Oh, bullshit.Chizzang wrote:I'm not nearly as smart as you are Joe...JoltinJoe wrote:
And I've never met anyone with more intellect who uses it less than you do. I'd think someone as bright as you would not be so lazy, and would challenge yourself more, to actually learn and engage yourself.
And it is "I'd just stick to your argument if I were you."
and I'm perfectly happy admitting that to anybody on this forum or beyond
Boilerplate Joltian excuses and rationalizations. Love hammering you with the bible.JoltinJoe wrote:Hey, if you think repeating over and over the same distorted and falsified summaries of scripture -- that you've lifted from some dopey website -- helps your case, go for it.
By way of mere example, anyone who actually reads the text of Matthew 15:4-7 or John 7:10 (the same story) is going to understand that Jesus was not saying that disobedient children should be stoned. In this story, the Pharisees criticize Jesus for not complying with the ritualistic washing found in the civil law of Moses, and claim that Jesus is violating the law. Jesus turns the tables on the them, to demonstrate their hypocrisy, by pointing out that the Pharisees disobey the civil law of Moses when they do not stone disobedient children. The obvious point is that the civil law of Moses is neither followed nor the Law of God.
It's exactly like when someone here like dbackjon points out here that some fundies will cite Leviticus to say that gays should be stoned, but then they eat shellfish.
JohnStOnge wrote:Here's the thing, and atheists do this all the time:
They start looking at the Bible and saying that it promotes this and that which is obviously WRONG. But they're in a box because if they're denying anything like God there IS no intrinsic right and wrong so why the hell are they bitching about it?
And yes I know some very complex efforts have been made to argue that there IS an intrinsic right and wrong with something like "God." But there isn't. All efforts in that regard fail.
So they're arguing about an "immoral" God on the basis of morality that can only exist if there is a God or something like that. It's ridiculous.
So make an argument against what I wrote (corrected version above). Or do you agree with it?D1B wrote:JohnStOnge wrote:Here's the thing, and atheists do this all the time:
They start looking at the Bible and saying that it promotes this and that which is obviously WRONG. But they're in a box because if they're denying anything like God there IS no intrinsic right and wrong so why the hell are they bitching about it?
And yes I know some very complex efforts have been made to argue that there IS an intrinsic right and wrong without something like "God." But there isn't. All efforts in that regard fail.
So they're arguing about an "immoral" God on the basis of morality that can only exist if there is a God or something like that. It's ridiculous.
D- you need to quote your source. Someone put a lot of work into that stuff.D1B wrote:Boilerplate Joltian excuses and rationalizations. Love hammering you with the bible.JoltinJoe wrote:Hey, if you think repeating over and over the same distorted and falsified summaries of scripture -- that you've lifted from some dopey website -- helps your case, go for it.
By way of mere example, anyone who actually reads the text of Matthew 15:4-7 or John 7:10 (the same story) is going to understand that Jesus was not saying that disobedient children should be stoned. In this story, the Pharisees criticize Jesus for not complying with the ritualistic washing found in the civil law of Moses, and claim that Jesus is violating the law. Jesus turns the tables on the them, to demonstrate their hypocrisy, by pointing out that the Pharisees disobey the civil law of Moses when they do not stone disobedient children. The obvious point is that the civil law of Moses is neither followed nor the Law of God.
It's exactly like when someone here like dbackjon points out here that some fundies will cite Leviticus to say that gays should be stoned, but then they eat shellfish.
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)
7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18
8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
CID1990 wrote:D- you need to quote your source. Someone put a lot of work into that stuff.D1B wrote:
Boilerplate Joltian excuses and rationalizations. Love hammering you with the bible.
1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever. "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
3b) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)
3c) "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" (Mark 7:10 NAB)
5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole. The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell. (Matthew 5:27)
7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.” This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18
8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law" (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,..." (John 1:17).
NO, you took from somewhere very specific.... commentary and all.D1B wrote:CID1990 wrote:
D- you need to quote your source. Someone put a lot of work into that stuff.
Source = the **** bible, asshole.
It comes from: Evil Bible Dot ComCID1990 wrote:NO, you took from somewhere very specific.... commentary and all.D1B wrote:
Source = the **** bible, asshole.
