[Jon Yaeger]

Peter, the odds are against you.

I don't know anyone under 30 -- no, make that 40 -- who is interested in
tubecraft (with exceptions for guitar amp enthusiasts). The defunct Atlanta
Audio Society's member's average age was over 50, I'm sure.

However, there is a glimmer of hope. I had just cobbled together a set of
monoblocks that I had bought. My 11 year old has recently taken an interest
in the electric bass and guitars. I was playing some rock music, and I
asked him what he thought. He said, "It's like the band is playing right in
front of me."

As digital reproduction continues to evolve and prosper, there just aren't
too many temples where young ears can go to acquire the faith. They don't
know what they are missing.

So the fact that Flipper is here would tend to indicate he's an older
fellow, IMHO.

Jon




in article
, Peter
Wieck at wrote on 9/5/08 9:29 AM:

You are what? 19? 24? Usually after age 24, or so, individuals are not
so tickled when they almost learn the meaning of a new word. That you
manage to use it three times in three successive sentences illustrates
that you do not understand that even "neat new" words lose their
impact on excessive repetition. I also use the adverb "almost" as you
do not understand the word, its roots or its intended meaning. The way
you choose to abuse it, "artful" would likely be more appropriate, if
not more accurate. But your writings are so obtuse as to make your
actual intention unclear.

That you have been posting a while puts you more at the 24 range by my
guess. Sad.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Jon Yaeger]

Andre,

No doubt Henry would be flattered to know that you are thinking about him.

AFAIK, Henry is interested in electronics, and is to busy to spend time
arguing about sociology and politics. $100 says Dersu ain't Henry.

My reason for including you was that you are a prime example of an off-topic
poster. I really think you ought to do a regular blog on your site. Drop by
here from time-to-time to chat about tubes. And put links in your NG posts
to your blog. That'll save bandwidth and help to keep the group on topic.

I know you won't consider it because you're the kid who always had his hand
up in class before the teacher asked the question . . .


Jon






in article
, Andre
Jute at wrote on 9/5/08 12:09 PM:

The confessed garage vermin Jon Yaeger wrote:
Fascinating, Dersu.

Just what does this essay have to so with the subject of tubes?

Maybe you and Andre can become pen pens, and spare us the obiter dicta.

Cheers,

Jon

Leave me out of it, sonny. Flipper is doing such a good job of putting
down the neo-Marxist compusionists, he doesn't need my help, so I
haven't even read the latest splodge of stodge from the anonymous
clown Dersu Uzala (is he not Pompass Plodnick, aka Henry Pasternack?).

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent for inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing elegantly

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 5, 3:26*pm, Jon Yaeger wrote:

So the fact that Flipper is here would tend to indicate he's an older
fellow, IMHO.

My mistake. I was basing my guess on functional maturity and falling
into the error that it is somehow linked to calendar age. Flipper
behaves and argues as the average 8th grader - which suggests that he
might be as much as 24 given the educational standards in some parts
of this country and his fascination with $3.00 words. But he could be
a particularly egregious example of arrested development, and as old
as you suggest.

As to age-of-interest, we get more than a few tube-audio enthusiasts
at Kutztown each year, some yet in their 20s. And I am working with
one of the carpenter-apprentices who recently did some work at our
house on putting together a tube system on a budget. He does not want
anything that he cannot understand and he has taught himself to read a
schematic before I got involved. He is lusting after my Scott LK-150,
that is not going to happen, but that he recognized it and understood
what it was is enough to give me some hope. He is 21, going on 30.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Patrick Turner]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

Fascinating, Dersu.

Just what does this essay have to so with the subject of tubes?

Maybe you and Andre can become pen pens, and spare us the obiter dicta.

Cheers,

Jon

They are now light years away from out little tubacious universe at
r.a.t.

And that long long qutoe about "PROBLEM SOLVING, ENERGY, AND
SUSTAINABILITY"
could be summed up as follows..

1, **** happens, OK,

2, Simple solutions to prevent **** happening are never now to be found.

