is the best parallel of how I feel about this whole iPhone silliness.

"When they bought the iPhone they knew it only used AT&T for a carrier. No surprise there.

When they signed the end user agreement they agreed not to hack the iPhone.

When they hacked the iPhone they broke the end user agreement.

They downloaded the update, after Apple warned hackers not to do so, They applied the update even though they were not entitled to do so having broken the end user agreement.

An illegal hack, an illegal use of Apple's update and a bricked iPhone that Apple is not responsible for in any way, shape or form."

--Al

(Source here.)

As near as I can tell, those who have hacked the iPhone have broken their promise. You know, the end user agreement? (PDF file.)

"Except as and only to the extent permitted by applicable law, or by licensing terms governing use of open-sourced components included with the iPhone software, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the iPhone Software, iPhone Software Updates, or any part thereof. Any attempt to do so is a violation of the rights of Apple and its licensors of the iPhone Software and iPhone Software Updates. If you breach this restriction, you may be subject to prosecution and damages." (Source here; PDF.)

Posted by Carl at 09:04 PM | TrackBack

One thing is clear anyway: both Democrats and Republicans want to continue the War in Iraq.

Otherwise, how could they do this.

"The Senate agreed on Thursday to increase the federal debt limit by $850 billion -- from $8.965 trillion to $9.815 trillion -- and then proceeded to approve a stop-gap spending bill that gives the Bush White House at least $9 billion in new funding for its war in Iraq." (Source The Nation.)

As far as I'm concerned, their words be damned. What I mean is this.

If a congressman--some of whom are women--voted for continuing this war in Iraq, but they continue to say they are against this war; well then, there is only one proper theological response. Their words be damned. Their words can be and are damning; their actions damn them.

Hat tip Outrageous, but Hopeful Asininity.

Posted by Carl at 01:30 AM | TrackBack

September 28, 2007

Another good reason to vote...

Because sometimes your representatives don't.

(Hat tip: Josiah.)

Disgusting!

Posted by Carl at 11:39 PM | TrackBack

September 25, 2007

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: is there any good reason we didn't just throw him in prison?

No, no. Even though America--our own friggin' country for pete's-friggin-sake-- is accused by this criminal of being "criminal"; and even though Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to wipe Israel--read: God's CHOSEN people--off the face of the globe; the rubes at Columbia wanted to let him lecture their students.

"Hello Handbasket? This is Hell. Your cleared to land."

Where's Special ops when ya need em?

Sheesh.

Linkage:

VOA News
New York Times
Jerusalem Post

Posted by Carl at 12:05 AM | TrackBack

September 22, 2007

The most reasonable comment I've read so far about the Jena 6 story.

First, here's a link to the story.

Second, here's the comment.

"The bottom line is that you have one group who did something ignorant and another group who did something illegal. There is no gray area here."

--purplepeep

(Source here.)

Posted by Carl at 09:33 PM | TrackBack

God responds to Dutch Study: Like lying, Lesbianism is still a sin.

A Dutch study concludes that "children raised by lesbian couples are as well-adjusted as those raised in heterosexual families." God weighs in.

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (Romans 1:26,27 NIV)

Of course, there is ALWAYS an escape clause.

Posted by Carl at 09:23 PM | TrackBack

September 20, 2007

It really isn't, is it?

Though I do not generally like forwarded emails, I did appreciate the following email my daughter sent me.

"IT IS STRANGE, ISN'T IT?

Isn't it strange how a 20 dollar bill seems like such a large amount when you donate it to church, but such a small amount when you go shopping?

Isn't it strange how 2 hours seem so long when you're at church, and how short they seem when you're watching a good movie?

Isn't it strange that you can't find a word to say when you're praying, but you have no trouble thinking what to talk about with a friend?

Isn't it strange how difficult and boring it is to read one chapter of the Bible, but how easy it is to read 100 pages of a popular novel or a ZANE GREY book?

Isn't it strange how everyone wants front-row-tickets to concerts or games, but they do whatever is possible to sit at the last row in Church?

Isn't it strange how we need to know about an event for Church 2-3 weeks before the day so we can include it in our agenda, but we can adjust it for other events in the last minute?

