Did you ever notice?

Quote: rxwine

I never really noticed Julie Bowen until Modern Family. She's 48, so her younger roles are already behind her. (I assume)

I thought she was TERRIFIC in Boston Legal. Can't say I saw her much before that, but she was crazy-funny on BL. Probably why she got cast and stands put on Modern Family.

Fun story:

MLK weekend 2014 I was in Vegas. They were filming an episode of Modern Family at Mandalay Bay. I stood around and watched them film a scene with Julie Bowen and the red head brother playing blackjack. Fred Armisen was also in this episode.

In between setups, Julie was sooooo antsy. Constantly moving around, couldn't stay still. I kept thinking she was probably on drugs or something. She is also REALLY skinny in person.

Quote: rxwine

I never really noticed Julie Bowen until Modern Family. She's 48, so her younger roles are already behind her. (I assume)

I see her every day in reruns of MF.
She has a pretty face but is terribly
thin, to the point of gauntness.

Quote: buzzardknot

Was there ever a bigger con than original sin ? Brand new baby is born a sinner.

con_science. I assure you we have a conscience.

We can't see it, but we know it's there.




Original Sin: Like a genetic curse.

Not from just one genetic line (like from a genetic father's previous physical sin he committed), but from all lines.

It was the mechanism chosen to prevent default inheritance of the Holy Spirit.

When we changed the calendar after Jesus' resurrection, the default prevention is still the same, but now it's possible to permanently access the Holy Spirit.


It's not to be confused with a spiritual awakening though.

All humans have the ability to be awakened without the Holy Spirit.

A spiritual awakening implies humility by predominantly placing our assigned human spirit (unselfishness) as a priority to our newly created soul (selfishness).

I've been silent on this for far too long..Double gold, why are you as a Newbie only bumping up old threads, a huge majority being at least a year old?? This is VERY shady behavior and I'm surprised no one has called you out on this yet! This is VERY disturbing and creepy behavior from you. 🧐😳

Why do you think specific posts can't be replied to?

Quote: DoubleGold

Why do you think specific posts can't be replied to?

You were randomly bumping up ONLY old threads. You even bumped up a SEVEN year old thread! 🤨 That's creepy and disturbing behavior, especially from someone who has only been a Member for a couple of days. You remind me of a Newbie who bumped up 20 year old threads in 2022, including a Thread about a Band who hadn't been relevant since 2002! You can see how confusing bumping up a then relevant Band in 2002 would look in 2022!

Thank-you Riverjordan. Are you implying there is a rule I broke?

Though it is common for forums to have rules against necroing threads, that is not a rule here. Bumping threads (even old ones) is legal as long as the post makes a meaningful contribution to the topic at hand (or a related topic) and you are not just saying the same thing repeatably to artificially bump the thread, as far as I am aware (unless this recently changed).

(Just double checked, definitely not a rule) :
http://diversitytomorrow.com/thread/1/0/#post1

If a new member wants to reply to old posts that is perfectly fine. Sometimes when you click on a specific topic like "religion" the newest thread (or the first page) may have threads many years since the last activity, and it's easy not to notice the date (and it also does not really matter if it is a legitimate post). Especially if you join and just click on a specific "topic".

TY Gandler.