OK, we know all the BS, but where will homo sapiens be in 200 years, and
2,000 years,
bearing in mind the radical changes to the environment if we continue
with business as usual.

Everyone knows things are crook in the world in 1,001 different ways.

Will it get crooker? or betterish?

While all youse are wonderin about it, I'm busy makin amps
for ppl who like to escape having to think about it all...

I'm on a runaway train called Earth,
and I can't find a brake wheel anywhere.
Think I'll just enjoy the wild ride,
not knowing where the train stops.

Patrick Turner.



in article , Dersu Uzala at
wrote on 9/5/08 10:21 AM:

Here is the original quote, found near the bottom of this post, in
conclusions, in better context:

http://dieoff.org/page134.htm
PROBLEM SOLVING, ENERGY, AND SUSTAINABILITY
This historical discussion gives a perspective on what it means to be
practical and sustainable. A few years ago I described about two dozen
societies that have collapsed (Tainter 1988). In no case is it evident or even
likely that any of these societies collapsed because its members or leaders
did not take practical steps to resolve its problems (Tainter 1988). The
experience of the Roman Empire is again instructive. Most actions that the
Roman government took in response to crises-such as debasing the currency,
raising taxes, expanding the army, and conscripting labor-were practical
solutions to immediate problems. It would have been unthinkable not to adopt
such measures. Cumulatively, however, these practical steps made the empire
ever weaker, as the capital stock (agricultural land and peasants) was
depleted through taxation and conscription. Over time, devising practical
solutions drove the Roman Empire into diminishing, then negative, returns to
complexity. The implication is that to focus a problem-solving system, such as
ecological economics, on practical applications will not automatically
increase its value to society, nor enhance sustainability. The historical
development of problem-solving systems needs to be understood and taken into
consideration.

Most who study contemporary issues certainly would agree that solving
environmental and economic problems requires both knowledge and education. A
major part of our response to current problems has been to increase our level
of research into environmental matters, including global change. As our
knowledge increases and practical solutions emerge, governments will implement
solutions and bureaucracies will enforce them. New technologies will be
developed. Each of these steps will appear to be a practical solution to a
specific problem. Yet cumulatively these practical steps are likely to bring
increased complexity, higher costs, and diminishing returns to problem
solving.' Richard Norgaard has stated the problem well: "Assuring
sustainability by extending the modem agenda ... will require, by several
orders of magnitude, more data collection, interpretation, planning, political
decision-making, and bureaucratic control" (Norgaard 1994).

Donella Meadows and her colleagues have given excellent examples of the
economic constraints of contemporary problem solving. To raise world food
production from 1951-1966 by 34%, for example, required increasing
expenditures on tractors of 63%, on nitrate fertilizers of 146%, and on
pesticides of 300%. To remove all organic wastes from a sugar-processing plant
costs 100 times more than removing 30%. To reduce sulfur dioxide in the air of
a U.S. city by 9.6 times, or particulates by 3.1 times, raises the cost of
pollution control by 520 times (Meadows et al. 1972). All environmental
problem solving will face constraints of this kind.

Bureaucratic regulation itself generates further complexity and costs. As
regulations are issued and taxes established, those who are regulated or taxed
seek loopholes and lawmakers strive to close these. A competitive spiral of
loophole discovery and closure unfolds, with complexity continuously
increasing (Olson 1982). In these days when the cost of government lacks
political support, such a strategy is unsustainable. It is often suggested
that environmentally benign behavior should be elicited through taxation
incentives rather than through regulations. While this approach has some
advantages, it does not address the problem of complexity, and may not reduce
overall regulatory costs as much as is thought. Those costs may only be
shifted to the taxation authorities, and to the society as a whole.