Isn't it strange how difficult it is to learn a fact about God to share it with others, but how easy it is to learn, understand, extend, and repeat gossip?

Isn't it strange how we believe everything that magazines and newspapers say, but we question the words in the Bible?

Isn't it strange how everyone wants a place in heaven, but they don't want to believe, do, or say anything to get there?

Isn't it strange how we send jokes in e-mails and they are forwarded right away, but when we are going to send messages about God, we think about it twice before we share it with others?

Made me think.

Posted by Carl at 12:53 AM | TrackBack

September 17, 2007

R. L. Stevenson's Prayer; More silly educators; Illegal Abortions; Baylor, Dembski; etc. Just a few items, that's all.

First off, a nice prayer by Robert Louis Stevenson.

Next, some apparently crazy teacher tries to get parents to renounce their citizenship. (Found here.)

Next, Michelle Armesto was coerced into having an abortion; 'cause it's all about a woman's right to choose, you know.

And finally, Bill Dembski made Baylor faculty angry by disagreeing with the quite obviously false theory that humans evolved from mud. (Okay, okay. Common gene pool. Whatever.) Found at Uncommon Descent.

Oops. Almost forgot the best one: A mother gives up her life for that of her unborn child. Bet you won't find too many liberated women doing that.

Adieu.

Posted by Carl at 09:44 PM | TrackBack

Kyla Ebbert wasn't "too sexy to fly," she was just indecent: UPDATE II.

UPDATE II:

Well, it might have been Kyla's myspace, but it sure ain't now.

Oh yeah, and Southwest decided to reward this grown up little child.(Source.)

Re-friggin'-tarded.

UPDATE:

At least one anonymous comment declares that "She has it pulled down and the shirt was up showing off her stomach on the plane....she flashes us on tv you should have seen it on the plane it was worse." A fellow-passenger perhaps?

Also, I think this might be her Myspace page.

MSNBC ran a story about Kyla Ebbert asking if she was "too sexy to fly." Why?

"...a Southwest employee identified only as “Keith,” who approached Ebbert after she had taken her seat on the plane and was listening to the flight attendants go through their pre-departure routine.

He asked her to step off of the plane and when they were in the jetway, he told her that her clothing was inappropriate and asked her to change her clothes.

“He told me, ‘I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to take a later flight. You’re dressed inappropriately. This is a family airline. You’re dressed too provocative to fly on this flight,’ ” she told Lauer." (Story source.)

Then Ms. Ebbert goes on national television wearing the exact same outfit she wore on that day. The video at that link is 6+ minutes long. Precisely between 00:01:33--and--00:01:34 seconds, Ms. Ebbert "reveals" just why her clothing was declared "inappropriate."

Like I said, I wouldn't call the outfit "too sexy." I'd call it indecent.

Posted by Carl at 09:32 PM | TrackBack

September 15, 2007

Ebay song by Weird Al + 2 Funny Guys = Priceless.

Posted by Carl at 11:50 PM | TrackBack

September 14, 2007

Kathy Griffin: The official rules of Bashing.

This is just too funny.

Remember how Kathy bashed the Son of God? (And even demons believe He's that.) Well apparently what's good for the goose is not good for the gander...

"ATTACKING OTHER USERS:

Intentionally attacking another user is an offense. What an attack is or is not is up to the moderators to define on a case-by-case basis. No case is the same. These actions MAY be deemed attacks (based on context): Criticizing board members instead of ideas. Bashing, name-calling, direct and obvious personal insults, offensive orders, threats, harassment, etc. This includes using offensive images or photos directed towards a member. Be respectful of both members and their opinions. Physical threats are an instant ban offense. (Emphasis Mine; Source: Kathy's Website.)

LOL! But wait, there's more. One must not retaliate!

"RETALIATION:

If you are attacked (see above) do not retaliate. Returning fire may be deemed as an offense itself and usually interferes with the moderators’ ability to act. The best thing to do if you are attacked is to ignore the thread or PM and report the offense. There is then a clear-cut case for us to review." (Emphasis Mine; Source: IBID.)

