should I call Krueger's pastor?

[Robert Morein]

There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.

I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny embarasses
himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a pastor
information that would help him do his job better could save Arny from
troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely angry
man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.

It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
1. Don't embarass Arny.
2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral attention,
and this is an opportunity to open the door.

If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this is
an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own benefit.
Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier Arny.

Please sound off.

[dave weil]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 10:46:02 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
>I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny embarasses
>himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a pastor
>information that would help him do his job better could save Arny from
>troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely angry
>man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>
>It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>1. Don't embarass Arny.
>2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral attention,
>and this is an opportunity to open the door.

You forgot 3 &4:

Don't embarass yourself.

Don't take RAO into real life.

>If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this is
>an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own benefit.
>Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier Arny.
>
>Please sound off.

Sure.Disingenuousness is pretty hard to disguise.

Cue Lionel to accuse me of said property...

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny embarasses
> himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>
> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>
> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
> happier Arny.
>
> Please sound off.

**Do you seriously imagine that you can speak rationally and reasonably with
a person whose PROFESSION is completely dominated by delusion?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>> embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>
>> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
>> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>
>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>> happier Arny.
>>
>> Please sound off.
>
> **Do you seriously imagine that you can speak rationally and reasonably
> with a person whose PROFESSION is completely dominated by delusion?
>
We all live with delusions, Trevor.

[Margaret von B.]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny embarasses
> himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>
> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>
> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
> happier Arny.
>
> Please sound off.
>

Hi Rob,

1. It is Krueger's family business. If they cannot sort him out...too bad!

2. Why do you insist on believing that you know something about him that
isn't common knowledge?

3. It is Krueger's family business.

4. Stay out. I mean it.


Cheers,

Margaret

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this is
> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own benefit.
> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier Arny.
>
> Please sound off.

I doubt your motives are entirely charitable. Mine wouldn't be.

[Robert Morein]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Robert Morein said:
>
>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>> is
>> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>> benefit.
>> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier
>> Arny.
>>
>> Please sound off.
>
> I doubt your motives are entirely charitable. Mine wouldn't be.
>
It bothers me that r.a.o. has gotten a little closed off. Krueger's style
affects us all. If Arny were to moderate a little, perhaps that would
lighten the tone around here. As it is, the level of real animosity, as
opposed to the put-on kind, is a barrier for new people.

I honestly believe that a conversation with Arny's pastor has the
possibility of improving Arny's overall well-being, at the expense of
temporary embarassment.

I will respect the concensus of the group.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>>
>>> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>>> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much.
>>> If this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>>> embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>>> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>>> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>>> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>>> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>>
>>> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>>> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
>>> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>>> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>>
>>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>>> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>>> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>>> happier Arny.
>>>
>>> Please sound off.
>>
>> **Do you seriously imagine that you can speak rationally and reasonably
>> with a person whose PROFESSION is completely dominated by delusion?
>>
> We all live with delusions, Trevor.

**Not so. Some of us live our lives based on reality. Further, few of us are
professionally involved in delusions.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.

That is not your business.

> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny embarasses
> himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>

Arny's pastor will have to figure that our for himself, if he hasn't
already

> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>

None of your business.

> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
> happier Arny.
>
> Please sound off. >

would you want any of us to interfere in your personal life?

Arny' is a pathetic and vile human being.
That's his problem, hopefully he will confront
it on his own someday, or maybe
some of his closest people will intervene for him.

What gives you the right to play God?

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Robert Morein said:
>>
>>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>>> is
>>> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>>> benefit.
>>> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier
>>> Arny.
>>>
>>> Please sound off.
>>
>> I doubt your motives are entirely charitable. Mine wouldn't be.
>>
> It bothers me that r.a.o. has gotten a little closed off. Krueger's style
> affects us all. If Arny were to moderate a little, perhaps that would
> lighten the tone around here. As it is, the level of real animosity, as
> opposed to the put-on kind, is a barrier for new people.
>
> I honestly believe that a conversation with Arny's pastor has the
> possibility of improving Arny's overall well-being, at the expense of
> temporary embarassment.
>
> I will respect the concensus of the group.
>

Sneaking off and talkin to Arny's pastor is childish and cowardly.
Just talk to Arny, himself about this, if you
are so concerned.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>
> That is not your business.
>
>> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>> embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>
>
> Arny's pastor will have to figure that our for himself, if he hasn't
> already
>
>> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
>> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>
>
> None of your business.
>
>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>> happier Arny.
>>
>> Please sound off. >
>
> would you want any of us to interfere in your personal life?
>
> Arny' is a pathetic and vile human being.
> That's his problem, hopefully he will confront
> it on his own someday, or maybe
> some of his closest people will intervene for him.
>
> What gives you the right to play God?
>
I would be farming that out to a professional :)

[George M. Middius]

Trevor Wilson said:

> **Not so. Some of us live our lives based on reality. Further, few of us are
> professionally involved in delusions.

You should make an effort to distinguish between delusions and
superstitions. Most religionists are sane enough to realize that they are
substituting faith in the unproven for knowledge. Very few are daft enough
to say they "know" that their beliefs are congruent with reality.

[Lionel]

Robert Morein a écrit :

> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny embarasses
> himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a pastor
> information that would help him do his job better could save Arny from
> troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely angry
> man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>
> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral attention,
> and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>
> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this is
> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own benefit.
> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier Arny.
>
> Please sound off.

Why would you make an ass of yourself Bob ?
You start by calling his pastor and you finish by phoning to his
neighbors during the night... :-(
BTW I already regret to have answered to your question.

--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Clyde Slick]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...

>>
>> What gives you the right to play God?
>>
> I would be farming that out to a professional :)
>

You would only be embarrasing yourself.
Of course, little has stopped you before.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message


> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.

LOL.

In fact, there's no division.

All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt
backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".

I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been
telling him about, are going to call him in an attempt to
harass me.

[Trevor Wilson]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Trevor Wilson said:
>
>> **Not so. Some of us live our lives based on reality. Further, few of us
>> are
>> professionally involved in delusions.
>
> You should make an effort to distinguish between delusions and
> superstitions.

**I think the line is blurred.

Most religionists are sane enough to realize that they are
> substituting faith in the unproven for knowledge. Very few are daft enough
> to say they "know" that their beliefs are congruent with reality.

**I disagree.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Margaret von B.]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been telling him
> about, are going to call him in an attempt to harass me.

Right on, Arny. That is good way to protect your reputation. It would be
even better if the threat was mentioned to the whole congregation during the
sermon so they could all be on the lookout. :-)

Cheers,

Margaret

[dizzy]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:36:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
>LOL.
>
>In fact, there's no division.
>
>All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt
>backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".

There is "no doubt" that "all" of the posts publicly saying "don't do
it" are backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".

Is that your final answer?

[Margaret von B.]

"dizzy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:36:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>>
>>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>>LOL.
>>
>>In fact, there's no division.
>>
>>All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt
>>backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
> There is "no doubt" that "all" of the posts publicly saying "don't do
> it" are backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
> Is that your final answer?
>

Just wait until Arnii finds out that his "God" is actually Satan!

Cheers,

Margaret

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>
>>> **Not so. Some of us live our lives based on reality. Further, few of us
>>> are
>>> professionally involved in delusions.
>>
>> You should make an effort to distinguish between delusions and
>> superstitions.
>
> **I think the line is blurred.
>
> Most religionists are sane enough to realize that they are
>> substituting faith in the unproven for knowledge. Very few are daft
>> enough
>> to say they "know" that their beliefs are congruent with reality.
>
> **I disagree.
>
Trevor, I'm an agnostic myself. But I find surprising that you do not
acknowledge that many clerics, at least the better ones, provide valuable
life counseling to their parishoners. Moral guidance provided by religion
comes packaged in an assortment of superstitions, myths, demands for fealty,
promises of favor/forgiveness, distinction, exclusion, ritual, and ceremony,
which both you and I consider unpalatable. But this is precisely what the
vast majority of humanity requires, who are not possessed of universal
minds.