It is not that research, education, regulation, and new technologies cannot
potentially alleviate our problems. With enough investment perhaps they can.
The difficulty is that these investments will be costly, and may require an
increasing share of each nation's gross domestic product. With diminishing
returns to problem solving, addressing environmental issues in our
conventional way means that more resources will have to be allocated to
science, engineering, and government. In the absence of high economic growth
this would require at least a temporary decline in the standard of living, as
people would have comparatively less to spend on food, housing, clothing,
medical care, transportation, and entertainment.

To circumvent costliness in problem solving it is often suggested that we use
resources more intelligently and efficiently. Timothy Allen and Thomas
Hoekstra, for example, have suggested that in managing ecosystems for
sustainability, managers should identify what is missing from natural
regulatory process and provide only that. The ecosystem will do the rest. Let
the ecosystem (i.e., solar energy) subsidize the management effort rather than
the other way around (Allen and Hoekstra 1992). It is an intelligent
suggestion. At the same time, to implement it would require much knowledge
that we do not now possess. That means we need research that is complex and
costly, and requires fossil-fuel subsidies. Lowering the costs of complexity
in one sphere causes them to rise in another.

Agricultural pest control illustrates this dilemma. As the spraying of
pesticides exacted higher costs and yielded fewer benefits, integrated pest
management was developed. This system relies on biological knowledge to reduce
the need for chemicals, and employs monitoring of pest populations, use of
biological controls, judicious application of chemicals, and careful selection
of crop types and planting dates (Norgaard 1994). It is an approach that
requires both esoteric research by scientists and careful monitoring by
farmers. Integrated pest management violates the principle of complexity
aversion, which may partly explain why it is not more widely used.

Such issues help to clarify what constitutes a sustainable society. The fact
that problem-solving systems seem to evolve to greater complexity, higher
costs, and diminishing returns has significant implications for
sustainability. In time, systems that develop in this way are either cut off
from further finances, fail to solve problems, collapse, or come to require
large energy subsidies. This has been the pattern historically in such cases
as the Roman Empire, the Lowland Classic Maya, Chacoan Society of the American
Southwest, warfare in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, and some aspects of
contemporary problem solving (that is, in every case that I have investigated
in detail) (Tainter 1988, 1992, 1994b, 1995a). These historical patterns
suggest that one of the characteristics of a sustainable society will be that
it has a sustainable system of problem solving-one with increasing or stable
returns, or diminishing returns that can be financed with energy subsidies of
assured supply, cost, and quality.

Industrialism illustrates this point. It generated its own problems of
complexity and costliness. These included railways and canals to distribute
coal and manufactured goods, the development of an economy increasingly based
on money and wages, and the development of new technologies. While such
elements of complexity are usually thought to facilitate economic growth, in
fact they can do so only when subsidized by energy. Some of the new
technologies, such as the steam engine, showed diminishing returns to
innovation quite early in their development (Wilkinson 1973; Giarini and
Louberge 1978; Giarini 1984). What set industrialism apart from all of the
previous history of our species was its reliance on abundant, concentrated,
high-quality energy (Hall et al. 1992). 5 With subsidies of inexpensive fossil
fuels, for a long time many consequences of industrialism effectively did not
matter. Industrial societies could afford them. When energy costs are met
easily and painlessly, benefit/cost ratio to social investments can be
substantially ignored (as it has been in contemporary industrial agriculture).
Fossil fuels made industrialism, and all that flowed from it (such as science,
transportation, medicine, employment, consumerism, high-technology war, and
contemporary political organization), a system of problem solving that was
sustainable for several generations.

Energy has always been the basis of cultural complexity and it always will be.
If our efforts to understand and resolve such matters as global change involve
increasing political, technological, economic, and scientific complexity, as
it seems they will, then the availability of energy per capita will be a
constraining factor. To increase complexity on the basis of static or
declining energy supplies would require lowering the standard of living
throughout the world. In the absence of a clear crisis very few people would
support this. To maintain political support for our current and future
investments in complexity thus requires an increase in the effective per
capita supply of energy-either by increasing the physical availability of
energy, or by technical, political, or economic innovations that lower the
energy cost of our standard of living. Of course, to discover such innovations
requires energy, which underscores the constraints in the energy-complexity
relation.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter on the past clarifies potential paths to the future. One
often-discussed path is cultural and economic simplicity and lower energy
costs. This could come about through the "crash" that many fear-a genuine
collapse over a period of one or two generations, with much violence,
starvation, and loss of population. The alternative is the "soft landing" that
many people hope for-a voluntary change to solar energy and green fuels,
energy-conserving technologies, and less overall consumption. This is a
utopian alternative that, as suggested above, will come about only if severe,
prolonged hardship in industrial nations makes it attractive, and if economic
growth and consumerism can be removed from the realm of ideology.

