[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Can nobody follow the syntax? Seriously?

I had no trouble with it.


Those people who read the bible literally. The name for those people
is "Christians".

I disagree with the statement. Christianity has a long history of Biblical
analysis and interpretation. Fundamentalism (which actually has two
meanings) is in part a reaction against excessive interpretation.



Absolutely right.

Reading the Bible literally or not isn't quite the litmus test it's
being made out to be.

Personally, I try to go by what seems to be the writer's intent when
reading any of the books in the Bible.

For instance, I've rarely written any poetry that was meant to be taken
wholly literally. I've almost always written in such a way that some
individual words are symbolic of an entire concept or are descriptive
word paintings. I generally expect that of poetry. Therefore, I look for
what the author might have meant by trying to read between the lines, so
to speak.

However, when reading history or law, for example, I look for a more
literal meaning. This is because when I'm writing a historical account
of my own, I very rarely include metaphors or other figures of speech
without making it plain that this is what I'm doing.

Just a li'l Biblical Hermeneutics 101, Readers' Digest version.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 21:47:14 -0600, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

The name for people who read the bible literally is Christians.
It is very false to claim that only Christians read the Bible. In fact many
non-Christians study it, both secular scholars and also Moslems.
"read the Bible literally"

Even my fundamentalist friends don't do that. I'm pretty sure
non-Christians do not "read the Bible literally".

I've found that the best way to read it is to try to get at the original
intent. Reading ancient material through modern lenses does me no good.
I need to try to look at the stuff as if I was living in that culture.

I go after the historical stuff pretty much literally. Same with the
books of law.

Epistles/letters to congregations and such are a bit of a mixed bag. I
try to judge the context in all of my reading, but these are especially
important in using context.

Books of poetry and apocalyptic literature I read as trying to make a
point without being exactly literal. Jesus' parables I take the same
way: He's making a point, and the event He describes doesn't have to
have actually happened.

I try to have somewhat of an understanding of the cultures from which
this literature comes to help provide context.

JMHSO

---Jeff

It has by now been pretty soundly proved that one of the major kings
(I seem to remember it as David) was an invention. The historical and
archaeological record has been filled in, and he just isn't there.
That should give you pause for thought about the authenticity of this
collection of myths and fables.

d

You have any cite for that? Because I've never heard that settled.

And what does that have to do with a common sense hermeneutic?

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Trevor wrote:
"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
...
You sound like you know an awful lot about how I read. You been in my
living room?

No, just assuming you read English from left to right, top to bottom like
the rest of us! Apologies if I am wrong :-)

Trevor.



Heh. *grin*


No, I think you're wrong. Neither literal nor non-literal interpretation
is a litmus test for whether one is a Christian or non-Christian.

I've known and read both types of interpretation from both types of
philosophies.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 16:57:28 +1300, "geoff"
wrote:

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
Again, it's not about God's inconsistency; it's about God's grace in
giving everyone the chance to start fresh if they repent.
And when confronted by a dude with white robes and a big bushy white beard
at a pearly gate, when the last thing you could remember was that truck
veering at you, who wouldn't repent ?

Some test of character....

geoff


Good one, but that isn't the real god. It will be a gnarled old
one-eyed man in a horned helmet, standing before a hall with a roof
made of shields. He never liked Christians, so they will all go to
hell. Sorry chaps - you backed the wrong horse.

d

Yeah, that story about Valhalla? Ummmmmm... It doesn't end well. The
heroes all die in a losing battle. The bad guys win. In this case, it's
the Christians you're viewing as the bad guys.

I'll take mah chances, bra.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Orlando Enrique Fiol" wrote in message
. ..

I might add that the idea of Jesus-as-scapegoat is absurd beyond
belief. It appears to have been borrowed from pagan cultures.

Do you have a better idea?

Yes. Read Matthew 5:43-48.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,
and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even
the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do
not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect.

This directly contradicts the belief that Jesus's death was a
propitiation
for human sin.

Please explain.