And you and I, as rationalists, have other problems with reality. Modern
physics has almost reached the conclusion that objective reality, in the
absolute sense, does not exist. What seems to be replacing it is a Universe
that is only as rational as it has to be.

[Robert Morein]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> LOL.
>
> In fact, there's no division.
>
> All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt backed with
> private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
> I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been telling him
> about, are going to call him in an attempt to harass me.
I have received no such emails, Arny.
Behind their facades, the r.a.o.'ers really do seem to extend to you what
you would call Christian love.

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein a écrit :
>
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>> embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>
>> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
>> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>
>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>> happier Arny.
>>
>> Please sound off.
>
> Why would you make an ass of yourself Bob ?
> You start by calling his pastor and you finish by phoning to his neighbors
> during the night... :-(
> BTW I already regret to have answered to your question.
>
Why should you regret it? You added to the concensus of the group.
I am not going to call Arny's pastor.

[Lionel]

dizzy a écrit :
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:36:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

>>
>>
>>>There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>>LOL.
>>
>>In fact, there's no division.
>>
>>All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt
>>backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
>
> There is "no doubt" that "all" of the posts publicly saying "don't do
> it" are backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
> Is that your final answer?

Are you new in that game ?


--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny embarasses
> himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a pastor
> information that would help him do his job better could save Arny from
> troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely angry
> man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>
> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral attention,
> and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>
> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this is
> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own benefit.
> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier Arny.
>
> Please sound off.

Even contemplating such BS shows a complete lack rational perspective
that leads me to believe you're a potentiall far more vile presence on
RAO than Arny could ever be.

It just goes to show how little of a life you have when you seek to
make usenet/RAO a real world component of your life.

ScottW

[ScottW]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
> in message ...
> >
> >
> > Robert Morein said:
> >
> >> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
> >> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
> >> is
> >> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
> >> benefit.
> >> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier
> >> Arny.
> >>
> >> Please sound off.
> >
> > I doubt your motives are entirely charitable. Mine wouldn't be.
> >
> It bothers me that r.a.o. has gotten a little closed off.

The hypocrisy of your recent Mckelvy vedetta is just a bit
overwhelming.

ScottW

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote
>> in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> > Robert Morein said:
>> >
>> >> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to
>> >> exert
>> >> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that
>> >> this
>> >> is
>> >> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>> >> benefit.
>> >> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier
>> >> Arny.
>> >>
>> >> Please sound off.
>> >
>> > I doubt your motives are entirely charitable. Mine wouldn't be.
>> >
>> It bothers me that r.a.o. has gotten a little closed off.
>
> The hypocrisy of your recent Mckelvy vedetta is just a bit
> overwhelming.
>
> ScottW
>
Scott, you are always poised on the edge of Niagara Falls, ready to be
overwhelmed.

[Robert Morein]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>> embarasses
>> himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>> pastor
>> information that would help him do his job better could save Arny from
>> troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely angry
>> man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>
>> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
>> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>> attention,
>> and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>
>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>> is
>> an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>> benefit.
>> Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a happier
>> Arny.
>>
>> Please sound off.
>
> Even contemplating such BS shows a complete lack rational perspective
> that leads me to believe you're a potentiall far more vile presence on
> RAO than Arny could ever be.
>
> It just goes to show how little of a life you have when you seek to
> make usenet/RAO a real world component of your life.
>
> ScottW
>
Would you excuse me for a few minutes while I torture my kittens?

[Lionel]

ScottW a écrit :

> It just goes to show how little of a life you have when you seek to
> make usenet/RAO a real world component of your life.

I agree with that.




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Robert Morein a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Robert Morein a écrit :
>>
>>
>>>There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>>
>>>I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>>>Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>>>this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>>>embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>>>of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>>>pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>>>from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>>>angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>>
>>>It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>>>1. Don't embarass Arny.
>>>2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>>>attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>>
>>>If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>>>pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>>>is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>>>benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>>>happier Arny.
>>>
>>>Please sound off.
>>
>>Why would you make an ass of yourself Bob ?
>>You start by calling his pastor and you finish by phoning to his neighbors
>>during the night... :-(
>>BTW I already regret to have answered to your question.
>>
>
> Why should you regret it?

Because, a posteriori, I have been a little bit afraid by your request.

> You added to the concensus of the group.


Do you mean that I've joined the herd ?
You didn't habituate me to such crudeness. ;-)


> I am not going to call Arny's pastor.

If it's really a big problem for you, you'd better call Arnold instead.



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[George M. Middius]

Robert Morein said:

> > I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been telling him
> > about, are going to call him in an attempt to harass me.

> I have received no such emails, Arny.

Thanks Mr. Morine for, admitting you're an online sickie, LOt"S!

> Behind their facades, the r.a.o.'ers really do seem to extend to you what
> you would call Christian love.

I think that's going too far. All anybody has said is not to take Usenet
fun & games into the real world. I happen to agree with you that an
intervention might be beneficial to Mr. ****, not to mention to the rest of
us. However, it's not your place (or mine, or any other RAOer's) to bring
it about. Unfortunately.

[Robert Morein]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein a écrit :
>> "Lionel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Robert Morein a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>>>There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>>>
>>>>I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>>>>Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much.
>>>>If this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>>>>embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>>>>of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>>>>pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>>>>from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>>>>angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>>>
>>>>It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>>>>1. Don't embarass Arny.
>>>>2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>>>>attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>>>
>>>>If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>>>>pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>>>>is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>>>>benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>>>>happier Arny.
>>>>
>>>>Please sound off.
>>>
>>>Why would you make an ass of yourself Bob ?
>>>You start by calling his pastor and you finish by phoning to his
>>>neighbors during the night... :-(
>>>BTW I already regret to have answered to your question.
>>>
>>
>> Why should you regret it?
>
> Because, a posteriori, I have been a little bit afraid by your request.
>
>> You added to the concensus of the group.
>
>
> Do you mean that I've joined the herd ?
> You didn't habituate me to such crudeness. ;-)
>
Lionel, your Green Card has blossomed into a forest :)
>
>> I am not going to call Arny's pastor.
>
> If it's really a big problem for you, you'd better call Arnold instead.
>
This reminds me of a "code of honor". A hundred years ago, people engaged in
duels to settle "questions of honor."
This is not my concern. Look, there are about six or seven people who do 95%
of the posting on this group, a worldwide usenet group. Why is it so small?
I feel that Arny has cast a pall (shadow, umbra) over this group, because
unlike the rest of us here, there is some darkness in his soul that runs
deep to the bone. Arny is in tremendous pain. So I thought, in terms of
social services that might be available, there is organization in which he
quite literally puts his faith. By extension, the pastor might be someone he
looks up to.

So I put the question to the Group, and I awaited the concensus, which is
very clear. I will not approach the pastor.

The motivation is completely different from the situation with McCarty. In
that case, McCarty actively inteferred with the lives and businesses of very
innocent people. He called police on people. He harassed people in the
middle of the night. Some people he damaged very considerably. Yet all the
while, McCarty himself was a wannabe scammer. Still, in that case, I did not
want to destroy this individual. The screws were tightened very gradually,
each time warning McCarty that if he continued, the circumstances would get
worse for him. It finally ended up at the level of head of government, which
I guess shows, I can talk to anybody :).

[George M. Middius]

Scottieborg pleads for mercy on behalf of his fellow cretin.

> The hypocrisy of your recent Mckelvy vedetta is just a bit
> overwhelming.

Sorry, that wasn't one of the choices. Please review the question and
choose one of the alternatives provided:

Q: How should we encourage duh-Mikey to get away from it all permanently?

