tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post116931797174287129..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: End of a bad weekPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169597854223166452007-01-23T16:17:00.000-08:002007-01-23T16:17:00.000-08:00PS As for immersing myself in historical theology,...<B>PS</B> As for immersing myself in historical theology, I'm finishing Justo Gonzales' "Story of Christianity" for the second time, recently read "The Mosaic of Christian Belief" by Roger Olsen, have been working through Luther's sermons, and reading Augustine's City of God. Doing all of that reading is very difficult with my schedule, so the progress is slow. But I also incorporate historically representative commentaries into the book I'm studying (Chrysostom, Calvin, Hodge, etc). In any case, familiarizing myself with church history is a conscious goal of mine.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169597272110963032007-01-23T16:07:00.000-08:002007-01-23T16:07:00.000-08:00I really appreciate your kind candor. I wish you c...I really appreciate your kind candor. I wish you could give me a list of questions the answers of which would expose those elements about my spiritual and intellectual trajectory that so disturb you. I know that I've found much more to appreciate in some corners of the theological landscape that you don't think are worthwhile vacation spots, but I haven't relocated to these places and I don't think I've come back with any dangerous diseases either doctrinally or spiritually - and if I have I honestly don't know what they are.<BR/><BR/>As for my "appallingly blithe openness to bad ideas that come with an impressive academic credentials", I think you'd be surprised at just how little tolerance I have for navel gazing. It's only when I can see a direct line between what I'm reading and its potential to illuminate Scripture or facilitate churchly holiness that I entertain academic books. I read them looking for very specific help. My brother is at Yale, and I can tell you that I wouldn't last two minutes there - not because I don't think I could hack it (though I probably couldn't) but because of my scorn for the smarmy rejection of Biblical faith (he has his frustration too). <BR/><BR/>You're completely right to say that I typically initiate these exchanges, and I totally agree with the fact they've often been disrespectful and sarcastic (though surely this isn't true in every case). <BR/><BR/>As for being avuncular, please, for the sake of the children, put the sweater away. We can debate without always being worried about hurt feelings. If Brian McLaren is the poster-child for the sort of "dialog" you think I'm advocating, I agree with its unsoundness. What has been a frustration for me, though, is the innuendo that because I haven't roundly condemned the same people/groups/dangers you see facing the church I must lack a certain theological haleness. Worse yet, the charge of duplicity that always seems to surround your comments - as though I'm somehow not <B><I>really</B></I> interested in the Truth, the Bible, the Church, the Gospel, doctrine, exegesis, etc.<BR/><BR/>Trying as hard as I can to not sound like a psychotic ex-girlfriend here, please tell me what it would take to prove to you that you HAVE misjudged me on matters of theological orthodoxy? More specifically, <B><I>What propositions, doctrines or practices do I affirm that you would reject which would also place me outside the bounds of trustworthiness and orthodoxy? Or what propositions, doctrines or practices do I reject which you affirm that would place me outside the bounds of theological acceptability?</B></I> <BR/><BR/>I think the posts on my blog show that I'm not itching for theological argument for any other reason beyond the sober and valid ones. Can you point to where I appear to be engaged in a disingenuous brain game instead of addressing real theological issues/problems? <BR/><BR/>What if I post a favorable review of "Evangelicalism Divided" (I did enjoy it, by the way) - would that do it?Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169594813787147932007-01-23T15:26:00.000-08:002007-01-23T15:26:00.000-08:00Raja: "I'm not sure we've ever had anything like "...<B>Raja:</B> <I>"I'm not sure we've ever had anything like "dialog", and I suspect that it's because I don't qualify as a dialog partner in your mind, being the freewheeler you take me for. I'd only point out all of the places I've agreed with you, deferred to you, apologized to you, or expressed appreciation for you compared to your record on that score and ask that you modify your cynical picture of me a bit."</I><BR/><BR/>1. Raja, I like you. I appreciate your wit and intelligence, and on some occasions I have even greatly admired your persistence.<BR/><BR/>2. Truly <I>honest</I> "dialogue" needn't always be warm and affable and affirming. You and I <I><B>have</B></I> dialogued, unless you are working with some definition of <I>dialogue</I> that rules out candor and strong disagreement. There's no reason why dialogue can't even include (when warranted) a dose of pique or frustration in addition to lighthearted repartee. See: it's not <I><B>every</B></I> kind of "conversation" that I'm "not a big fan of" (or else I would have turned off the comments here long ago). But what I distrust and despise is <A HREF="http://phillipjohnson.blogspot.com/2005/11/cant-we-all-just-get-along.html" REL="nofollow">the brand of conversation</A> that demands some fundamental level of unconditional affirmation as the price of entry to the round table.