The more likely option is a future of greater investments in problem solving,
increasing overall complexity, and greater use of energy. This option is
driven by the material comforts it provides, by vested interests, by lack of
alternatives, and by our conviction that it is good. If the trajectory of
problem solving that humanity has followed for much of the last 12,000 years
should continue, it is the path that we are likely to take in the near future.

Regardless of when our efforts to understand and resolve contemporary problems
reach diminishing returns, one point should be clear. It is essential to know
where we are in history (Tainter 1995a). If macroeconomic patterns develop
over periods of generations or centuries, it is not possible to comprehend our
current conditions unless we understand where we are in this process. We have
the the opportunity to become the first people in history to understand how a
society's problem-solving abilities change. To know that this is possible yet
not to act upon it would be a great failure of the practical application of
ecological economics.

[Patrick Turner]

Jon Yaeger wrote:

Peter, the odds are against you.

I don't know anyone under 30 -- no, make that 40 -- who is interested in
tubecraft (with exceptions for guitar amp enthusiasts). The defunct Atlanta
Audio Society's member's average age was over 50, I'm sure.

The average age of all audiophile clubs and societies is now over 50
probably.
10 old *******s for 1 young *******.
AFAIK, there are no female members in any club in the world.

Audiophiles sit down in soft comfortable chairs to engage their main
activity in life.

To expect a large number of them to also spend a lotta time soldrin
things together for themselves
is as silly as expecting pigs to evolve wings, and begin flying sometime
soon.


However, there is a glimmer of hope. I had just cobbled together a set of
monoblocks that I had bought. My 11 year old has recently taken an interest
in the electric bass and guitars. I was playing some rock music, and I
asked him what he thought. He said, "It's like the band is playing right in
front of me."

Well indeed...

As digital reproduction continues to evolve and prosper, there just aren't
too many temples where young ears can go to acquire the faith. They don't
know what they are missing.


Don't you mean de-volve? are not all the younger set hooked on i-pods
and MP3?

Don't worry, MP3 makes much modern noise the younger set listen to more
listenable.

The live concert with all non amplified music is the gold standard for
ear calibration
of those who like music produced by purely acoustic instruments.

But anything goes for the younger set, as the electronics and digital
farnarcling
and processing is all part of the musical noise they endure.


So the fact that Flipper is here would tend to indicate he's an older
fellow, IMHO.

I doubt it. People here have sometimes turned out to be any kind of age.

A few of my customers who like stereo music are under 35, and therefore
technically young.

But so ****in what?

The oldest dude I knew who was seriously into music was 82 when I met
him in in about 1997,
and was a retired Lutheran Minister, and he liked Bach more than most
ppl.
He was trying to rebuild and finally finish a system that he'd first
cobbled together
"not so long ago" he said, ie, in 1969.
His eyesight wasn't good for electronics, and I fixed all his mistakes
in the wiring, and eventually he ended up with a good system
with 10W UL tube amps and sensitive speakers.
At 86, he made a massive speaker system for one of his sons, a dentist,
and I did the electronics for him and provided a 5050 integrated amp.
The much younger dentist hadn't ever heard a really fine system before,
but methinks he didn't have the passion that his father had.

The old fella's hearing extended out to 12kHz or more, because when i
tested a pair of tweeters
he'd also bought recently in 1970, he could hear when I had a 12kHz
signal
during tests, and any tweeter from 1970 that went out to 12kHz wasn't
bad.