(a) Give him a gun with a single bullet in the chamber.
(b) Send him a hose and some tape and a picture of his garage with the door
closed.
(c) Buy him a ticket for a ride to the top of the Space Needle.
(d) Help him arrange a pharmaceutical "accident" that will not invalidate
his life insurance.


Even a twit like you should be able to get this question right, Scooter.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Trevor Wilson said:
>>>
>>>> **Not so. Some of us live our lives based on reality. Further, few of
>>>> us are
>>>> professionally involved in delusions.
>>>
>>> You should make an effort to distinguish between delusions and
>>> superstitions.
>>
>> **I think the line is blurred.
>>
>> Most religionists are sane enough to realize that they are
>>> substituting faith in the unproven for knowledge. Very few are daft
>>> enough
>>> to say they "know" that their beliefs are congruent with reality.
>>
>> **I disagree.
>>
> Trevor, I'm an agnostic myself. But I find surprising that you do not
> acknowledge that many clerics, at least the better ones, provide valuable
> life counseling to their parishoners.

**On the contrary, I do. My mother is a Christian. She was conselled by one
of the finest humans I have ever met, on the death of my father - the
minister of her local Church. He was able to provide valuable assistance to
my mother. Assistance I had no hope of ever being able to provide. OTOH, the
man could do nothing to assuage my grief at the time. All of this takes
nothign away from the fact that he is/was a deluded human. I have NEVER
denied the value of worthy humans (whether they be Ministers of religion,
psychiatrists, social workers or mates down at the local pub) in councelling
those in need.

Anecdote mode ON
Some years ago, I recall reading about a doctor down in the Cajun area of
Louisiana. Part of his treatment of these extremely superstitious people,
was to banish black magic effects on his patients. He did not do so, by
explaining that such things did not exist (he related stories of several
patients who had died, as a result of alleged 'spells' cast by those who
wished them ill will), but he actually treated those people by pretending to
use that same magic to help them. He stressed that he held no belief in
magic, but often felt that there was no other way to treat his patients,
without making them think that he was using magic.

Anecdote mode /OFF

Moral guidance provided by religion
> comes packaged in an assortment of superstitions, myths, demands for
> fealty, promises of favor/forgiveness, distinction, exclusion, ritual, and
> ceremony, which both you and I consider unpalatable. But this is precisely
> what the vast majority of humanity requires, who are not possessed of
> universal minds.

**Indeed. However, IMO, superstition is no replacement for understanding.
Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy those
answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true understanding of
the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer. Superstition and
gobbledegook merely leads to more superstition and gobbledegook.

>
> And you and I, as rationalists, have other problems with reality. Modern
> physics has almost reached the conclusion that objective reality, in the
> absolute sense, does not exist. What seems to be replacing it is a
> Universe that is only as rational as it has to be.

**True enough, but that just makes it ever more fascinating.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> LOL.
>
> In fact, there's no division.
>
> All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt backed with
> private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
> I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been telling him
> about, are going to call him in an attempt to harass me.

No Arny, not me.
You don't have to be so paranoid.

[Clyde Slick]

"ScottW" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> Even contemplating such BS shows a complete lack rational perspective
> that leads me to believe you're a potentiall far more vile presence on
> RAO than Arny could ever be.
>

Arny is a man of unlimited potential!!

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>
[snip]
>
> Moral guidance provided by religion
>> comes packaged in an assortment of superstitions, myths, demands for
>> fealty, promises of favor/forgiveness, distinction, exclusion, ritual,
>> and ceremony, which both you and I consider unpalatable. But this is
>> precisely what the vast majority of humanity requires, who are not
>> possessed of universal minds.
>
> **Indeed. However, IMO, superstition is no replacement for understanding.
> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.
> Superstition and gobbledegook merely leads to more superstition and
> gobbledegook.
>
You have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. In my opinion, the vast
majority are marginally equipped to function as part of modern civilization.
It's in our genes, Trevor. Evolution stopped too soon.

The Communists had a similar notion early in the 20th Century; to make a New
Marxist Man, shorn of the hobbles of religion, governed by a rational
philosophy. It didn't work because humans are not fundamentally rational.
You seem captivated by the idea that the right ideology can conquer human
weakness. Marxism and Fascism tried with fanatical devotion and ruthlessness
to create the New Man. They failed, and for the time being, Mankind is not
endangered by an "ism."

Arny is an educated fellow. Yet inspite of all the rationalitiy he bestows
upon himself, he is driven by irrational desires. And he's not the worst of
what we have to deal with. How many people do you actually know with
below-average intelligence? We try to ignore their presence, but they
constitute half of humanity. They are scarily irrational, and unable to
grasp the modalities of thought you would like to gift to them.

[Robert Morein]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> In fact, there's no division.
>>
>> All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt backed with
>> private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>>
>> I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been telling him
>> about, are going to call him in an attempt to harass me.
>
> No Arny, not me.
> You don't have to be so paranoid.
Aw, Art, you almost had me convinced!
I feel so betrayed.

[Trevor Wilson]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
> [snip]
>>
>> Moral guidance provided by religion
>>> comes packaged in an assortment of superstitions, myths, demands for
>>> fealty, promises of favor/forgiveness, distinction, exclusion, ritual,
>>> and ceremony, which both you and I consider unpalatable. But this is
>>> precisely what the vast majority of humanity requires, who are not
>>> possessed of universal minds.
>>
>> **Indeed. However, IMO, superstition is no replacement for understanding.
>> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
>> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
>> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.
>> Superstition and gobbledegook merely leads to more superstition and
>> gobbledegook.
>>
> You have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. In my opinion, the vast
> majority are marginally equipped to function as part of modern
> civilization. It's in our genes, Trevor. Evolution stopped too soon.

**Perhaps.

>
> The Communists had a similar notion early in the 20th Century; to make a
> New Marxist Man, shorn of the hobbles of religion, governed by a rational
> philosophy. It didn't work because humans are not fundamentally rational.

**Not so much. It didn't work, because the Marxists did not replace religion
with education. Education will enable people to remove the shackles of
religious claptrap. Moreover, it is vital that they do so of their own
volition. I am not a proponent of the removal of religious rights. People
should have the right to worship whatever their delusion dictates. In their
own time, of course. Religion has no place in schools, workplaces, or
government.

> You seem captivated by the idea that the right ideology can conquer human
> weakness. Marxism and Fascism tried with fanatical devotion and
> ruthlessness to create the New Man. They failed, and for the time being,
> Mankind is not endangered by an "ism."

**Of course. Humans need and crave education. They need to be provided with
facts, not gobbledegook. I have no problems with religion. Like any other
product or service in our society, it needs to meet all the relevant
consumer laws. 'Life after death'. Prove it, or place the appropriate
condictions on any advertising. It is illegal to mislead people by false
advertising.


>
> Arny is an educated fellow.

**As are many of us here.

Yet inspite of all the rationalitiy he bestows
> upon himself, he is driven by irrational desires. And he's not the worst
> of what we have to deal with. How many people do you actually know with
> below-average intelligence?

**Honestly? Know. Not many. Know of. Several.

We try to ignore their presence, but they
> constitute half of humanity. They are scarily irrational, and unable to
> grasp the modalities of thought you would like to gift to them.