And don't even think about goading people...

"TROLLING:

Posts intended solely to annoy and/or offend other members by going against the clear nature of the board are not allowed. Derogatory or inflammatory posts about sensitive topics to bait users into responding will be removed." (Emphasis Mine; Source: IBID.)

But Kathy, what should one do who has been attacked? What's that you say? Ban them? Surely not!

"OFFENSE RESOLUTION:

Unless otherwise deemed as a fatal offense (moderator's discretion), a mod will contact a user via PM on the first offense to issue a warning. A user will normally be given a second chance and the benefit of the doubt.

Users must reply to a moderator warning and acknowledge it. Do not ignore a warning.

The second offense in the course of an 8-week period will incur a two-week suspension. The third offense will incur a permanent ban. Moderators reserve the right to suspend users for other reasons at their discretion." (Emphasis Mine; Source: IBID.)

Rules to live by I say. Besides, what she said wasn't planned, right?

"After what happened last year at the Creative Arts Emmys, academy members may have been swayed to vote for Kathy Griffin just to avoid another outburst. Well, forget that. After taking down J.C. in her acceptance speech, she revealed her Emmy plan backstage: "OK, after last year when I flipped off Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, screamed 'I was robbed, you can all suck my d--k' and stormed out — which I still stand by as a funny bit — I thought, how can I top that? So this year if I lose, I'm going to run up anyway, grab the Emmy and then take it until security takes me to Emmy jail. If I win, I have a fairly offensive speech about Jesus. And I hope I offended at least some people." (Emphasis Mine; Source TV Guide.)

September 13, 2007

Kathy Griffin just don't get it.

It probably seems strange to some that Kathy Griffin has blaspemed. To others, it merely confirms what many already know: most people in Hollywood are Bacchanalians. Indeed, who but a riotous and boisterous person would dare tell an alleged God to "suck it"? But such paltry pomposity, in reality, is perfectly suited to sinners. And moreover, there is one point that might be overlooked.

Kathy Griffin is not the only sinner. For though many Christians might pretend it is so, being a Christian myself, I can assure you it is not. I, too, am a sinner. I, too, have blasphemed. And as I pondered the vulgar words of this red-headed hussy, I chanced upon the words of Marcus Aurelius.

"Do not act as if thou wert going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over thee."

Marcus Aurelius, Thoughts, Book IV.

If this is true--and at this point in my life it seems quite plausible--I need not worry about what Kathy Griffin has said. I had better concern myself with how I live. After all, the scriptures I love more dearly than life had already declared the sentiments of Mr. Aurelius: "It is appointed unto man once to die..." And for that matter, empiricism declares the same. But what empirical knowledge cannot declare is what Mr. Aurelius cannot aver. And what Kathy Griffin has denied, is what I have known and, sadly, what I sometimes ignore. For while it is true that we have but one appointment with death, yet something remains:

"...but after this the judgment."

The question is, by whom shall we be judged?

Other opinions on this story:

Posted by Carl at 01:47 AM | TrackBack

September 12, 2007

A Godly man has left the "Land of the dying."

“Now, I know that someday I am going to come to what some people will say is the end of this life. They will probably put me in a box and roll me right down here in front of the church, and some people will gather around, and a few people will cry. But I have told them not to do that because I don’t want them to cry. I want them to begin the service with the Doxology and end with the Hallelujah chorus, because I am not going to be there, and I am not going to be dead. I will be more alive than I have ever been in my life, and I will be looking down upon you poor people who are still in the land of dying and have not yet joined me in the land of the living. And I will be alive forevermore, in greater health and vitality and joy than ever, ever, I or anyone has known before.”

D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.

(Source here.)

Posted by Carl at 05:35 PM | TrackBack

September 07, 2007

New Bin Laden Video: Americans still don't get it.

First, here is an excerpt of what Bin Laden says.

"This war was entirely unnecessary...However, there are two solutions for stopping it. The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you. This is our duty, and our brothers are carrying it out, and I ask Allah to grant them resolve and victory. And the second solution is from your side...So it is imperative that you free yourselves from all of that and search for an alternative, upright methodology...The infallible methodology is the methodology of Allah...I invite you to embrace Islam..."