<BR/><BR/>4. As for you personally, I'll repeat: I sincerely do like you. But I am also genuinely, seriously concerned about your spiritual and intellectual trajectory. Some of the ideas that seem to intrigue you most are the very trends that disturb me most. I also think you have an appallingly blithe openness to bad ideas that come with an impressive academic imprimatur. I am not particularly keen to give you any kind of encouragement in those directions. So you're not going to hear many "attaboy"s from me on those issues, which, after all, tend to be the very issues you comment about.<BR/><BR/>5. Seriously, now: Are you claiming that my impression of you as a freewheeler is merely a cynical misjudgment on my part with no real basis in fact? I would genuinely love to be shown wrong on that, but it is the impression I get from reading your posts and comments. You really should be better grounded in historical theology before you immerse yourself so deeply in all the theological fads of the moment.<BR/><BR/>6. That being said, I do wish our occasional encounters were friendlier, and I have indeed tried to make them friendlier. But let's be honest: most of our exchanges have been initiated by you, over something you disagree with. And (even taking into account your occasional concessions and expressions of regret) will you seriously argue that as a rule you have expressed your disagreements here with genuine respect and without sarcasm or condescension? You set the tone of our interaction from your very first post, and aside from some occasional fine tuning, your tone hasn't really changed significantly from then until now.<BR/><BR/>7. Still, here's my promise to you: I'll work on being more avuncular in my replies to your remonstrations. Perhaps I'll even put on a Brian-McLaren-style sweater before I answer your next wisecrack. Just don't expect me to adopt a McLaren-style paradigm in my thinking.<BR/><BR/>8. And the day when you come to our meta having read, say, Thomas Boston or Andrew Fuller, and wanting to have a serious discussion about the historical parallels between the doctrinal controversies they were embroiled in and the issues on the table today—that's when I'll give you the benefit of the doubt whether your itching for theological argument has some sober and valid reason, as opposed to a mensa game based on current theological fads.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169588175485938852007-01-23T13:36:00.000-08:002007-01-23T13:36:00.000-08:00Doesn't my crappy google search at least show that...Doesn't my crappy google search at least show that Michael was wrong about the ratio? Throw me a bone!Adam Omelianchukhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02962074536479488859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169587119882576682007-01-23T13:18:00.000-08:002007-01-23T13:18:00.000-08:00By the way - if you want to see me disagree and mi...By the way - if you want to see me disagree and mix it up with other BHT members about the issues, googling homosexuality might be a start. I'm sure many more issues would surface if I read and posted more regularly. All that to say that when issues I care about are raised, I address the there, too.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169586225591635402007-01-23T13:03:00.000-08:002007-01-23T13:03:00.000-08:00does the fact that I not only know who all those p...<B> does the fact that I not only know who all those people are, but also actually noticed that you misspelled "Shahrukh Khan" count for anything?</B><BR/><BR/>It certainly does. Free meal and movie at my mom's house if you're ever in Idaho. Just don't tell her that I misspelled "Shahrukh Khan".Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169586122772629362007-01-23T13:02:00.000-08:002007-01-23T13:02:00.000-08:00Now, here's where I shifted somewhat elliptically ...<B>Now, here's where I shifted somewhat elliptically to a slightly different point. And it's this: I've never once seen anyone at the BHT quibble about whether James White or I have been correctly interpreted or fairly represented in the discussions there. Check out all those disparaging references to "[name deleted]" (and the slightly more oblique references to the massive TR conspiracy that some of the BHT regulars seem to think emanates from TeamPyro). Nearly all of those wisecracks either pass without critical any scrutiny, or (worse) unleash waves of self-congratulatory sarcasm.</B><BR/><BR/>Fair enough.<BR/><BR/><B>if you were genuinely concerned about truth and accuracy in other people's criticism, you'd monitor your own conversations a little more closely and someone (starting with you, I should think, since this is, after all, your main go-to response to every critic) would occasionally raise a peep of protest when Michael (or whoever else has the barroom floor) spews forth with that kind of slanted sarcasm.