**It is my belief that most people can be educated. It is the responsibility
of those who are well educated to ensure that the rest of humanity can
follow.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Robert Morein]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net>
>>>>> wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Moral guidance provided by religion
>>>> comes packaged in an assortment of superstitions, myths, demands for
>>>> fealty, promises of favor/forgiveness, distinction, exclusion, ritual,
>>>> and ceremony, which both you and I consider unpalatable. But this is
>>>> precisely what the vast majority of humanity requires, who are not
>>>> possessed of universal minds.
>>>
>>> **Indeed. However, IMO, superstition is no replacement for
>>> understanding. Education is the real answer to people's problems. They
>>> may not enjoy those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a
>>> whole, true understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY
>>> answer. Superstition and gobbledegook merely leads to more superstition
>>> and gobbledegook.
>>>
>> You have a higher opinion of humanity than I do. In my opinion, the vast
>> majority are marginally equipped to function as part of modern
>> civilization. It's in our genes, Trevor. Evolution stopped too soon.
>
> **Perhaps.
>
>>
>> The Communists had a similar notion early in the 20th Century; to make a
>> New Marxist Man, shorn of the hobbles of religion, governed by a rational
>> philosophy. It didn't work because humans are not fundamentally rational.
>
> **Not so much. It didn't work, because the Marxists did not replace
> religion with education. Education will enable people to remove the
> shackles of religious claptrap. Moreover, it is vital that they do so of
> their own volition. I am not a proponent of the removal of religious
> rights. People should have the right to worship whatever their delusion
> dictates. In their own time, of course. Religion has no place in schools,
> workplaces, or government.
>
>> You seem captivated by the idea that the right ideology can conquer human
>> weakness. Marxism and Fascism tried with fanatical devotion and
>> ruthlessness to create the New Man. They failed, and for the time being,
>> Mankind is not endangered by an "ism."
>
> **Of course. Humans need and crave education. They need to be provided
> with facts, not gobbledegook. I have no problems with religion. Like any
> other product or service in our society, it needs to meet all the relevant
> consumer laws. 'Life after death'. Prove it, or place the appropriate
> condictions on any advertising. It is illegal to mislead people by false
> advertising.
>
>
>>
>> Arny is an educated fellow.
>
> **As are many of us here.
>
> Yet inspite of all the rationalitiy he bestows
>> upon himself, he is driven by irrational desires. And he's not the worst
>> of what we have to deal with. How many people do you actually know with
>> below-average intelligence?
>
> **Honestly? Know. Not many. Know of. Several.
Our impression of humanity depends, to a certain extent, on who we interact
with. For example, many social workers, who deal with the bottom strata of
society, are pessimistic about Man's potential.
>
> We try to ignore their presence, but they
>> constitute half of humanity. They are scarily irrational, and unable to
>> grasp the modalities of thought you would like to gift to them.
>
> **It is my belief that most people can be educated. It is the
> responsibility of those who are well educated to ensure that the rest of
> humanity can follow.
>
That was Plato's Politics, but the current trend in the world is democracy.

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>



> **Not so much. It didn't work, because the Marxists did not replace
> religion with education.


You forgot about Gulag U. and Lubyanka College.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:35:25 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:


>**Indeed. However, IMO, superstition is no replacement for understanding.
>Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy those
>answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true understanding of
>the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer. Superstition and
>gobbledegook merely leads to more superstition and gobbledegook.

So what are you telling us, Trevor? That there are no educated and
intelligent Christians? If there are, then there's a contradiction in
your argument.

[paul packer]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 15:12:43 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>> LOL.
>>
>> In fact, there's no division.
>>
>> All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt backed with
>> private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>>
>> I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been telling him
>> about, are going to call him in an attempt to harass me.
>I have received no such emails, Arny.
>Behind their facades, the r.a.o.'ers really do seem to extend to you what
>you would call Christian love.

Robert, all this rings a bell. Even the language you're using about
Arny being angry etc. Of course it's true, but it's all been said and
suggested, thankfully with no action, before. But I think you're well
aware of what's appropriate; I think you're just sounding the group to
see who stands where. Arny is indeed self-blind, which makes his
judgements of others suspect and his behaviour frequently infuriating,
but I honestly don't see much more to it than that. Now if you really
want to see bad, even insane behaviour, pop over to aus.hi-fi and take
a look at the antics of Phil Allison. Then feel grateful to be here
and not there.

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:35:25 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>**Indeed. However, IMO, superstition is no replacement for understanding.
>>Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
>>those
>>answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true understanding
>>of
>>the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer. Superstition and
>>gobbledegook merely leads to more superstition and gobbledegook.
>
> So what are you telling us, Trevor? That there are no educated and
> intelligent Christians?

**No. Clearly, some Christians (and Muslims, Jews, Hindus, et al. I amke no
distictions between religious groups) are intelligent. They do, however,
suffer a 'blind spot' WRT critical thinking.

If there are, then there's a contradiction in
> your argument.

**No. Sufficient education routs superstitious beliefs.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
>
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>
> LOL.
>
> In fact, there's no division.
>
> All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt backed with
> private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
> I'll let my pastor know that those online sickies I've been telling him
> about, are going to call him in an attempt to harass me.
>

Arny, truly you ARE insane.

[surf]

"Trevor Wilson" > ...
>
> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.

What is the true nature of the universe then? That it banged into
existence
from nothingness without cause?

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > ...
>>
>> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
>> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
>> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.
>
> What is the true nature of the universe then?

**Please refine your question. It is not possible to answer.

That it banged into
> existence
> from nothingness without cause?

**No one knows. That part of our history is under intense investigation.
Just as religion has never been able to address any of the questions raised
by the major branches of science, there is no point in turning to religion
for answer in the area of cosmology either. After all, it was the Catholic
Church which locked up Galileo for suggesting that the Earth revolved around
the Sun.

Religion needs to stick to what it does best: Philosophy and poetry. It
should leave actual science to actual scientists.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Trevor Wilson" > ...
>>>
>>> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
>>> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
>>> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.
>>
>> What is the true nature of the universe then?
>
> **Please refine your question. It is not possible to answer.
>
> That it banged into
>> existence
>> from nothingness without cause?
>
> **No one knows. That part of our history is under intense investigation.
> Just as religion has never been able to address any of the questions
> raised by the major branches of science, there is no point in turning to
> religion for answer in the area of cosmology either. After all, it was the
> Catholic Church which locked up Galileo for suggesting that the Earth
> revolved around the Sun.
>
> Religion needs to stick to what it does best: Philosophy and poetry. It
> should leave actual science to actual scientists.
>

Science endeavors to explain the explainable.
Religion endeavors to explain the unexplainable.
There is enough of both.

[Clyde Slick]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > ...
>>
>> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
>> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
>> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.
>
> What is the true nature of the universe then? That it banged into
> existence
> from nothingness without cause?
>

Sure, and probably more than once.

[surf]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
...
>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Trevor Wilson" > ...
>>>
>>> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
>>> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
>>> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.
>>
>> What is the true nature of the universe then? That it banged into
>> existence
>> from nothingness without cause?
>>
>
> Sure, and probably more than once.


and *that* doesn't require a leap of faith ?

[paul packer]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:36:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:


>All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt
>backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".

You know, there's a world of instruction in this post of Arnie's. It
speaks of a very sad and lonely existance believing that no one likes
him because he's always right, all by dint of superior intelligence.
IOW, Arnie believes he's a martyr to his eternal "rightness", his
divine mission to show us all where we're going wrong, beginning with
our skewed belief in subjectivism. Arnie believes he'll die
friendless, but that the sacrifice will have been worth it because
he'll have brought enlightenment to the world.

I wonder if when Arnie was born there was a travelling light in the
sky being followed determinedly by three audio technicians bearing
gifts of diodes, rectifiers and resistors (no transistors in those
days). Can anyone trace such a phenomenon back to the early 40s, or
were there too many lights in the sky around then to ever identify the
right one?

[surf]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>
> That it banged into
>> existence
>> from nothingness without cause?
>
> **No one knows. That part of our history is under intense investigation.
> Just as religion has never been able to address any of the questions
> raised by the major branches of science, there is no point in turning to
> religion for answer in the area of cosmology either. After all, it was the
> Catholic Church which locked up Galileo for suggesting that the Earth
> revolved around the Sun.
>
> Religion needs to stick to what it does best: Philosophy and poetry. It
> should leave actual science to actual scientists.

Faith in God is as George has said. It's not a condition. It's a verb.
To believe in God is to commit your life to that supposition. No one
knows for sure that God exists, any more than you can prove it's
gobbledygook.