Why does it need explanation? Jesus is saying that spiritual progress is
obtained only by putting aside everything that is unlike God. Simply
forgiving sin -- based on Jesus's "atonement" for humanity -- doesn't do
that.

To put it another way -- how can a sinner enter a sinless state (Heaven) --
without having completely cast aside sin? Simply forgiving sin isn't enough.



You're putting words in Jesus' mouth. He is saying, "be perfect." IOW,
be on your best behavior. This is because He has already said that we
are not perfect. How can we BE perfect once we are imperfect? He can
only mean here that we are to be making the attempt to be perfect.


You, by your interpretation, are causing Him to contradict Himself.


Of course, if we look in the original language, the same word translated
"perfect" here is often translated as "complete" elsewhere. However, I'm
not thinking that's the meaning here. But it could very well be, and
we're missing it. I'll have to brush up on my Greek language skills on
that note. It's been way too long since I studied it. *grimace*

---Jeff

[Doug McDonald[_6_]]

On 2/5/2012 6:33 PM, Arkansan Raider wrote:


I absolutely am dinging the President for associating with him [Ayers], as well
as the UIC, the Board, and anyone else who associated with him.
Terrorists need to be behind bars, period. Just because he was elected
doesn't mean I need to side with the ill-informed public.

Ayers is no longer associated in any way with the University
of Illinois. He was denied Emeritus status by the Board of Trustees
itself. The Board was not receptive to someone who who had praised
activities of terrorists like the one (Sirhan Sirhan) who murdered
the father of Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

Doug McDonald

[[email protected]]

On Feb 4, 4:57*pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
Scott Dorsey writes:

They fail because electrical currents get induced in internal wiring. *By
strong, I mean maybe 100V/meter. *Hardly ever more than that.

So does that mean you have to be free of all other gadgets, too? Cell phones,
smartphones, laptops, etc.?

Yes. *No jeans with studs on them, tape over all metal zippers, insulating
lacquer on metal-framed glasses. *Don't even think about nipple rings. *Ouch.

I used to work on weather radars and we had an applicant from a
school that I also had attended. His nickname was 'Tackle Box' because
of his many and odd piercings. He was a bully and a jerk in general.
When he toured the facility I keyed up on him and he let out a hell of
a girly scream. They never found out who dd it and he never returned
to that place. Haven't seen him since.

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

wrote:
This directly contradicts the belief that Jesus's death was a propitiation
for human sin.

Not at all. Jesus understood that no matter how much he exhorted us to be
perfect and love our enemies, few of us would be able to do it at all or for
very long, thus fueling our need for redemption from sin.

Orlando

[Arkansan Raider]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I think I do sometimes see people who are having the Christian experience
miracle cures.

A recent true story:
My mother is 92 and has been suffering from Parkinsons, dementia and
depression for about 13 years. Late last year she stopped eating enough to
survive and there were blood tests to prove that. She was hospitalized and
nothing could be found wrong other than the obvious. She was put into the
care of a Hospice group. We all expected her to die shortly, and we had
scientific evidence that this was a reasonable expectation. Strangely
enough
she thrived under Hospice care and eventrually started eating well,
engaging
in activities that she had long stopped doing, etc. Her medical tests
stopped giving negative results and eventually she was kicked out of
Hospice
on the grounds that she was too healthy based on the tests and also her
behavior.
Was that a miracle, good science, or what?

I don't know. The thoughts of people around us seem to and effect -- for
good or ill -- on us. Was there any intercessionary prayer?

Very good point and question.


It's worth noting that Jesus castigated his disciples (which I assume you
know means "students") when they failed to heal someone. He called them
"faithless and perverse". Their failure to heal suggests that something more
than a "miracle" was involved. (If God is consistent and unchanging, then
"miracles" are, by definition, impossible.)

William, thank you for making this point. I've honestly not pondered it
in quite the way you've brought it out. It's something else I need to study.

Of course, I disagree with the direction of your parenthetical statement
at the end of that paragraph. I think that's what makes miracles what
they are. He is making a point by their occurrence.