So fucking what, Rev. Huffhinds? They're cited biblical verses, Fundy Fuck.CID1990 wrote:NO, you took from somewhere very specific.... commentary and all.D1B wrote:
Source = the **** bible, asshole.
Right- but somebody actually made commentary within the verses and they should be credited for that. You did read what you were posting, right?D1B wrote:So **** what, Rev. Huffhinds? They're cited biblical verses, Fundy ****.CID1990 wrote:
NO, you took from somewhere very specific.... commentary and all.
Yep. I saw the imbedded commentary and just plugged it into Google. I was holding off on saying the source though, hoping D would cite it.Chizzang wrote:It comes from: Evil Bible Dot ComCID1990 wrote:
NO, you took from somewhere very specific.... commentary and all.
section:
New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions...
CID1990 wrote:Yep. I saw the imbedded commentary and just plugged it into Google. I was holding off on saying the source though, hoping D would cite it.Chizzang wrote:
It comes from: Evil Bible Dot Com
section:
New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions...
But then old party pooper Chitz comes along
Good sleuthin, Matlock. Who gives a fuck about the commentary. The dumbass biblical verses were clearly cited.CID1990 wrote:Yep. I saw the imbedded commentary and just plugged it into Google. I was holding off on saying the source though, hoping D would cite it.Chizzang wrote:
It comes from: Evil Bible Dot Com
section:
New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions...
But then old party pooper Chitz comes along
because it was somebody else's clever snarkD1B wrote:Good sleuthin, Matlock. Who gives a **** about the commentary. The dumbass biblical verses were clearly cited.CID1990 wrote:
Yep. I saw the imbedded commentary and just plugged it into Google. I was holding off on saying the source though, hoping D would cite it.
But then old party pooper Chitz comes along
I propose the following rules:Chizzang wrote:One thing I will say about this forum
that I wished would change (or at least shift)
I would like it to be more okay to be wrong
I'm wrong a lot about all sorts of things and it really doesn't matter that much
Those who are then deemed "correct" should know that within 72 hours they will likely be "wrong" again on something else entirely
Kalm and I have an unwritten agreement that seems to work
When he's correct and I change my mind I tell him so / usually by signifying in an offhanded manner that he won this round
We could use a little more of the "Spirited debate rules of engagement"
1) Somebody has to accept the losing side or the losing perspective in order to have a debate
2) Inversely sometimes by default you get handed the winning argument - through no means of your own
Recognizing these things will help everybody just chill out a little
Admitting one is wrong is for pussies and haamasexuals.Chizzang wrote:One thing I will say about this forum
that I wished would change (or at least shift)
I would like it to be more okay to be wrong
I'm wrong a lot about all sorts of things and it really doesn't matter that much
Those who are then deemed "correct" should know that within 72 hours they will likely be "wrong" again on something else entirely
Kalm and I have an unwritten agreement that seems to work
When he's correct and I change my mind I tell him so / usually by signifying in an offhanded manner that he won this round
We could use a little more of the "Spirited debate rules of engagement"
1) Somebody has to accept the losing side or the losing perspective in order to have a debate
2) Inversely sometimes by default you get handed the winning argument - through no means of your own
Recognizing these things will help everybody just chill out a little
JoltinJoe wrote:I propose the following rules:Chizzang wrote:One thing I will say about this forum
that I wished would change (or at least shift)
I would like it to be more okay to be wrong
I'm wrong a lot about all sorts of things and it really doesn't matter that much
Those who are then deemed "correct" should know that within 72 hours they will likely be "wrong" again on something else entirely
Kalm and I have an unwritten agreement that seems to work
When he's correct and I change my mind I tell him so / usually by signifying in an offhanded manner that he won this round
We could use a little more of the "Spirited debate rules of engagement"
1) Somebody has to accept the losing side or the losing perspective in order to have a debate
2) Inversely sometimes by default you get handed the winning argument - through no means of your own
Recognizing these things will help everybody just chill out a little
(i) When a guy says there is a type of mustard tree which grows in Israel which is large enough to support birds, and then posts a picture to prove it, he wins.
(ii) When Chizzang and kalm post in the same thread, we all lose.
(iiI) When others start posting in a D1B/JoltinJoe thread about who won the argument, then D1B and JoltinJoe win.