I believe this is true: until you decide to believe in God, you will
continue to search for a truth. If you decide to believe in God,
you will feel better............. if for no other reason than you will
be done searching. Read the Bible. It may be the word of God.
God may speak to you.

As I said to Art, to believe that the universe banged into existence
from nothing without cause takes a large amount of faith.
Yes - it's the nature of nothingness. Occasionally, it explodes.
Once it exploded and 77 variables, each with an infinite number
of possible values, all took the precise value that allow
carbon-based life to evolve. Lucky. And... if you listen carefully,
you can hear the difference between two well built SS amplifiers
not driven to clipping.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message

> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:36:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>
>> All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no
>> doubt backed with private email and phone calls saying
>> "do it".
>
> You know, there's a world of instruction in this post of
> Arnie's. It speaks of a very sad and lonely existance
> believing that no one likes him because he's always
> right, all by dint of superior intelligence. IOW, Arnie
> believes he's a martyr to his eternal "rightness", his
> divine mission to show us all where we're going wrong,
> beginning with our skewed belief in subjectivism. Arnie
> believes he'll die friendless, but that the sacrifice
> will have been worth it because he'll have brought
> enlightenment to the world.

This is a sad joke on Paul Packer's life, if he believes for
a second it's right.

When people make posts like this, they tend to be
autobiographical.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> Science endeavors to explain the explainable.
> Religion endeavors to explain the unexplainable.

I disagree with that. Organized religion endeavors to palliate the
incomprehensible and ascribe it to imagined -- and equally incomprehensible
-- causes. Hardly the same thing as explaining, which is usually taken to
mean deducing a cause from a perceived effect. Real science (not 'borg
science, which is close kin to religion) leaves a clear trail of logic that
anybody can reconstruct. Religion, like a lot of fiction, demands that you
suspend your reliance on reason and accept tenets on faith.

[surf]

> "paul packer" > writes:

>> You know, there's a world of instruction in this post of
>> Arnie's. It speaks of a very sad and lonely existance
>> believing that no one likes him because he's always
>> right, all by dint of superior intelligence. IOW, Arnie
>> believes he's a martyr to his eternal "rightness", his
>> divine mission to show us all where we're going wrong,
>> beginning with our skewed belief in subjectivism. Arnie
>> believes he'll die friendless, but that the sacrifice
>> will have been worth it because he'll have brought
>> enlightenment to the world.


And then Arny demonstrates the precise qualities paul has
just ascribed to him:

> This is a sad joke on Paul Packer's life, if he believes for a second it's
> right.
>
> When people make posts like this, they tend to be autobiographical.


poor, poor arny.........

[George M. Middius]

surf said:

> >> You know, there's a world of instruction in this post of
> >> Arnie's. It speaks of a very sad and lonely existance
> >> believing that no one likes him because he's always
> >> right, all by dint of superior intelligence. IOW, Arnie
> >> believes he's a martyr to his eternal "rightness", his
> >> divine mission to show us all where we're going wrong,
> >> beginning with our skewed belief in subjectivism. Arnie
> >> believes he'll die friendless, but that the sacrifice
> >> will have been worth it because he'll have brought
> >> enlightenment to the world.

> And then Arny demonstrates the precise qualities paul has
> just ascribed to him:

> > This is a sad joke on Paul Packer's life, if he believes for a second it's right.

The IKYABWAI is one of Mr. ****'s primary "debating trade" dodges.
Turdy doesn't resort to it as often as his proto**** Mickey does.

> > When people make posts like this, they tend to be autobiographical.

"It's not me! It's you! You! You! YOU!"

> poor, poor arny.........

paulie's description of Kroofulness is pretty accurate, but he left out the
paranoia. Krooger's paranoia is the defining element of his mental
infirmity. It's a lot stronger than just feeling disliked. He actually
believes that when people disagree with him, they are his "enemies".
Krooger has said so many times. The paranoia does reinforce Krooger's
delusion of being a martyr, so on that count I think paulie was 100%
correct.

I still want to hear about Arnii's "series of strokes". Some people have
said the Beast's behavior worsened (if that's possible) around this time in
2001. Maybe that's when he had his illness.

[Clyde Slick]

"surf" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "surf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Trevor Wilson" > ...
>>>>
>>>> Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
>>>> those answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true
>>>> understanding of the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer.
>>>
>>> What is the true nature of the universe then? That it banged into
>>> existence
>>> from nothingness without cause?
>>>
>>
>> Sure, and probably more than once.
>
>
> and *that* doesn't require a leap of faith ?
>

I'm not anti-religion, just an agnostic.

[Clyde Slick]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2005 13:36:41 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>All of the posts publicly saying "don't do it" are no doubt
>>backed with private email and phone calls saying "do it".
>
> You know, there's a world of instruction in this post of Arnie's. It
> speaks of a very sad and lonely existance believing that no one likes
> him because he's always right, all by dint of superior intelligence.
> IOW, Arnie believes he's a martyr to his eternal "rightness", his
> divine mission to show us all where we're going wrong, beginning with
> our skewed belief in subjectivism. Arnie believes he'll die
> friendless, but that the sacrifice will have been worth it because
> he'll have brought enlightenment to the world.
>
> I wonder if when Arnie was born there was a travelling light in the
> sky being followed determinedly by three audio technicians bearing
> gifts of diodes, rectifiers and resistors (no transistors in those
> days). Can anyone trace such a phenomenon back to the early 40s, or
> were there too many lights in the sky around then to ever identify the
> right one?


I thnk he was followed by three guys with brooms, dustpans,
adn a lot of extra diapers.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> When people make posts like this, they tend to be autobiographical.

Right, just like your posts about other people sending you kiddie porn

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote
in message ...
>
>
> Clyde Slick said:
>
>> Science endeavors to explain the explainable.
>> Religion endeavors to explain the unexplainable.
>
> I disagree with that. Organized religion endeavors to palliate the
> incomprehensible and ascribe it to imagined -- and equally
> incomprehensible
> -- causes. Hardly the same thing as explaining, which is usually taken to
> mean deducing a cause from a perceived effect. Real science (not 'borg
> science, which is close kin to religion) leaves a clear trail of logic
> that
> anybody can reconstruct. Religion, like a lot of fiction, demands that you
> suspend your reliance on reason and accept tenets on faith.
>

We agree, one can't explain the
unexplainable, one can only create myths about it.
That thought was inherent in my last post.

[Ruud Broens]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
:
: "paul packer" > wrote in message
: ...
: > On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 21:35:25 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
: > > wrote:
: >
: >
: >>**Indeed. However, IMO, superstition is no replacement for understanding.
: >>Education is the real answer to people's problems. They may not enjoy
: >>those
: >>answers at a given time, but for humanity as a whole, true understanding
: >>of
: >>the nature of this universe is the ONLY answer. Superstition and
: >>gobbledegook merely leads to more superstition and gobbledegook.
: >
: > So what are you telling us, Trevor? That there are no educated and
: > intelligent Christians?
:
: **No. Clearly, some Christians (and Muslims, Jews, Hindus, et al. I amke no
: distictions between religious groups) are intelligent. They do, however,
: suffer a 'blind spot' WRT critical thinking.
:
: If there are, then there's a contradiction in
: > your argument.
:
: **No. Sufficient education routs superstitious beliefs.
:

that sounds so borg - like, Trev :-)

materialism, one of those legs science rest on,
could just as easily be added to your "superstitious beliefs"
as proving or disproving it by scientific standards is a
rather circular affair :-)

Agree with the education, do hope for room for discussion;-)
a society of absolutes,
not my cuppa ;-)

Rudy


: --
: Trevor Wilson
: www.rageaudio.com.au
:
:

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote...
>>
>> That it banged into
>>> existence
>>> from nothingness without cause?
>>
>> **No one knows. That part of our history is under intense investigation.
>> Just as religion has never been able to address any of the questions
>> raised by the major branches of science, there is no point in turning to
>> religion for answer in the area of cosmology either. After all, it was
>> the Catholic Church which locked up Galileo for suggesting that the Earth
>> revolved around the Sun.
>>
>> Religion needs to stick to what it does best: Philosophy and poetry. It
>> should leave actual science to actual scientists.
>
> Faith in God is as George has said. It's not a condition. It's a verb.
> To believe in God is to commit your life to that supposition. No one
> knows for sure that God exists, any more than you can prove it's
> gobbledygook.