Also note that, as God is unchanging, it makes no sense to believe that, for
a limited period, God would suspend His previously established rule that man
was to suffer for having sinned. This is shown by the "miracles" in the Old
Testament. Elijah told the widow she would have food until the rain
returned, and he later raised her son from the dead.

You're missing something, William. Blood sacrifice. The blood of bulls,
goats, sheep, etc. were required to atone. (No children were
sacrificed--sorry to disappoint you, Don.)

But since they were imperfect sacrifices, they were all only temporary.
When Jesus was sacrificed, He was a perfect sacrifice--once for all time
for those who would accept it. The rule was never suspended. He instead
fulfilled it.



The inconsistency of "Christian" belief is absurd on the face of it. If a
physicist said that he absolutely believed in the law of conservation of
energy -- then told you he was working on a perpetual motion machine --
what would you think?

The problem here is that you are confusing physics with metaphysics.

I'm not confusing anything -- I'm drawing a parallel.


Do you even know what metaphysics is? Do you see any possible
connection between metaphysics and Christianity?

Yes, I know what metaphysics is -- are. I see a great connection.

Doesn't it bother you that, if God is all-powerful, he created a separate
set of rules -- "physics" -- that operate independently of his will?
(Newton's "Principia" got a lot of people upset. No more angels moving the
planets in their orbits.)

And angels moving planets in their orbits is completely unbiblical. They
needed to be upset.



Yet we are told that God is Love -- yet this Love punishes its
creation by casting those who are disobedient into Hell for eternity.
That's divine Love? It makes no sense.

It's not the love that punishes, its the disobedience itself. Sin isn't as
simple as you make it out to be.

Ah... If a child runs into the street and is killed by a car, it's the not
the traffic light that's responsible. (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm
agreeing.)

I whole-heartedly concur.


---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
wrote:
This directly contradicts the belief that Jesus's death was a propitiation
for human sin.

Not at all. Jesus understood that no matter how much he exhorted us to be
perfect and love our enemies, few of us would be able to do it at all or for
very long, thus fueling our need for redemption from sin.

Orlando

Much simpler and more eloquently stated than my response.

+1

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

geoff wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:


It's worth noting that Jesus castigated his disciples (which I assume
you know means "students") when they failed to heal someone.

Did he, or did somebody in another country, hundreds of years later, make it
up ?

Very good question. We have some early manuscripts to get us there, but
they're not originals. Everything I've seen--from my Greek instructors
and textbooks and such--has it there originally. However, there may be
some competing manuscripts that may say otherwise.


Hell, even with all our concise modern technology we get misreporting and
re-writing of history that occurred weeks ago, or less.

I know THAT'S right. Outstanding point.


geoff



---Jeff

[[email protected]]

On Feb 5, 12:12*am, "Trevor" wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message

...

Doug McDonald writes:

Mechanical watches, even modestly priced ones, can keep
excellent time, year after year.

They pale in comparison to even the cheapest quartz watches.

*IF* you are VERY lucky.

For my 11th birthday I got a $50 Bulova (middle price then)
mechanical watch. It was accurate to 1 second a day, and kept that up for
years.

You should have offered it to Rolex, since it outperformed Rolexes by
nearly
an order of magnitude. They could probably learn from Bulova.

There was a reason Bullova used tuning forks after all. And it was Omega
that went to the moon, not Rolex. I'm sure NASA did their homework. Fashion
jewelery not being a major requirement. :-)

Trevor.

The Bulova Accutron is a valuable collector's piece today but it was a
lousy watch in a lot of ways. For one thing it emitted an ultrasonic
tone that drove some animals nuts. It also ate batteries pretty badly.

[Arkansan Raider]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

It's worth noting that Jesus castigated his disciples (which I assume you
know means "students") when they failed to heal someone. He called them
"faithless and perverse". Their failure to heal suggests that
something more
than a "miracle" was involved. (If God is consistent and unchanging, then
"miracles" are, by definition, impossible.)

William, thank you for making this point. I've honestly not pondered it
in quite the way you've brought it out. It's something else I need to
study.

Of course, I disagree with the direction of your parenthetical statement
at the end of that paragraph. I think that's what makes miracles what
they are. He is making a point by their occurrence.