His wife who was slightly older didn't mind his tinkering as long as she
couldn't see it.
So it was all hidden in an old cedar cabinet.

She was nearly stone deaf.

Anyway, Merv was the youngest old ******* I ever knew.

And BTW, for those not Australian, if I say someone is "not a bad old
*******",
then it usually means someone is a really fine speciman of humanity.


He was a very practical man, and good in the garden, and for maintaining
things
in his house, and although he was a strong Believer in God and all that,
I thought his beliefs enhanced the man, because he had so few vices, and
plenty of virtues.
He passed away 2 years ago, and is now in charge of Heavenly Bach
Recitals,
cloud formations permitting.

Patrick Turner.



Jon

in article
, Peter
Wieck at wrote on 9/5/08 9:29 AM:

You are what? 19? 24? Usually after age 24, or so, individuals are not
so tickled when they almost learn the meaning of a new word. That you
manage to use it three times in three successive sentences illustrates
that you do not understand that even "neat new" words lose their
impact on excessive repetition. I also use the adverb "almost" as you
do not understand the word, its roots or its intended meaning. The way
you choose to abuse it, "artful" would likely be more appropriate, if
not more accurate. But your writings are so obtuse as to make your
actual intention unclear.

That you have been posting a while puts you more at the 24 range by my
guess. Sad.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Patrick Turner]

I'd maybe even beg forgiveness for top posting this time,
but below we have a somewhat meaningless exchange of words.

But since the other posts have drifted light years away from tubes and
into the realms of wonderment and perhaps fears about homo sapiens
future,
then I found a site amoung many which gives a few facts about CO2
and sustainability etc.

See

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/issue-1.htm

Its difficult for many to see how mankind with his burning of so much,
as well as womenkind working at the stove
could possibly cause greenhouse CO2 to increase because there is already
a vast tonnage of C02 up in the sky.
But it all adds up.
We start vigourously emitting a huge amount of CO2 now and
then we remove the rain forests etc etc, and something has to change.

Probably it'll be the weather.

But we ain't seen nothing yet, because for everyone on Earth to live the
good material life
that North Americans live now in say 50 years when population will be
maybe 9 billion
then CO2 will maybe quadruple or more if its business as usual.

But the models are vague, unreliable, and it can be argued its sort of
religious to believe
in greenhouse, ie, un-enlightened, not scientific.

But whatever might be said matters not; what if the pro greenhouse lobby
are correct?
What if the changes we see happen a darn sight faster than everyone
thought they might?

I won't be around to worry.

I guess the generations ahead will find a way to deal with it.

And if there is an afterlife, does one worry about Earth,
or just party on in heaven with past friends and relatives?

Patrick Turner.






flipper wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Wieck
wrote:

You are what?

Why, a porpoise, doncha know?

19? 24?

Don't bother with the game show circuit. Just isn't one of your
skills.

Usually after age 24, or so, individuals are not
so tickled when they almost learn the meaning of a new word.

Sorry, but just because it's 'new' to you doesn't mean it's 'new' to
me.

That you
manage to use it three times in three successive sentences illustrates
that you do not understand that even "neat new" words lose their
impact on excessive repetition. I also use the adverb "almost" as you
do not understand the word, its roots or its intended meaning. The way
you choose to abuse it, "artful" would likely be more appropriate, if
not more accurate. But your writings are so obtuse as to make your
actual intention unclear.

I said I would try to remember you need small, simple, words when
talking to you, not in other messages.

That you have been posting a while puts you more at the 24 range by my
guess. Sad.

bzzzzt

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[tubegarden]

On Sep 7, 2:54�am, Patrick Turner wrote:

OK, we know all the BS, but where will homo sapiens be in 200 years, and
2,000 years,
bearing in mind the radical changes to the environment if we continue
with business as usual.

Everyone knows things are crook in the world in 1,001 different ways.


Hi RATs!