This is true. D1B and Joltin Joe are the only two motherfuckers on cs.com worth following. We work the hardest to entertain you plebians and all we get is your derision. You should be paying us or at the very least, honoring us regularly.JoltinJoe wrote:I propose the following rules:Chizzang wrote:One thing I will say about this forum
that I wished would change (or at least shift)
I would like it to be more okay to be wrong
I'm wrong a lot about all sorts of things and it really doesn't matter that much
Those who are then deemed "correct" should know that within 72 hours they will likely be "wrong" again on something else entirely
Kalm and I have an unwritten agreement that seems to work
When he's correct and I change my mind I tell him so / usually by signifying in an offhanded manner that he won this round
We could use a little more of the "Spirited debate rules of engagement"
1) Somebody has to accept the losing side or the losing perspective in order to have a debate
2) Inversely sometimes by default you get handed the winning argument - through no means of your own
Recognizing these things will help everybody just chill out a little
(i) When a guy says there is a type of mustard tree which grows in Israel which is large enough to support birds, and then posts a picture to prove it, he wins.
What actually happened: Joe gets punked when he pulls a bullshit verse out of the bible and erroneously draws a parallel to the creation of the universe, when actually it concerns the growth and spread of the church. D1B, referencing Mustard Joe's quote, reminds him that mustard seeds are 1. not the smallest seeds in the world (you'd think God would know this already) and 2. the resulting bush from the Black Mustard seed is a small, structurally weak herb that cannot support a bird nest, unless of course the bird was Joltin Joe.)
Mustard Joe, sounds the alarm at his law office and all hands are on deck at Dewey, Cheatham & How! His paralegal finds an obscure writing from a 19th century apologist claiming the herb in the biblical verse is actually the "Toothbrush Tree"
Several people chime in to inform Mustard Joe that he is also a whackjob.
(ii) When Chizzang and kalm post in the same thread and refute Mustard Joe, Mustard Joe goes off and personally attacks everyone and tries to steer the argument to the litany of bullshit dogma classes Mustard Joe took at a hardcore catholic college.
FIFY
(iiI) When others start posting in a D1B/JoltinJoe thread about who won the argument, then D1B and JoltinJoe win.
Joe's original source, that he now claims the Black Mustard seed is invalid.The plant referred to here is generally considered to be black mustard, a large annual plant up to 9 feet tall,[2] but growing from a proverbially small seed[2] (this smallness is also used to refer to faith in Matthew 17:20 and Luke 17:6). According to rabbinical sources, Jews did not grow the plant in gardens,[2] and this is consistent with Matthew's description of it growing in a field. Luke tells the parable with the plant in a garden instead; this is presumably recasting the story for an audience outside Palestine.[2]
I. Howard Marshall writes that the parable "suggests the growth of the kingdom of God from tiny beginnings to worldwide size."[2] The Parable of the Leaven (which in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke immediately follows) shares this theme of large growth from small beginnings. As with the Parable of the Sower, which in Matthew and Mark occurs earlier in the same chapter, the man sowing the seed represents Jesus,[3] and the plant is the Kingdom of God.
The nesting birds may refer to Old Testament texts which emphasize the universal reach of God's empire,[4] such as Daniel 4:12. However, a real mustard plant is unlikely to attract nesting birds,[3] so that "Jesus seems deliberately to emphasize the notion of astonishing extravagance in his analogy."[4] Other commentators have suggested that the birds represent Gentiles seeking refuge with Israel[5][6] or the "sinners" and tax collectors with whom Jesus was criticised for associating.[7] A few commentators view the birds negatively, as representing false teachers invading the church.[8]
Some have identified a "subversive and scandalous"[6] element to this parable, in that the fast-growing nature of the mustard plant makes it a "malignant weed"[6] with "dangerous takeover properties".[6] Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (published around AD 78) writes that "mustard… is extremely beneficial for the health. It grows entirely wild, though it is improved by being transplanted: but on the other hand when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it, as the seed when it falls germinates at once."[9]
Ben Witherington notes that Jesus could have chosen a genuine tree for the parable, and that the mustard plant demonstrates that "Though the dominion appeared small like a seed during Jesus' ministry, it would inexorably grow into something large and firmly rooted, which some would find shelter in and others would find obnoxious and try to root out."[7]
Wikipedia Dickhead - LSD1990
^ Gospel of Thomas: Lamb translation and Patterson/Meyer translation.