Duh. Faith as small as a mustard seed moves mountains. I didn't even
think about that. *facepalm*

Yeah, faith was also the lacking component with Peter walking on water
and then failing--he had it, then lost it.

But that's still during Jesus' own time here on earth and prior to the
the death of the last person touched by an apostle.

The death of the last person touched by an apostle should have occurred
at about the same time that all of the New Testament books would have
been collected together, if memory serves. And this would dovetail
perfectly with what Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians chapters 12 and 13.

Again, this is *my* understanding, not necessarily a universally held
interpretation, to be sure.

---Jeff

[Steve King]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arkansan Raider wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:

According to the Bible, same sex relationships aren't necessarily a
problem. Same sex intercourse is, but so is unmarried intercourse,
which is all over the place. I'm in favor of laws that can be
enforced, if you catch my drift.

Isn't it remarkably silly that the being that created the world, the
universe, all it's diversity (and behaviours of beings included),
the
galaxies, atoms - bigger and smaller bits, dimensions, things we
cannot even comprehend, etc, etc, etc, should be so preoccupied
with his design-flaw that makes some people want to love the
wrong person and stick their willy in the wrong place?

No. You seem unclear about the concept of free will.

This is The Big Lie that the Religious Right spreads about
homosexuals --
that they /choose/ to do what they do. This is true only in rare
cases. Most
gay men will tell you they were born that way (as far as they can
tell) --
and they're not lying.

A gay man may have a predisposition to that behavior. No one is putting
a gun to his head to force him to act on his desires.

I hetero man may have a predisposition to that behavior. No one is
putting a gun to his head to force him to act on his desires.

Thus, persecuting the crime of rape is logical.

How does one persecute a crime?

Steve King

[Mxsmanic]

Arkansan Raider writes:

On the other hand, I guess I needed to find out things like that so's I
could put them in proper perspective--even my musical heroes are human,
and they needn't be put on a pedestal even for an instant.

I just listen to music, without paying any attention to who wrote or performed
it. The music stands or falls on its own. It doesn't make sense to care about
anything else.

[Arkansan Raider]

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
Arkansan Raider wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
According to the Bible, same sex relationships aren't necessarily a
problem. Same sex intercourse is, but so is unmarried intercourse,
which is all over the place. I'm in favor of laws that can be
enforced, if you catch my drift.
Isn't it remarkably silly that the being that created the world, the
universe, all it's diversity (and behaviours of beings included), the
galaxies, atoms - bigger and smaller bits, dimensions, things we
cannot even comprehend, etc, etc, etc, should be so preoccupied
with his design-flaw that makes some people want to love the
wrong person and stick their willy in the wrong place?
No. You seem unclear about the concept of free will.
This is The Big Lie that the Religious Right spreads about
homosexuals --
that they /choose/ to do what they do. This is true only in rare cases.
Most
gay men will tell you they were born that way (as far as they can
tell) --
and they're not lying.
A gay man may have a predisposition to that behavior. No one is putting
a gun to his head to force him to act on his desires.
A hetero man may have a predisposition to that behavior. No one is
putting a gun to his head to force him to act on his desires.
Thus, persecuting the crime of rape is logical.

Of course it is. But what does that have to do with being gay?


Jenn, he was earlier making the point that if being gay is not a choice,
then there must be rape involved.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

geoff wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:
geoff


You folks gotta' have it both ways, don't you? Ya' get mad that you
don't have a choice. Then you get mad that God didn't make you all
robots so as to keep from this Hell that YOU think is imaginary
anyway.
Nice piece of work.

THat presupposes that one accepts that gods are anything but folktales.

geoff



Nah. Just presupposes that your argument is bi-polar.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2012 13:13:12 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

Do what I say or I will burn you in Hell until the end of time. Some
choice.

Do what I say or I will throw you into jail. Keep on going against what I
say and I will throw you into jail for your entire life.

Same choice, only on a practical level. I believe this is called human
justice?

Why is a policy right for humans and wrong for a deity?