Earth has always been uninhabitable, except for cockroaches - who are
one good recipe from extinction.

The music often brings us somewhere where weather and wars just don't
matter.

There will be weather forever. Improvement is a laugh.

There are already more wars to end all wars that haven't even started
yet. This is a surprise to who?

A musician can let me feel what life is about. New Randy Newman:
"Potholes on Memory Lane" 8^D

It is also not news that stuff manufactured for mass consumption is
not overspeced.

My stuff is

Happy Ears!
Al

[Edward R Morris]

Patrick,
The Christian Bible talks about Christ's return in bringing about a new
heaven and a new earth. If one believes such about such then global
warming, someday, will be a thing of the past. I'm not concerned per se
about such things. The governments of the world let such things like global
warming go on and as population increases, so will the moaning and groaning
of our planet.

Edward Morris

"Patrick Turner" wrote in message
...


I'd maybe even beg forgiveness for top posting this time,
but below we have a somewhat meaningless exchange of words.

But since the other posts have drifted light years away from tubes and
into the realms of wonderment and perhaps fears about homo sapiens
future,
then I found a site amoung many which gives a few facts about CO2
and sustainability etc.

See

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/issue-1.htm

Its difficult for many to see how mankind with his burning of so much,
as well as womenkind working at the stove
could possibly cause greenhouse CO2 to increase because there is already
a vast tonnage of C02 up in the sky.
But it all adds up.
We start vigourously emitting a huge amount of CO2 now and
then we remove the rain forests etc etc, and something has to change.

Probably it'll be the weather.

But we ain't seen nothing yet, because for everyone on Earth to live the
good material life
that North Americans live now in say 50 years when population will be
maybe 9 billion
then CO2 will maybe quadruple or more if its business as usual.

But the models are vague, unreliable, and it can be argued its sort of
religious to believe
in greenhouse, ie, un-enlightened, not scientific.

But whatever might be said matters not; what if the pro greenhouse lobby
are correct?
What if the changes we see happen a darn sight faster than everyone
thought they might?

I won't be around to worry.

I guess the generations ahead will find a way to deal with it.

And if there is an afterlife, does one worry about Earth,
or just party on in heaven with past friends and relatives?

Patrick Turner.






flipper wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 06:29:04 -0700 (PDT), Peter Wieck
wrote:

You are what?

Why, a porpoise, doncha know?

19? 24?

Don't bother with the game show circuit. Just isn't one of your
skills.

Usually after age 24, or so, individuals are not
so tickled when they almost learn the meaning of a new word.

Sorry, but just because it's 'new' to you doesn't mean it's 'new' to
me.

That you
manage to use it three times in three successive sentences illustrates
that you do not understand that even "neat new" words lose their
impact on excessive repetition. I also use the adverb "almost" as you
do not understand the word, its roots or its intended meaning. The way
you choose to abuse it, "artful" would likely be more appropriate, if
not more accurate. But your writings are so obtuse as to make your
actual intention unclear.

I said I would try to remember you need small, simple, words when
talking to you, not in other messages.

That you have been posting a while puts you more at the 24 range by my
guess. Sad.

bzzzzt

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Patrick Turner]

tubegarden wrote:

On Sep 7, 2:54�am, Patrick Turner wrote:

OK, we know all the BS, but where will homo sapiens be in 200 years, and
2,000 years,
bearing in mind the radical changes to the environment if we continue
with business as usual.

Everyone knows things are crook in the world in 1,001 different ways.


Hi RATs!

Earth has always been uninhabitable, except for cockroaches - who are
one good recipe from extinction.

The music often brings us somewhere where weather and wars just don't
matter.

There will be weather forever. Improvement is a laugh.

There are already more wars to end all wars that haven't even started
yet. This is a surprise to who?

A musician can let me feel what life is about. New Randy Newman:
"Potholes on Memory Lane" 8^D

It is also not news that stuff manufactured for mass consumption is
not overspeced.

My stuff is

Happy Ears!
Al

Al, you ain't worried by what you don't know.