2.^ Jump up to: a b c d e I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A commentary on the Greek text, Eerdmans, 1978, ISBN 0-8028-3512-0, pp. 561.
3.^ Jump up to: a b John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A commentary on the Greek text, Eerdmans, 2005, ISBN 0-8028-2389-0, p. 551.
4.^ Jump up to: a b Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, Eerdmans, 1997, ISBN 0-8028-2315-7, p. 526.
5.Jump up ^ Richard N. Longenecker, The Challenge of Jesus' Parables, Eerdmans, 2000, ISBN 0-8028-4638-6, p. 141.
6.^ Jump up to: a b c d Michael F. Bird, Jesus and the Origins of the Gentile Mission, Continuum, 2006, ISBN 0-567-04473-4, pp. 73–77.
7.^ Jump up to: a b Ben Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A socio-rhetorical commentary, Eerdmans, 2001, ISBN 0-8028-4503-7, pp. 171–172.
8.Jump up ^ Herbert Lockyer, All the Parables of the Bible, Zondervan, 1988, ISBN 0-310-28111-3, p. 188.
9.Jump up ^ Pliny the Elder, Natural History, translated by Harris Rackham, Loeb, 1950, Book XIX, Chapter LIV.
From Old Dominion Universityn Matthew 13:31-32, Jesus said that the mustard seed was “smaller than all other seeds,” but that when it was full grown, it would be large enough for birds to nest in its branches.
Today, we know that there are seeds even smaller than the mustard seed. For instance, the orchid seed is so small and fine that it’s almost dust-like. There are those who would also question whether a mustard seed could ever grow into a tree that is large enough to hold a bird nest.
Joe, you should formally request a tuition refund from Fordham. Lemme know if you need help drafting it.Mustard in the teaching of Christ
The Lord Jesus is the perfect Teacher! Through parables, He was able to present profound spiritual truths to simple people. His examples were always relevant and He was quick to identify with His audience by using familiar examples from everyday life. The mustard plant, mentioned only in the New Testament, is one of these examples. It would have been abundantly clear to Jesus' audience what He meant - they had asked questions about the tares, but not the parable of the mustard seed. For modern, western readers the parable of the mustard seed may be harder to understand. While mustard is one of the best known of all Bible plants, there is no indication of how ancient Hebrews actually used it(3). From interviews of Palestinian farmers, it seems to follow that they use the seeds or eat the vegetative portions of the plant similar to ways we have seen relatives of mustards used in Jordan(4). Perhaps the leaves were used as a vegetable like many members of the mustard family, a family which includes such well known plants as cabbage, turnips, and broccoli.
Botanical problems: what is meant by mustard?
The Greek word for mustard is sinapi (Matth. 13:31; 17:20; Mark 4:31; Luke 13:19; 17:6), and the Hebrew equivalent would be chardal. Mustard would be, according to Theophrastus and Pliny(5),grown in gardens, but would not need any cultivating, as it sprouts all by itself (nulla cultra, quoniam semen cadens protinus viret).
The Jewish tradition (in the Mishnah(6)), however, states that it is not a garden vegetable, but that it is grown in fields. It has been suggested that Salvadora persica is meant(7) as the Arabs are reported to call this tree chardal. But there are very strong arguments against this thesis. First, Salvadora persica is a shrub very much unlike any member of the mustard family. Second, it is never cultivated although the shoots and leaves can be eaten by humans and camels(8). Third, it has a very restricted distribution in the Holy Land, being found only in deserts. Lastly, the fruits are large and would hardly fit the picture of being among the smallest of seeds as the imagery intended by the parable. The most probable candidates which remain are the black mustard (Brassica nigra), the white mustard (Sinapis arvense or Sinapsis alba) and possibly Sinapsis jun cea All four belong to the Cruciferae (also known as the Brassicaceae), the mustard family. All four have small seeds and are characterized by rapid germination and seedling growth and are annuals which flower in the late spring. Modern commercial mustard is prepared by grinding the seeds of black and white mustard and mixing them together.
Fonck(9) quotes Maldonatus about his findings in Spain as to Sinapsis: In calidioribus locis longe supra humanan staturam assurgit, ut ubi copia est, silva esse videatur. But it can (as Bruijel rightly remarks(10)) hardly be yellow mustard, as this is not sown in gardens or fields. So the logical conclusion seems to be , as many experts agree, that the parable points to Brassica nigra.