</B> <BR/><BR/>Well firstly, I don't detect anything in our conversations that reflect deliberate misrepresentation. I'd be happy to be disabused of that, but past attempts at "conversation" have, to my mind, proven the point I made in the originally blogspotted post. I'm not sure we've ever had anything like "dialog", and I suspect that it's because I don't qualify as a dialog partner in your mind, being the freewheeler you take me for. I'd only point out all of the places I've agreed with you, deferred to you, apologized to you, or expressed appreciation for you compared to your record on that score and ask that you modify your cynical picture of me a bit. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, I'd point out that my criticism of your outspoken objection to various topics were never so vague as "you're not getting it right" and have always been followed by some clarification before descending into the abyss of "I know you are but what am I". Many of those criticisms take the form of posts you can find at my blog.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly, to be clear, my objection to your shots at my "moral authority" is that I am responding to issues, not personalities. When I find gross oversimplification and misrepresentation about issues I care about, I never characterized myself as someone fighting the universe for "fair and balanced" coverage of every issue - that's YOUR caricature. I seek to engage the issues that affect me. <BR/><BR/>Fourthly, I'm not aware of any substantial direct interaction with your views at BHT that would fit the bill for misrepresentations, even if I could agree that there have been shots taken at the ethos of your posts.<BR/><BR/>Finally, if you post a picture of yourself in that jacket, striking a similar pose, I'll concede every exchange we ever have by singing the words "Aap hamesa sach ho" while shackled to the exotic beast of your choice.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169584713282526072007-01-23T12:38:00.000-08:002007-01-23T12:38:00.000-08:00PS: Raja, does the fact that I not only know who a...<B>PS:</B> <B>Raja,</B> does the fact that I not only know who all those people are, but also actually noticed that you misspelled "Shahrukh Khan" count for anything?<BR/><BR/><B>candyinsierras:</B> Daler Mehndi has quite a large following even here in the USA. The song I linked to was a <I><B>huge</B></I> international hit in 2000 or thereabouts. For awhile it seemed like you couldn't go anywhere without hearing it. The video is priceless. The other day I noticed <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fSpI4oZoDc&mode=related&search=" REL="nofollow">YouTube has a version with mock English lyrics.</A> Now THAT's humour.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169584132746770442007-01-23T12:28:00.000-08:002007-01-23T12:28:00.000-08:00Raja: "you DID say that something Michael said pro...<B>Raja:</B> <I>"you DID say that something Michael said provides you with warrant for "not taking his patrons (i.e. me) seriously"</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, the several points I made were much more complex than that, and perhaps the way I tried to make them was too elliptical to be easily followed, but it all goes something like this:<BR/><BR/>1. Googling for names isn't going to reveal accurately the number of times James White or the Pyromaniacs have been trashed at the BHT, because you fellows generally like to rubbish us without actually mentioning our names. Google <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-30,GGLJ:en&q=%22name+deleted%22+site:www%2eboarsheadtavern%2ecom" REL="nofollow">that.</A><BR/><BR/>2. I then cited (<A HREF="http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2006/08/14/0643975.html" REL="nofollow">and linked to</A>) one specific but typical instance of where Teampyro was derided at the BHT in a way that would never show up on any Google search like the ones that were being conducted.<BR/><BR/>3. I then <I><B>also</B></I> pointed out that what was written in that instance was a gross misrepresentation of what <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/08/on-new-perspectives-and-such.html" REL="nofollow">the post here actually said</A>--and I suggested that such misrepresentations are typical fare over there. <I><B>Note carefully:</B></I> My complaint is not and never has been merely that we are so often <I><B>criticized</B></I> in the conversation at the BHT; my actual complaint is that we are routinely <I><B>misrepresented</B></I> in the conversation there. <BR/><BR/>4. <I><B>Now, here's where I shifted somewhat elliptically to a slightly different point. And it's this:</B></I> I've never once seen <I><B>anyone</B></I> at the BHT quibble about whether James White or I have been correctly interpreted or fairly represented in the discussions there. Check out all those disparaging references to "[name deleted]" (and the slightly more oblique references to the massive TR conspiracy that some of the BHT regulars seem to think emanates from TeamPyro). Nearly all of those wisecracks either pass without critical any scrutiny, or (worse) unleash waves of self-congratulatory sarcasm.<BR/><BR/>5. Meanwhile, there have been numerous instances when various BHT regulars have accused us of not properly representing the nuances of some opinion we have disagreed with. You are certainly the main critic in that regard, but you are by no means the only one. Michael himself was doing it long before you showed up there.