(Emphasis Mine; Source here; transcript here.)

Second, here is an Associated Press writer's take on what the speech was.

"In a rambling 30-minute speech addressed to Americans, bin Laden references the attacks on New York and Washington several times, almost gloating about policy changes by the U.S. government in response."

(Emphasis Mine; Source here.)

Third, the logical conclusion of considering as "rambling" what Bin Laden says? Mock the idea that Islam is violent.

"...the remark that a devout Muslim candidate "might blow us all up" isn't funny at all, not even if it was meant as a joke (which it doesn't seem to have been.)"

(Quote source here. This guy first said it: "might blow us up"; this guy mocked it.)

Finally, remember how Bin Laden offered Americans the chance to accept Islam? It's not mere rhetoric.

"Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them.) And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere."

(Qur'an, Al-Anfal 38,39.)

Bin Laden is only doing what the Qur'an tells him to do. He's offering Americans the chance to become Muslims before he "blows them all up"; or makes the attempt at least.

Islam is emphatically NOT a religion of peace; neither in theory nor in practice.

Posted by Carl at 11:38 PM | TrackBack

September 04, 2007

"Those damn heterosexuals. What is to become of us?" Or, 'This one's for you "Jeb".'

"Those damn heterosexuals. What is to become of us?"

This comment/question was recently posed to me by a friend I like to call Jeb. And other than the fact that there is really no context given, so that I cannot address specifically what he was saying, Jeb does bring up a very interesting philosophical/theological point.

It seems the hetero's are damning us; society that is. With this point I heartily agree. Heterosexual's, and not just the Christians, are damning society as we know it.

We are ignoring God's Law. We are acting towards one another as if we should not really answer to our Creator when once we have died.

Just this evening, I acted in a decidedly uncivil manner toward my wife. Remember now, this is the woman I love. This is the woman I have vowed to stand beside "in sickness and in health." This is the woman who has given me my five children. And yet, contrary to all of scripture, I treated her--not as I love myself--but as if I could not care less whether my prayers are heard or not.

But on to the question. "What is to become of us?"

Well in this situation, Jeb, what will become of me? I'll tell you. I decided to obey God and seek my wife's forgiveness. To this end, I have written her a letter of apology.

As for society and what will become of it: that question is easily answered. The damning actions of heterosexuals--not excepting homosexuals, of course: for we all share in the brotherhood of humanity--these actions will bring the damnation by fire that is promised.

Posted by Carl at 01:18 AM | TrackBack

September 03, 2007

Home Depot Fires Honest Employees.

Absurd. There is no other word for the asininity herein described.

"Bob Stewart said what really doesn't make sense is a termination letter Home Depot gave him and three other employees after they helped police catch the shoplifters." (Source: Koco.com)

One Commentators Statement of a similar firing after the jump.

September 01, 2007

Just one more reason not to give your pet cocaine and benzodiazepines.

There is more to this story, but I'm not allowed to "re-write" or "publish" anything "directly" or "indirectly." So I won't.

Even if this story were about a cat, for example, I couldn't tell you. And I'm not.

I'm so nervous after reading the prohibition, that I scarce know whether or not to link to the story. Just reading "their" story might upset "them." I don't know. For that matter, I don't even know who "they" are; and neither should you.

All you need to know:

1. This is a story; might be false, might be true.

2. This story might be news.

2a. But it might not.

3. Don't ask or tell anyone about "their" story: they don't want anyone to know.

--most important--

4. Don't ask who "they" are; or if "they" like cats.

"Copyright AFP 2007, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium." (Found here)

Posted by Carl at 01:12 PM | TrackBack

Hilliard Davidson High School "suck" prank: Mastermind suspended.

"A high school student has been suspended after tricking the fans of a rival school's American football team into holding up signs that together spelled out "We Suck"." (Source: BreitBart.com)

This is funny. This is genius. But surely it's not worthy of suspension. Who knows, maybe they really do "suck" if they fell for it? LOL! Anyway here's the clip.

Posted by Carl at 12:52 PM | TrackBack