Fantabluous philosophy.

Underlines ultimate meaninglessness of life of an individual.

So in my terms, you've finally succeeded where so many other fail
because they take IT all so seriously, and are so far up themselves,
only da feet are showing.

I don't even mind that the older I get, the better i was!!!!!

Patrick Turner.

[Patrick Turner]

Edward R Morris wrote:

Patrick,
The Christian Bible talks about Christ's return in bringing about a new
heaven and a new earth. If one believes such about such then global
warming, someday, will be a thing of the past. I'm not concerned per se
about such things. The governments of the world let such things like global
warming go on and as population increases, so will the moaning and groaning
of our planet.

It never crossed my mind that Christ might return to "save us", but
pundits have been forecasting
just when this event might occur, with some building grandstands by
harbours so
ppl can see Christ when he arrives by boat entering harbours.

He hasn't come.

I guess He thinks we are such a ****ing bunch of fools that
a Second Coming isn't going to save us from ourselves, and that we are
likely
to judge Him as a terrorist, and torture him to find out why he came
with such
revolutionary ideas that had not be already thought about by someome
somewhere and rejected, but
nevertheless very dangerous to the staus quo of Big Business, Big
Governemnts, etc.

Since there are MILLIONS of other planets harbouring life in some form
in this tiny weeny bit of Universe
that we are so far aware of, I can only say God, if he is a visiting and
convivial kind of Being,
is utterly rushed off his feet to see all these folks out there in need
of some sptiritual guidance.
Maybe he don't make it here for 30,000 years.

But if he came right now, He's likely to end up fast in that special
prison
the US have in Cuba for men who disagree with George Bush
and the rest who agree with George.

The Christian Bible is the only one making a forecast that Christ will
return.
and of course there's no proof.

Christ left behind him a legacy that needs little improvement after his
last 33 year visit
where he ended up being crucified with 2 thieves. Poor *******.
He'd be worried what its gonna be this time around.

Men and women choose to ignore what Christ said, and ignore what a lot
of other leading luminaries said,
and will pay a hefty price in the fullness of time, mainly because they
all choose to
replace spirituality with materialism, or "consumeritis" or "afluenza",
which are diseases Christ was very aware of, along with everyone's vices
and virtues, but
it takes some mental exercize to realize it. So most don't, and carry on
with what
feels good, ie, getting rich as possible, and **** everyone else.

I disbelieve the old religious BS with a ferver of the fundementalist.

But I have a refined sense of what constitutes right and wrong.

I even believe in democracy.
I don't fight in wars unless its self defense.

We are here just to exist meaninglessly and to enjoy and suffer out
human nature,
for better or worse, and in sickness and in health. etc. lots of etc.

I look at the stars, and what fool of a man will define God?

What we look out at during evenings is the infinity of space, the
enormity of
what we will never have the brains to comprehend because infinite
knowledge of space
and time and all the mysteries cannot be comprehended by finite little
human brains.
And your idea of God doesn't help understanding what we crave to.
We feel so insecure about because we don't know.
People write books to provide an answer, but most is BS.

Real success is to do good, and not be anxious about the unknown, or
where you go when you die,
which afaiac, is nowhere. None have come back to say how great or awful
it was where
they went after they died.

If global warming and our domination of life on earth continues, and our
elimination of other species,
and our ruination of the environemnt continues, then we'll suffer the
consequences of our sins
if that's what they are... starvation, pestilences, ruinations, etc,
tec, etc.
Nothing is forever, no?
Not even God, if that were true. Something else beyond God might be
forever, but
frankly I have no clue about God business.

God, who I see as being just Nature talks to us indirectly.

As far as I am aware, nothing in the Bible refers directly to global
warming.

But the Bible has attracted plenty of utter BS artists interpreting the
Bible, usually
to instal fear in everyone and gain power over others, and prop up
church finances, and
produce many evils such as discrimination, hypocrisy and the opposite of
what Christ would want
if he was here amoung us now.

Patrick Turner.