City and county road maps.

The Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection.

Links public web cams throughout the state.

A variety of statewide, regional, and local maps.

A compact map showing interstate and U.S. highways plus major cities and towns.

In article <59B46657-0FE5-E42D-8791-E494FFF3729B@srcbs.org>,
lsenders@hotmail.com says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:

>> >Honestly, I leave these things in
>> >the Lord's hands.

>> No, Loren, you do not. If you really _did_ "leave these
>> things in the Lord's hands", you would have had NO motive
>> to say "I was hoping you had merely chosen not to post
>> .. until...". For such a 'hope' is _completely_
>> inconsistent with "leaving these things in the Lord's
>> hands".

>Again, your reply above illustrates a fundamental
>difference in thought processes between your way of
>thinking and my own.

And as you yourself illustrate so well below, the difference
is that your "way of thinking" is NOT 'thinking'!

> To rest in the Lord does not equate to mean cessation of
>activity or inquiry.

I never said it did. This is just another straw-man argument
of yours. Why, it is even the _same_ straw-man you _always_
toss up when somebody points out your error.

> I was granting you the benefit of the doubt.

Here is the first hint of what you admit below, that you do
not even realize who you are replying to! WHy, oh why, do
you refuse to learn to READ before you write?

> I KNOW that I hit the "Post Message" button and that
>there was respondent "your message has been. sent " or
>whatever it then reads. IF I don't get the respondent
>window, I back up into the reply window and send it again.
>That is why sometimes you get two, maybe even three
>identical replies from me sometimes.

Now that the Moderator has told us he is no longer relying
on primitive shell scripts, maybe his new software will
allow him to conventiently deal with such duplicate posts in
a better manner. For you are not the only one who has had
this problem.

>So was I unfair to think, "Well, maybe he wants to mull it
>over a bit and then post both pages at the same time so
>that readers can see them side by side." My reasoning was
>that too often a reply doesn't come until much later and
>only with effort does one wade through the many replies to
>stubble upon the original. And then too, when an expanse
>of time separates the original from the reply, often the
>original loses its effect.

>That's all I was suggesting.

Oh, really? Then why is that not at all what you actually
SAID? Do I _really_ have to remind you yet again? Say what
you mean and mean what you say.

[snip]

>> You protest below that you are 'honest', but this question is itself
>> proof of your dishonesty. For you did NOT "ask to prove that Jesus is
>> real". You asked something quite different. But here you play
>> "bait-and-switch" with the question. That is dishonest. Or do you not
>> even realize that "bait-and-switch" is dishonest