**There is not now, nor has there ever been a single shred of evidence to
suggest that any supernatural creatures exist. It is, therefore, not
reasonable to include the supernatural as part of the the explanation for
the forces and processes we observe. Can I prove the non-existence of
anything? Of course not. However, like differences in amplifiers, if they
cannot be measured, nor (reliably) heard, then they do not exist. Likewise,
the supernatural (God). If it is not possible to observe such a creature,
nor measure it's existence, then it does not exist.

>
> I believe this is true: until you decide to believe in God, you will
> continue to search for a truth. If you decide to believe in God,
> you will feel better............. if for no other reason than you will
> be done searching. Read the Bible.

**I've read the Bible. Many times.

It may be the word of God.
> God may speak to you.

**No. The Bible is a book, written by scientifically illiterate people, some
100-odd years after the death of Jesus (New Testament). It variously
contains philosophy, poetry, history, fiction and other stuff. Moreover, it
has been politically altered over the years and badly translated in
sections. It is an interesting and highly flawed document. It must ALWAYS be
viewed in that context. Treating the Bible as a kind of reference is a fatal
mistake. Without corroberating evidence, the information contained within
the Bible should be treated as suspect.

>
> As I said to Art, to believe that the universe banged into existence
> from nothing without cause takes a large amount of faith.

**We (human beings) do not know how the universe came about. We have some
theories and some wild speculation. It is quite probable that we will never
know for sure.


> Yes - it's the nature of nothingness. Occasionally, it explodes.
> Once it exploded and 77 variables, each with an infinite number
> of possible values, all took the precise value that allow
> carbon-based life to evolve. Lucky.

**Not so much. The universe is extremely large and the chances of life
appearing somewhere, sometime, was quite high.

And... if you listen carefully,
> you can hear the difference between two well built SS amplifiers
> not driven to clipping.

**Certainly, if one of those amps is poorly designed. I've certainly heard
it.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>
>> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>> embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>
>> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
>> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>
>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>> happier Arny.
>>
>> Please sound off.
>
> **Do you seriously imagine that you can speak rationally and reasonably
> with a person whose PROFESSION is completely dominated by delusion?
>
>
>
His Pastor works for Stereophile?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:10:20 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

> Real science (not 'borg
>science, which is close kin to religion) leaves a clear trail of logic that
>anybody can reconstruct.

Quantum physics?

[paul packer]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:29:01 GMT, > wrote:

>
>"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> There seems to be a divided opinion on this subject.
>>>
>>> I would not ask the pastor for more than to help Arny with his problems.
>>> Usenet addictions are common, but Arny seems to be suffering so much. If
>>> this is not a purpose of one's church, what else is there? Arny
>>> embarasses himself every day here, and in other forums, in front
>>> of thousands of people. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Giving a
>>> pastor information that would help him do his job better could save Arny
>>> from troubles that none of us know anything about. Arny is an extremely
>>> angry man. This is what distinguishes the rest of us from Arny.
>>>
>>> It appears to me that the scales are so balanced:
>>> 1. Don't embarass Arny.
>>> 2. Arny is an extremely unhappy, angry person, who needs pastoral
>>> attention, and this is an opportunity to open the door.
>>>
>>> If I were to speak to Arny's pastor, I WOULD NOT ask the pastor to exert
>>> pressue on Arny to change what he writes. My attitude would be that this
>>> is an opportunity for Arny to receive counseling, entirely for his own
>>> benefit. Whatever benefit comes to us would be only a side effect of a
>>> happier Arny.
>>>
>>> Please sound off.
>>
>> **Do you seriously imagine that you can speak rationally and reasonably
>> with a person whose PROFESSION is completely dominated by delusion?
>>
>>
>>
>His Pastor works for Stereophile?

Pretty good, Mike. Still thinking.

[Lionel]

In >, paul packer wrote :

> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:10:20 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>> Real science (not 'borg
>>science, which is close kin to religion) leaves a clear trail of logic
>>that anybody can reconstruct.
>
> Quantum physics?


George doesn't care about over-simplification he just wants to look
intelligent.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[paul packer]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 07:17:15 -0700, "surf" >
wrote:

>> "paul packer" > writes:
>
>>> You know, there's a world of instruction in this post of
>>> Arnie's. It speaks of a very sad and lonely existance
>>> believing that no one likes him because he's always
>>> right, all by dint of superior intelligence. IOW, Arnie
>>> believes he's a martyr to his eternal "rightness", his
>>> divine mission to show us all where we're going wrong,
>>> beginning with our skewed belief in subjectivism. Arnie
>>> believes he'll die friendless, but that the sacrifice
>>> will have been worth it because he'll have brought
>>> enlightenment to the world.
>
>
>And then Arny demonstrates the precise qualities paul has
>just ascribed to him:

But you'd expect that, wouldn't you? I've just posted to Phil Allison
at aus.hi-fi wishing that he could look back and see himself, and one
could wish Arnie the same. Not that I'm making comparisons--Phil is a
far gone creature without redeeming virtues, a pile of screaming
paranioa. Arnie can actually be a nice guy whern he chooses, and
probably is very kind to animals as well. However, the nature of the
self-blindness is the same.

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:10:20 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
> [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:
>
>> Real science (not 'borg
>>science, which is close kin to religion) leaves a clear trail of logic
>>that
>>anybody can reconstruct.
>
> Quantum physics?

**Just to be pedantic, that would be "Quantum Mechanics". And the answer is
yes. QM answers the questions, with logic (most of the time) and evidence.
However, there are areas of QM which are in the realm of science fiction.
These are still areas of either theory, hypothesis, or wild speculation. The
nice thing about science is that nothing is written into law, until it has
been proven. OTOH, religious groups expect their followers to believe in
stuff where no evidence exists. Worse, when proven utterly and completely
wrong (the Earth revolving around the Sun thing), apologies can take
Centuries to be brought forth. Science does not work that way. When Einstein
proved Newtonian Physics incorrect, the acceptance within the scientific
community took a matter of a few years.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[surf]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote
>
> I'm not anti-religion, just an agnostic.


I thought you were Jewish........

[Clyde Slick]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote
>>
>> I'm not anti-religion, just an agnostic.
>
>
> I thought you were Jewish........
>

sure, a Jewish agnostic, or an agnostic Jew.

[surf]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote:

> ........... If it is not possible to observe such a creature, nor measure
> it's existence, then it does not exist.

disagree.


>> Read the Bible.
>> It may be the word of God.
>> God may speak to you.
>
> **No.

Trevor - it's possible the Bible is the inspired word of God.

> .....The Bible is a book, written by scientifically illiterate people,
> some 100-odd years after the death of Jesus (New Testament). It variously
> contains philosophy, poetry, history, fiction and other stuff. Moreover,
> it has been politically altered over the years and badly translated in
> sections. It is an interesting and highly flawed document. It must ALWAYS
> be viewed in that context. Treating the Bible as a kind of reference is a
> fatal mistake.

Agreed. The Bible should not be used as a reference.

>> As I said to Art, to believe that the universe banged into existence
>> from nothing without cause takes a large amount of faith.
>
> **We (human beings) do not know how the universe came about. We have some
> theories and some wild speculation. It is quite probable that we will
> never know for sure.

We know it's expanding. Don't most scientists subscribe to the Big Bang
theory?
>
>> Yes - it's the nature of nothingness. Occasionally, it explodes.
>> Once it exploded and 77 variables, each with an infinite number
>> of possible values, all took the precise value that allow
>> carbon-based life to evolve. Lucky.
>
> **Not so much. The universe is extremely large and the chances of life
> appearing somewhere, sometime, was quite high.