Because humans actually exist, and we reach our moral standards by
understanding what works - not by fiat. That is only for dictatorships
- such as yours.

d

Thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder are only for dictatorships?

Dude. Really?

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 22:28:07 -0600, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Trevor wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
But as a Christian, you must advocate an eternity of torment in hell
for failure to believe as you do. That really isn't very nice, is it?
And the idea that we should "fear God" is hardly an endorsement. And of
course since you can simply repent at any time, no need to be "God fearing"
anyway apparently :-)

Trevor.


Untrue. People who wish to live His way have a safety net for when they
make mistakes. People who don't wish to live His way have no need for a
safety net--they choose to fall.

And it's not a failure to believe. It's an active choice to disbelieve.

That is some of the nastiest **** I've ever read. You an evil, smug
*******, Jeff. I hope Zeus deals with you appropriately when you die.

d

Yyyyyyyyyyeahhhhh....

*I* am an evil smug *******?

Hmmmmmmm... Lemme think about this.

*******, yeah. My parents weren't married when I was born.

Smug, no. I'm way too imperfect for that.

Evil, yeah. We all are. It's a part of the human condition. Part of why
I'm trying to improve myself--and I've a long way to go.

So I guess two out of three ain't bad there, bud.

As for it being among the nastiest you've read, try your Valhalla myth
on for size. The good guys all die. Twice. And lose. Pretty cool, huh?
No? No, I don't think so, either.

I think I'll stick with what I know.


---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 22:48:00 -0800, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:03:46 -0600, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:57:45 -0600, Arkansan Raider
wrote:

Arny Krueger wrote:

OK, I'll say it more clearly: IME very many atheists are good moral
people. Some of the most moral people I know are atheists.

QFT

Absolutely right.

Well, we agree on this at least. Here's a challenge (not mine, I'm
afraid)

Name me an objectively moral action that can be performed by a
religious person that I, as an atheist cannot perform.

And its corollary

Name me an immoral action that can be or has been performed purely on
a religious basis.

Nobody has ever come up with an answer for that first. As for the
second, one could go on supplying examples for hours.

All that religion can add to the morality tally is immorality. All
else is available to all of humanity.

d
That's because your line of questioning is jacked.

It would make more sense for question number two to be: "Name me an
immoral action that can be performed by a religious person that I, as an
atheist cannot perform."

OK, I'll answer that. Jihad for one. Death by inquisition is another.
There is no conceivable atheist reason for either of those. Of course
I could do them because I was a psychopath, but that is not an atheist
reason.

d
Psychopathy might make a perfectly good religion.

Might? It does. We can see it every day.

d

Politics is a pretty good example of a psychopathic religion that we see
every day.

Just sayin'...

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Mxsmanic wrote:
Arkansan Raider writes:

On the other hand, I guess I needed to find out things like that so's I
could put them in proper perspective--even my musical heroes are human,
and they needn't be put on a pedestal even for an instant.

I just listen to music, without paying any attention to who wrote or performed
it. The music stands or falls on its own. It doesn't make sense to care about
anything else.

I'll go along with that.

Music makes its own sense.

Sometimes, however, the story behind a song gives depth to it. When I
read the background info to Amazing Grace--written by a former slave
trader who repents; It Is Well With My Soul--written by a man who had
just lost his entire family in a shipwreck; and Nearer My God To
Thee--played by the band on a sinking Titanic, I end up with a much
richer experience.

It did the same for me with John Lennon and "Mother." Knowing that he
had essentially no family growing up helped the song to really click
with me.

Again, JMHSO.

---Jeff

[Scott Dorsey]

Arkansan Raider wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:
Yyyyyyyyeahhhhhh... Blowing up buildings and wishing you'd actually
killed someone is uplifting.

Well, it worked for Curtis LeMay.

That was during wartime.

So that makes it better? "Okay, we can kill these people because we're
at war with them."

I can't think of many things that happen during wartime that are
uplifting aside, of course, from the things that make the end of the war
closer.