<BR/><BR/>6. My ultimate point, then, was that if you were genuinely concerned about truth and accuracy in other people's criticism, you'd monitor your own conversations a little more closely and <I><B>someone</B></I> (starting with you, I should think, since this is, after all, your main go-to response to every critic) would occasionally raise a peep of protest when Michael (or whoever else has the barroom floor) spews forth with that kind of slanted sarcasm. <B><I>In other words,</I></B> the fact that you love to hang out in a place where exaggeration and deliberate overstatement are served by the bartender himself from a large bowl like Beer Nuts more or less takes away your moral authority to stumble over here every so often and complain when you find a dash of hyperbole in the onion dip.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I happen to have an outfit exactly like the one pictured in your link. If I wore it like that with the jacket open, you would lose the dance-off for sure, because you would be laughing so hard your knees would buckle.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169582407982012322007-01-23T12:00:00.000-08:002007-01-23T12:00:00.000-08:00I wouldn't be too worried about criticism from Ste...I wouldn't be too worried about criticism from Steve Van Nattan, from what I can tell, the only people who are actually saved are those in his immediate family that acsribe to his self-divined brand of fundamentalism. He called me a son of satan a few years ago for insisting that C.S. Lewis was a Christian. Apparently Lewis was a Catholic(!) who to oft quoted that deplorable John Calvin and Augustine, neither of whom used the authorized KJV!Garet Pahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10020410796859479059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169578518704886072007-01-23T10:55:00.000-08:002007-01-23T10:55:00.000-08:00Dan wrote: we Californians do generally look to A...Dan wrote: <I>we Californians do generally look to Arkansas to get a bead on what's current and cool</I><BR/><BR/>Of course being cool is what counts.<BR/><BR/>Josh<BR/>"...the word of God is not <A HREF="http://unbound.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">bound</A>."<BR/>--2 Timothy 2:9C.T. Lillieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13019381008552747812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169577295141792652007-01-23T10:34:00.001-08:002007-01-23T10:34:00.001-08:00Phil,Thanks for thinking me clever - but you DID s...Phil,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for thinking me clever - but you DID say that something Michael said provides you with warrant for "not taking his patrons (i.e. me) seriously". So really, I'm less clever than I am . . . literate? <BR/><BR/>But the only way to resolve any of this, I'm convinced, is to have a televised dance-off with Daler Mehndi, Amitabh Bachchan and Sharukh Kahn acting as judges. You can pick the song, but I get to choose the outfits. You'll be wearing <A HREF="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/Dino2.jpg" REL="nofollow">this</A>.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169571871558183252007-01-23T09:04:00.000-08:002007-01-23T09:04:00.000-08:00I was checking my blog stats when I noticed the su...I was checking my blog stats when I noticed the sudden peak in blog traffic and traced it back here. Anyway, thanks for the blog spot, though with my ranting, I wasn't sure if anything of substance got through.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, if anyone is interested, I would be posting some thoughts on the subject of 'the free offer of the gospel', 'common grace' etc some time in the future, after all the dust has settled of course. And no mention of Francis Chan or his famous video will be made.Daniel Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00678184721218949112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169569146246614732007-01-23T08:19:00.000-08:002007-01-23T08:19:00.000-08:00How in the world do you manage to find these...um....How in the world do you manage to find these...um...<I>creative</I> Indian music videos? It must be Pecadillo's fault.candyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06088593538648596769noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169537735706021882007-01-22T23:35:00.000-08:002007-01-22T23:35:00.000-08:00PS: Daler Mehndi.Enjoy.PS: <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9qvCTdBLDs" REL="nofollow">Daler Mehndi.</A><BR/><BR/>Enjoy.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169537596384187552007-01-22T23:33:00.000-08:002007-01-22T23:33:00.000-08:00Raja:1. You're not the only person from the Tavern...<B>Raja:</B><BR/><BR/>1. You're not the only person from the Tavern who has used the "you don't get the nuances of the view you are criticizing" dodge with me. Hence the plural pronoun.<BR/><BR/>2. However, I didn't suggest in any way (nuanced or not) that all the Tavernistas speak with one voice. (Frankly, I doubt they could even sing "Ninety-nine bottles of beer" in harmony with one another.")<BR/><BR/>3. That's a clever dodge on your part, and it allows you to level the "misrepresentation!" charge yet again, but I <B><I>didn't</I></B> say what you're claiming I said.<BR/><BR/>4. <B><I>You</I></B> are smart enough to know that.