Now you're talking about life appearing in this universe. We haven't yet
figured out how or why the universe "appeared".

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/154/story_15485_1.html
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/mysearch.shtml

[Clyde Slick]

"surf" > wrote in message
...

>
> Trevor - it's possible the Bible is the inspired word of God.
>

Who inspired God to write it?

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote:
>
>> ........... If it is not possible to observe such a creature, nor measure
>> it's existence, then it does not exist.
>
> disagree.

**Then you are entitled to your delusion.

>
>
>>> Read the Bible.
>>> It may be the word of God.
>>> God may speak to you.
>>
>> **No.
>
> Trevor - it's possible the Bible is the inspired word of God.

**The Bible was written by humans. That much is known absolutely. If those
humans were deluded, then that is also possible.

>
>> .....The Bible is a book, written by scientifically illiterate people,
>> some 100-odd years after the death of Jesus (New Testament). It variously
>> contains philosophy, poetry, history, fiction and other stuff. Moreover,
>> it has been politically altered over the years and badly translated in
>> sections. It is an interesting and highly flawed document. It must ALWAYS
>> be viewed in that context. Treating the Bible as a kind of reference is a
>> fatal mistake.
>
> Agreed. The Bible should not be used as a reference.
>
>>> As I said to Art, to believe that the universe banged into existence
>>> from nothing without cause takes a large amount of faith.
>>
>> **We (human beings) do not know how the universe came about. We have some
>> theories and some wild speculation. It is quite probable that we will
>> never know for sure.
>
> We know it's expanding. Don't most scientists subscribe to the Big Bang
> theory?

**Yes. What is not known is what happened during the first few microseconds
of the Big Bang. The laws of physics, as we know them, do not operate within
the physical constraints of what must have been in existence at that time.

>>
>>> Yes - it's the nature of nothingness. Occasionally, it explodes.
>>> Once it exploded and 77 variables, each with an infinite number
>>> of possible values, all took the precise value that allow
>>> carbon-based life to evolve. Lucky.
>>
>> **Not so much. The universe is extremely large and the chances of life
>> appearing somewhere, sometime, was quite high.
>
> Now you're talking about life appearing in this universe. We haven't yet
> figured out how or why the universe "appeared".

**The 'how may never be known. The 'why' is a nonsensical question.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[surf]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote

>> Trevor - it's possible the Bible is the inspired word of God.

> **The Bible was written by humans. That much is known absolutely. If those
> humans were deluded, then that is also possible.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing with me?

> What is not known is what happened during the first few microseconds of
> the Big Bang. The laws of physics, as we know them, do not operate within
> the physical constraints of what must have been in existence at that time.

You seem to be saying that possibly nothingness occasionally explodes
without cause. It may be the nature of nothingness, right? Do you
suppose the result of the explosion is usually different? Once it was
a universe.

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>
>>> Trevor - it's possible the Bible is the inspired word of God.
>
>> **The Bible was written by humans. That much is known absolutely. If
>> those humans were deluded, then that is also possible.
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing with me?

**If you think that my words mean what you said, then yes. My words remain.

>
>> What is not known is what happened during the first few microseconds of
>> the Big Bang. The laws of physics, as we know them, do not operate within
>> the physical constraints of what must have been in existence at that
>> time.
>
> You seem to be saying that possibly nothingness occasionally explodes
> without cause.

**Really? Where did I say that? Be specific.

> It may be the nature of nothingness, right?

**There is no such thing as nothingness. In our universe, there is always
something, somewhere. It may be matter, or energy.

Do you
> suppose the result of the explosion is usually different?

**HUh?

Once it was
> a universe.

**The universe always was. Before the Big Bang, the universe was smaller and
very different to what is here now.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Lionel]

In >, Trevor Wilson wrote :

> When Einstein proved Newtonian Physics incorrect,

incomplete

> the acceptance
> within the scientific community took a matter of a few years.

Just because the scientific community was anxiously waiting since a long
time that someone could fill the gaps.

Have you already played puzzle with 2 or 3 persons ?
When someone find *the* missing part; the one that everybody was looking
for; it takes only few minutes to finish the image.

[Lionel]

In >, surf wrote :

> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister > wrote
>>
>> I'm not anti-religion, just an agnostic.
>
>
> I thought you were Jewish........

Don't be so cruel... He is making a lot of efforts to forget !!!

(One pretends that he has changed his last name from Tsechmeister to
Sackman).


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :

>
> "surf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote
>>>
>>> I'm not anti-religion, just an agnostic.
>>
>>
>> I thought you were Jewish........
>>
>
> sure, a Jewish agnostic, or an agnostic Jew.


Tsechmeister/Sackman is also a nudist but he doesn't practice. ;-)




--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Lionel]

In >, surf wrote :

> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote
>
>>> Trevor - it's possible the Bible is the inspired word of God.
>
>> **The Bible was written by humans. That much is known absolutely. If
>> those humans were deluded, then that is also possible.
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing with me?
>
>> What is not known is what happened during the first few microseconds of
>> the Big Bang. The laws of physics, as we know them, do not operate within
>> the physical constraints of what must have been in existence at that
>> time.
>
> You seem to be saying that possibly nothingness occasionally explodes
> without cause. It may be the nature of nothingness, right? Do you
> suppose the result of the explosion is usually different? Once it was
> a universe.


IMHO, science like religion are just ways to deal with the "Great Illusion".
None is "more" false, "more" deceptive than the other one. Both are human
*only*.



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...

>
> (One pretends that he has changed his last name from Tsechmeister to
> Sackman).
>

yes, one in France does pretend that.

[Arny Krueger]

"paul packer" > wrote in message


> But you'd expect that, wouldn't you? I've just posted to
> Phil Allison at aus.hi-fi wishing that he could look back
> and see himself, and one could wish Arnie the same. Not
> that I'm making comparisons--Phil is a far gone creature
> without redeeming virtues, a pile of screaming paranioa.
> Arnie can actually be a nice guy whern he chooses, and
> probably is very kind to animals as well. However, the
> nature of the self-blindness is the same.

If self-righteouness killed...

Combined with a total lack of self-consciousness, one simply
must laugh...

....or cry.

Here's a hint Paul - you're beginning to sound just like
Morein.

[Annika1980]

You are building a very nice harrassment lawsuit against yourself.
Maybe Arny should call your banker and see if you own anything he
wants.

[Margaret von B.]

"Annika1980" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Maybe Arny should call your banker and see if you own anything he
> wants.
>

Yeah, that's exactly how banks work. Moron.

[George M. Middius]

Dimmika said:

> You are building a very nice harrassment lawsuit against yourself.
> Maybe Arny should call your banker and see if you own anything he
> wants.

Good idea. Let's bring everybody's "RAO career" into court and let the
chips fall where they may.

BTW, I heard you took dave's advice and tried putting with your ample
buttocks. How did that work out for you? ;-)

[Lionel]

In >, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote :

>
>
> Dimmika said:
>
>> You are building a very nice harrassment lawsuit against yourself.
>> Maybe Arny should call your banker and see if you own anything he
>> wants.
>
> Good idea. Let's bring everybody's "RAO career" into court and let the
> chips fall where they may.


Good !!! You sound like an experienced guy now !!!
This should be an encouragement for your gang of morons.



--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

[surf]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote ...
>
> **There is no such thing as nothingness. In our universe, there is always
> something, somewhere. It may be matter, or energy.
>
> **The universe always was. Before the Big Bang, the universe was smaller
> and very different to what is here now.

ok. gotcha. something exploded becoming our universe as we know it.
this universe has a set of physical attributes. The thing that exploded
probably had a different set. One attribute was spontaneous banging.
cool.

[George M. Middius]

surf said:

> ok. gotcha. something exploded becoming our universe as we know it.
> this universe has a set of physical attributes. The thing that exploded
> probably had a different set. One attribute was spontaneous banging.
> cool.