Well, LeMay would have nuked Hanoi in an attempt to make the end of the
war closer. Even Johnson thought that was a stupid idea.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arkansan Raider]

Steve King wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
news
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arkansan Raider wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"geoff" wrote in message
...
Arny Krueger wrote:
According to the Bible, same sex relationships aren't necessarily a
problem. Same sex intercourse is, but so is unmarried intercourse,
which is all over the place. I'm in favor of laws that can be
enforced, if you catch my drift.
Isn't it remarkably silly that the being that created the world, the
universe, all it's diversity (and behaviours of beings included),
the
galaxies, atoms - bigger and smaller bits, dimensions, things we
cannot even comprehend, etc, etc, etc, should be so preoccupied
with his design-flaw that makes some people want to love the
wrong person and stick their willy in the wrong place?
No. You seem unclear about the concept of free will.
This is The Big Lie that the Religious Right spreads about
homosexuals --
that they /choose/ to do what they do. This is true only in rare
cases. Most
gay men will tell you they were born that way (as far as they can
tell) --
and they're not lying.
A gay man may have a predisposition to that behavior. No one is putting
a gun to his head to force him to act on his desires.
I hetero man may have a predisposition to that behavior. No one is
putting a gun to his head to force him to act on his desires.
Thus, persecuting the crime of rape is logical.

How does one persecute a crime?

Steve King



Hah! I didn't catch it, either.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Doug McDonald wrote:
On 2/5/2012 6:33 PM, Arkansan Raider wrote:


I absolutely am dinging the President for associating with him
[Ayers], as well
as the UIC, the Board, and anyone else who associated with him.
Terrorists need to be behind bars, period. Just because he was elected
doesn't mean I need to side with the ill-informed public.

Ayers is no longer associated in any way with the University
of Illinois. He was denied Emeritus status by the Board of Trustees
itself. The Board was not receptive to someone who who had praised
activities of terrorists like the one (Sirhan Sirhan) who murdered
the father of Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

Doug McDonald


Thanks for passing on that information, Doug. I hadn't heard.

---Jeff

[Arkansan Raider]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan Raider wrote:
Yyyyyyyyeahhhhhh... Blowing up buildings and wishing you'd actually
killed someone is uplifting.
Well, it worked for Curtis LeMay.
That was during wartime.

So that makes it better? "Okay, we can kill these people because we're
at war with them."

No, that doesn't make it better. But as I explained in my next sentence,
not much happens during wartime that is uplifting. This is principally
so because war is about killing people and breaking things. Nothing
uplifting about it. In fact, it is one of the most depressing things on
earth.


I can't think of many things that happen during wartime that are
uplifting aside, of course, from the things that make the end of the war
closer.

Well, LeMay would have nuked Hanoi in an attempt to make the end of the
war closer. Even Johnson thought that was a stupid idea.
--scott


Yeah, prolly so. But then again, many people over the years have noted
that war is primarily political. Once you take away the public will to
fight, you essentially win the war. Ho Chi Minh was pretty skilled in
this regard.

This concept is part of the reasoning behind the classification by some
of terrorism as fourth generation warfare/low intensity conflict. They
believe that it is a legitimate form of warfare for those who do not
have the resources or manpower to participate in higher intensity (as in
higher order weaponry) warfare.

I completely disagree with the concept as practiced by those who are
doing so now--mostly because of what I saw in the beheading videos. I
saw no military discipline, giving respect to a fallen foe. Nor did I
see any respect paid to one about to be executed as one who is about to
pay the ultimate payment for one's debt to society. Instead, I saw giddy
teenage wannabes fidgeting and yanking at their masks seeing themselves
as getting over on "the Great Satan."

And before you say it, yes--I have a huge problem with the way some of
our own have behaved. They have dishonored not just their enemies but us
as a society.


/rant

---Jeff

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Arkansan wrote:
Yyyyyyyyeahhhhhh... Blowing up buildings and wishing you'd actually
killed someone is uplifting.

Well, it worked for Curtis LeMay.

That was during wartime.

So that makes it better? "Okay, we can kill these people because we're
at war with them."

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/3...annukesuq3.gif
(NSFW language mispelled on the cartoon).

