Chris,

Ok.. Let me respond as best as I can. Perhaps, in the interest of clarity we might break this apart into separate issues. If you're interested that is..

>>Hmm.. Thought I'd responded to that. Maybe you'd better go back and re-read my posts. Here's a recap.. Slavery did indeed happen - still does and it's not defended in the Bible. It's still happening this very day in places like the Sudan. What's your trouble here? Perhaps you got an answer that you missed? If you are suggesting that the Bible supports slavery you're 180 degrees out of phase though.
>
>I am referring to Message #454144, where you wrote that you were going to get back with me. There were no further replies to me in that thread. If you adressed in another thread, please let me know. You may have, it just wasn't in that thread.

Ok, I went and read through the document you referenced in your original message. It looks like your normal PC-based response to the scriptures. Slavery happened and was a fact of life. One thing I didn't notice (though I may have overlooked it) was where in the OT there are mentions of the Doulois (or the willing slave). Slavery often times was a much better life than non slavery.

>
>>If you are unwilling to take my word on it then that's the end of our conversation I suppose. Unless you're willing to do your own research that is. If you are I'll be happy to answer any question you have as best as I am able. And glad to so do.
>>
>>Not so.. I pointed you to a site where you could find all the statistics you'd like and you simply dismissed the site and asked me to provide the information in a format you wanted. You do not know I then emailed Matt to see if he had any of the information you were requesting in the format you wanted. I haven't heard back from him and doubt I will. *shrug* On Matt's web site is a transcript of his speech to the National Press Club where he went over some of these issues. If you really want the information it's out there for you to find. I just don't see why anyone should bother doing your research work for you since it's not a matter of information but of choice at this point.
>
>As I pointed out earlier, I am not going to do your research for you, and it appears as though Matt isn't either. I followed your lead once, and it wasn't what you said it was.

*shrug*

Let's start this part over again then. If you have a specific question I'll be happy to do my best to answer it.

>
>>You're free to not accept my observations and opinions and I accept that. If you're interested in this stuff enough to do a little digging I'll give you the best sources I have. If you're not then you're just spouting rhetoric and I'm really not interested.
>
>Your sources aren't really sources. As I have pointed out now three times, you referred me to an article, which cited one example. When I pointed out that this was not a "numbers" study, you told me to research it on that site. Again, I am not going to do your research for you. It is not my job to support your arguments.

Ok.. I guess I owe you an apology then. What would satisfy you here?

>
>>From my personal observations over the last several years it has been my observation that Matt Drudge tends to be quite accurate. You can just dismiss that if you'd like but at that point you're just trying to replace my subjective observations with your own and then label yours as objective. <g> They're not - they're equally subjective and if you dismiss mine on the basis of their being subjective I'll just return the favor. <g> If you want me to entertain your observations on their face value then you need to do the same for mine. That's all really..
>
>I have cited my sources. They are there for anyone one to read. I have not referred you to an article I say is a "numbers" study, then tell you to do your own research when the article is not a study.

Ok.. I'll try to see if I can do this for you in the future.


>
>>Since you have been dismissing everything out-of-hand it's really not a conversation anymore and I'm just not going to waste your time or my time shouting. That's why I stopped responding. And, that's why I'm responding now.
>
>I have taken the time to look at what you presented. I have pointed out where the article you cited is not what you said it was. If it was a mistake on your part, that is fine. We all make mistakes. If you really have a study, fine, I am willing to look at it. But again, I am not doing your research for you.
>
>I have been to Rush's site. So far, I am seeing factually incorrect (the economy has been in a downturn for a year) and misleading headlines (Brian Williams).

Well, I've sure seen a downturn - at least in the stock market. I personally have some stock that started out at $60 per share and now is at around $5-6. <g> Now, my living wage is around three times what it was about four years ago so no complaints there.. <g>

>
>>Well, if you're of a mind to just let the mainstream press or anyone else do your thinking for you - sure.. <g> If that's what you are insinuating about those with whom you disagree then you're just off base.
>
>If I were just looking at the mainstream press, I would not be watching Fox News and going to Rush's site. So far, Rush has proven to be unreliable, both from my own observations (noted above) of his site and the work of others:
>
>http://www.fair.org/media-outlets/limbaugh.html

Let me ask you a question about FAIR? Are they ideologically 'left', 'right' or ?? That is, do they have a proverbial axe to grind?