Mocking tone, noted.

How 'bout your theory? Is God an aged white man with a long beard,
ensconced on an eternal throne, surrounded by seraphs and pestered by
Satan?

[Trevor Wilson]

"surf" > wrote in message
...
> "Trevor Wilson" > wrote ...
>>
>> **There is no such thing as nothingness. In our universe, there is always
>> something, somewhere. It may be matter, or energy.
>>
>> **The universe always was. Before the Big Bang, the universe was smaller
>> and very different to what is here now.
>
> ok. gotcha. something exploded becoming our universe as we know it.

**No. The universe EXPANDED (explosion is not really the correct term) and
is still expanding. The universe always was. It was just different to what
it is now. And now. And now. And now.

> this universe has a set of physical attributes. The thing that exploded
> probably had a different set.

**Maybe. We don't know enough, yet. Ascribing the unknown to the
supernatural is the province of a closed, primitive mind. We will eventually
uncover more detail about the early universe. Religion has no answers to
assist in uncovering what went before.

One attribute was spontaneous banging.
> cool.

**Hot, actually. Very, very hot.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

"Lionel" > wrote in message
...
> Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>
>>
>> "surf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Clyde Slick" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> I'm not anti-religion, just an agnostic.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought you were Jewish........
>>>
>>
>> sure, a Jewish agnostic, or an agnostic Jew.
>
>
> Tsechmeister/Sackman is also a nudist but he doesn't practice. ;-)
>

Lionel is a Frenchman, and he practices every minute he can!

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> If self-righteouness killed...
>


My money is still on the bus.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:34:24 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> wrote:


>**The universe always was. Before the Big Bang, the universe was smaller and
>very different to what is here now.

Gee, Trevor, you don't look anywhere near that old.

[paul packer]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:59:05 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>surf said:
>
>> ok. gotcha. something exploded becoming our universe as we know it.
>> this universe has a set of physical attributes. The thing that exploded
>> probably had a different set. One attribute was spontaneous banging.
>> cool.
>
>Mocking tone, noted.
>
>How 'bout your theory? Is God an aged white man with a long beard,
>ensconced on an eternal throne, surrounded by seraphs and pestered by
>Satan?

I used to work with a guy who insisted that the existance of God had
been totally disproven. Intrigued by his confidence, since I hadn't
seen it on the news, I asked why. He replied that since several lots
of astronauts had been shot into space without observing any evidence
of God, God clearly did not exist. Well, what can one say in the face
of such irrefutable logic?

[paul packer]

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:26:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"paul packer" > wrote in message

>
>> But you'd expect that, wouldn't you? I've just posted to
>> Phil Allison at aus.hi-fi wishing that he could look back
>> and see himself, and one could wish Arnie the same. Not
>> that I'm making comparisons--Phil is a far gone creature
>> without redeeming virtues, a pile of screaming paranioa.
>> Arnie can actually be a nice guy whern he chooses, and
>> probably is very kind to animals as well. However, the
>> nature of the self-blindness is the same.
>
>If self-righteouness killed...

If you check my other posts, Arnie, you'll see one where I clearly
state that all psychiatric problems are merely extreme examples of
problems we all suffer from.

>Combined with a total lack of self-consciousness, one simply
>must laugh...
>
>...or cry.

Why not do both? Exercise the facial muscles.

>Here's a hint Paul - you're beginning to sound just like
>Morein.

That's an insult?

[Trevor Wilson]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 05:34:24 GMT, "Trevor Wilson"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>**The universe always was. Before the Big Bang, the universe was smaller
>>and
>>very different to what is here now.
>
> Gee, Trevor, you don't look anywhere near that old.

**I'm not old enough to have seen Jesus nailed to the cross, either.
Nonetheless, I acknowledge that it was a real event. Do you deny that Jesus
was nailed to a cross, just because you did not witness it?

I've never seen gamma radiation, either. I do not deny it's existence. Do
you?


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Lionel]

George Minus Middius a écrit :


> How 'bout your theory? Is God an aged white man with a long beard,
> ensconced on an eternal throne, surrounded by seraphs and pestered by
> Satan?

George is like a little boy.
His life is full of childish incarnations.




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[Lionel]

Clyde Slick a écrit :
> "Lionel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Arthur "Sackman" Tsechmeister wrote :
>>
>>
>>>"surf" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>"Clyde Slick" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>I'm not anti-religion, just an agnostic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I thought you were Jewish........
>>>>
>>>
>>>sure, a Jewish agnostic, or an agnostic Jew.
>>
>>
>>Tsechmeister/Sackman is also a nudist but he doesn't practice. ;-)
>>
>
>
> Lionel is a Frenchman, and he practices every minute he can!


That's true, every minute I can.




--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >**The universe always was. Before the Big Bang, the universe was smaller and
> >very different to what is here now.

> Gee, Trevor, you don't look anywhere near that old.

Stop stalking RAOers, paulie. Get a life.

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

> >How 'bout your theory? Is God an aged white man with a long beard,
> >ensconced on an eternal throne, surrounded by seraphs and pestered by
> >Satan?
>
> I used to work with a guy who insisted that the existance of God had
> been totally disproven. Intrigued by his confidence, since I hadn't
> seen it on the news, I asked why. He replied that since several lots
> of astronauts had been shot into space without observing any evidence
> of God, God clearly did not exist. Well, what can one say in the face
> of such irrefutable logic?

Awesome. For some reason it reminds me of Kroologic.

[Ruud Broens]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
:
: "surf" > wrote in message
: ...
: > "Trevor Wilson" > wrote ...
: >>
: >> **There is no such thing as nothingness. In our universe, there is always
: >> something, somewhere. It may be matter, or energy.
: >>
: >> +**The universe always was. Before the Big Bang, the universe was smaller
: >> and very different to what is here now.

+ nope that's nonsense. we have a hard time reasoning back to the first
instances of the Big Bang, -no way- *anything* can be said, based on
science that is, about a 'before'. In fact, stating it that way makes it clear,
your idea of the big bang is severely flawed.

time and space *started* with the Big Bang, so there _is no before_
is what science tells us.

: >
: > ok. gotcha. something exploded becoming our universe as we know it.
:
: **No. The universe EXPANDED (explosion is not really the correct term) and
: is still expanding.

correct.

+The universe always was. It was just different to what
: it is now. And now. And now. And now.
:
: > this universe has a set of physical attributes. The thing that exploded
: > probably had a different set.
:
: **Maybe. We don't know enough, yet. Ascribing the unknown to the
: supernatural is the province of a closed, primitive mind. We will eventually
: uncover more detail about the early universe. Religion has no answers to
: assist in uncovering what went before.

Maybe not, but science has neither - it's a full stop.
Rudy

: One attribute was spontaneous banging.
: > cool.
:
: **Hot, actually. Very, very hot.
: )
: --
: Trevor Wilson

[Ruud Broens]

"paul packer" > wrote in message
...
: On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:26:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
: wrote:
:
: If you check my other posts, Arnie, you'll see one where I clearly
: state that all psychiatric problems are merely extreme examples of
: problems we all suffer from.

uhmm proof it
packer in specific mode : no problem
packer in generalisation mode : big problem

:-)
R.

[paul packer]

On Wed, 07 Dec 2005 08:17:35 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:


>Stop stalking RAOers, paulie. Get a life.

This is it, George. Don't you recognise it?

[paul packer]

On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 17:21:13 +0100, "Ruud Broens" >
wrote:


>: If you check my other posts, Arnie, you'll see one where I clearly
>: state that all psychiatric problems are merely extreme examples of
>: problems we all suffer from.
>
>uhmm proof it
>packer in specific mode : no problem
>packer in generalisation mode : big problem

"Proof it?"

Are you saying that "psychiatric problems" are NOT merely extreme
examples of things we all suffer from? I'm not talking madness and
delusion here.