I can't think of many things that happen during wartime that are
uplifting aside, of course, from the things that make the end of the war
closer.

Well, LeMay would have nuked Hanoi in an attempt to make the end of the
war closer. Even Johnson thought that was a stupid idea.
--scott


"LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as
war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were
behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing
would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it
immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" - Robert Strange
Macnamara.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
All right, a slight re-word for you. The name for people who read the
bible and believe it literally is Christians. Those who "interpret"
and take bits of it a-la-carte are not Christians.


Based on what authority besides your own thinking?

None of course, since most self described christians obviously "take bits of
it a-la-carte", even with just the ten commandments! The evidence is all
around us!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
The bible is either the word of god or it isn't. They can't have it
both ways.

Of course they can, they've been doing exactly that for the past two
millenia, even the clergy!
(especially the child molesting homosexual ones :-(

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
...
I think I'll stick with what I know.

Better stick with 1+1 then, it's certain nobody knows if any of the
hundred's of deity's man believes in exist.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Arkansan Raider" wrote in message
...
Politics is a pretty good example of a psychopathic religion that we see
every day.

While they do worship the God of greed, I doubt many would call it a
religion.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

So CDs aren't digital ?

They carry digital information - numbers. All of the signal writing
and reading is analogue.

And your point is?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
*IF* you are VERY lucky.

If that were true, everyone would still be wearing mechanical watches,
instead
of quartz watches. But it is not true, which is why quartz watches are the
standard today.

You sure have *NO* clue as to reading comprehension!! You said ALL quartz
watches were better than mechanical (even $5 ones), I never said some/many
weren't, but clearly *NOT* ALL!


There was a reason Bullova used tuning forks after all.

Tuning forks make for a more accurate movement, although not as accurate
as
quartz.

No argument, *when done properly!*. I can *Easily* find examples of quartz
watches less accurate than most Bullova's however. I have one that gains
over a minute a day for example, far more than Bullova or even Rolex
specify. And three others that aren't much better. And of course every
computer has a quartz clock, but many still need to be synced to the
internet time service if you want them to keep proper time. Over the years
I've found many that drift significantly. That you can't understand the
difference between what is possible, and what is routinely done to save
money, is no surprise at all.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news
Anything physical is effectively analog.

See YOUR other post stating it is neither analog or digital because they
are
not representations.

"effectively"

Right, more meaningless gibberish!

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
All of my posts are consistent,

:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
That's the trouble with semantics, everyone simply makes their own
definition suit whatever argument they care to make. What a pointless
exercise!

That's why I prefer understanding to semantics. But those who cannot
manage
the former tend to play excessively with the latter.

Thanks for explaining why you always resort to semantics then.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
I'd buy a German turntable or microphone long before buying an Italian
turntable or microphone, all else being equal.

I'd be happy with a BMW *or* Ferrari, if someone gives it to me! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
You're not stressed by the thought that every analog recording to which
you
listen is damaged slightly each time you play it?

No, I'm not, no more than I worry that every stroke of the flatpick
wears it out a little bit.

Do you use the same pick forever regardless of wear, or do you simply
replace it when worn? What if no more picks were ever made (as with most of
the vinyl records ever pressed), would you choose one that lasts longer
instead? Move on to whatever technology that replaced flat picks?
Any correlation to vinyl/CD use seems tenuous and pointless at best to me
however.

Trevor

[Trevor]

"Ron Capik" wrote in message
...
And thus one might ask how to define the (optimal)
phase of a continuous stream of data.

Why? There is no real evidence for absolute phase having any effect on one
data stream that I'm aware of?

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"david gourley" wrote in message
. ..
Most people that say that are the ones quickest to forget how dependent
Reagan was on teleprompters. He was a grade-B disaster when he went off
script. It wasn't much different for Kennedy or Clinton - the ones that
mastered the media all depended on them. Not sure where that leaves Bush
II.

Clearly he was a lost cause even WITH a teleprompter! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
(idler-wheels rule !).

But a tape measure is probably more accurate! :-)

Trevor.