<BR/><BR/>4. The Ghandi look wouldn't be good for you. I think you need to beef up a bit and study the moves of Daler Mehndi. That's much more compatible with your energy level.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169529969470055162007-01-22T21:26:00.000-08:002007-01-22T21:26:00.000-08:00Frank,Word.Frank,<BR/><BR/>Word.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169529950740477242007-01-22T21:25:00.000-08:002007-01-22T21:25:00.000-08:00I'm just saying, it gets a little old, and it pred...<B>I'm just saying, it gets a little old, and it predisposes me not to take your patrons seriously when they pretend they are deeply concerned about whether we have fairly represented the nuances and fine points of someone we have expressed disagreement with.</B> <BR/><BR/>Phil, if I hear you attribute the thoughts of one member of the BHT to all the others one more time I'm going to tear out my hair and send it to you along with photos of my fresh new Gandhi look. My contribution to the BHT is distinct from Michael's or anyone else's. That's sort of the point. Seeing me and Michael or anyone else at the BHT speaking with one voice isn't a matter of nuance. It's just inaccurate, and I think you're smarter than that.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169516321137466752007-01-22T17:38:00.001-08:002007-01-22T17:38:00.001-08:00Chris:That's "Brotherhyles" to you.iMonk:I complai...<B>Chris:</B><BR/><BR/>That's "Brotherhyles" to you.<BR/><BR/><B>iMonk:</B><BR/><BR/>I complained that you routinely and deliberately misrepresent me. How does a Google tally of how many times you actually mention my name seem to you like an answer to that charge? That makes no sense whatsoever, unless you are merely trying to misrepresent my complaint once more.<BR/><BR/>However, since you brought it up, readers should bear in mind also that your references to this blog are usually cryptic enough to avoid names altogether (yet specific enough to make clear whom you have in mind, like <A HREF="http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2006/08/14/0643975.html" REL="nofollow">THIS</A> post, which was a typical misrepresentation of something I wrote and posted here).<BR/><BR/>In a similar way, you have demeaned James White almost weekly for two full years now without ever once mentioning his name. <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-31,GGLJ:en&q=%22name+deleted%22+site:www%2eboarsheadtavern%2ecom" REL="nofollow">See what I mean?</A><BR/><BR/>I'm just saying, it gets a little old, and it predisposes me not to take your patrons seriously when they pretend they are deeply concerned about whether <I><B>we</B></I> have fairly represented the nuances and fine points of someone we have expressed disagreement with. <BR/><BR/>However, <A HREF="http://www.boarsheadtavern.com/archives/2007/01/22/1448200.html" REL="nofollow">you can keep your hat.</A> I think you should eat some words instead.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169505794976765852007-01-22T14:43:00.000-08:002007-01-22T14:43:00.000-08:00Raja:Tru Dat.Raja:<BR/><BR/>Tru Dat.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169505676192758242007-01-22T14:41:00.000-08:002007-01-22T14:41:00.000-08:00Kim:I know that the biggest part of you comment ha...Kim:<BR/><BR/>I know that the biggest part of you comment has to do with your jealousy over Gummby's avatar, and it makes that avatar all the more boss. I will relish its effect on you.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169474987270493012007-01-22T06:09:00.000-08:002007-01-22T06:09:00.000-08:00Frank, I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm ...Frank, I'm probably going to regret this, but I'm sick today, and not thinking straight. <BR/><BR/>You use the word "boss" to describe Gummby's pic. I remember using that word, oh way back in about 1984. Is it making a comeback?Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02288648996304246570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169469034832706162007-01-22T04:30:00.000-08:002007-01-22T04:30:00.000-08:00I was going to say something ean about your commen...I was going to say something ean about your comment, Gummby, but that new avatar is so boss I can't muster it.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169429995548513662007-01-21T17:39:00.000-08:002007-01-21T17:39:00.000-08:00What about "Yo" do they say "Yo" anymore or how ab...What about "Yo" do they say "Yo" anymore or how about "Dog" can you say the "Dog"?<BR/><BR/>The last time I heard "Word" used was when I was barely a man in the Marines in Panama and heard another Marine say, "Word". That was back in 1989. Thats the last I remember hearing it fizzle out.<BR/><BR/>What are they saying now by the way?Bhedrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08091896907803479900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1169427752140385402007-01-21T17:02:00.000-08:002007-01-21T17:02:00.000-08:00Gummby:Kim: I'm not really sure why--perhaps becau...Gummby:<BR/><BR/><I>Kim: I'm not really sure why--perhaps because of Phil's statement about iMonk & his drinking buddies--but the first time I read your comment, it said: "You know, if what goes on in this blog made me feel that despairing, I think I'd have to do some hard drinking." </I><BR/><BR/>In another lifetime, maybe.....Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02288648996304246570noreply@blogger.com