The seed of both black and white mustard is similar in size, about 1.0 to 3.0 mm (1/8 inch)(11) so it is not the smallest seed but it is the smallest seed of those which "you plant in the ground" clearly indicating that the Lord was not comparing the mustard seed to all plants but only to those which were commonly grown. There would be numerous plants familiar to His audience with smaller seeds, of which the best example would be the seed of the black orchid. But there are few plants which grow so large in one season as a mustard, and few plants would be characterized by such rapid germination of the seed. Mustard planted one day could begin growing the next.
A grown black mustard would still be a herb, botanically speaking, but sometimes a very big herb, popularly considered a shrub. There are wild mustard plants over ten feet tall near the Jordan River, and even in moderate climate a mustard plant may grow that tall, provided it gets enough sunshine. It must, moreover, be remarked that generally trees in most parts of the Holy Land do not reach a large stature. The stem of a mustard plant also becomes dry and wood-like, which gives it the aspect of a tree. Many have pointed to another problem: that this plant, or any mustard, could not support roosting birds. It seems questionable whether the Gr. Kataskènoun has to mean this, as many have thought, partly also on the argument that kataskènoosis in Matth. 8:20 & par. does unquestionably mean "nest."(12) But a very important point is overlooked: by the end of the summer, when the plant has reached its peak in growth, the time for building nests is long past.(13) The word may simply mean 'rest' or 'lodge',(14) which is the more probable as Mark 4:32 says 'under its shadow.'
In summary, the three features of the mustard plant emphasized by the Lord are the small size of the seed, the large size of the plant in relation to the seed, and the rapid growth. This will help us as we consider the controversies that have arisen as to the exegesis of this parable.
Get your tuition back, Joe. Lemme know if you need help. I'm sure you aint the first one to ask.JoltinJoe wrote:
So, in sum, given there is a mustard plant variety which grows in Israel and answers to the description of the parable, it is obvious to any thinking person that this is the variety to which Jesus was referring.
Why do you want to prolong your misery??
D1B wrote:BTW, here's what the "D1B Alert - Joe is ****" Alarm sounds like at Dewey, Cheatham & How:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9azjzhoL670[/youtube]
"All hands on deck, D1B spotted in the area with a checkmate response to one of my lies! Jane, you're on Biblical plants. Steve, I want you to find out everything Matthew said about the Black Mustard - I want you shitting mustard seeds the next time I see you. Phil, get on the horn to our Pittsburgh office and find out who took lead on that Heinz merger and have him get one of the propellar heads in mustard production on the horn with me, STAT! Corrine, call Father O'Brien at Fordham and find out how the hell could this even happen - a UNI Grad nailing me to the wall! I want answers people! Paul, call Jake from State Farm - I noticed he had a mustard stain on his kahkis, find out if he knows anything. I'm headed down to the Bronx Deli and see if those **** jews know anything, they got me into this **** to begin with! Chop, chops assholes, my internet reputation is at stake"
You resort to delusionary tactics. Your arrogance wont allow you to admit your first attempt to save face backfired, and your second made you the fool you are.JoltinJoe wrote:D1B wrote:BTW, here's what the "D1B Alert - Joe is ****" Alarm sounds like at Dewey, Cheatham & How:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9azjzhoL670[/youtube]
"All hands on deck, D1B spotted in the area with a checkmate response to one of my lies! Jane, you're on Biblical plants. Steve, I want you to find out everything Matthew said about the Black Mustard - I want you shitting mustard seeds the next time I see you. Phil, get on the horn to our Pittsburgh office and find out who took lead on that Heinz merger and have him get one of the propellar heads in mustard production on the horn with me, STAT! Corrine, call Father O'Brien at Fordham and find out how the hell could this even happen - a UNI Grad nailing me to the wall! I want answers people! Paul, call Jake from State Farm - I noticed he had a mustard stain on his kahkis, find out if he knows anything. I'm headed down to the Bronx Deli and see if those **** jews know anything, they got me into this **** to begin with! Chop, chops assholes, my internet reputation is at stake"
I don't need to resort to diversionary humor tactics because I'm right.
But very funny stuff there. Good work. You're not so good on facts, but you are very funny, like the Class Clown who never had the right answers, but could make a joke out of it.
Maybe someday, Fordham can be as good.
