On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 20:14:11 -0800, Jim Weir > wrote:

>We served from the side.
>
Heretic.

Don

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:06:00 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
> wrote:

>So it seems. It is looking more and more that they are a single issue
>(religion) party. I was reading recently how stock markets always do better
>under DEMOCRATIC administrations. Weird, huh?

I don't see how that can be useful. Kennedy was the kind of fiscal
Democrat Republicans love to quote about tax cuts. Clinton was much
more of a Centrist, taking credit for the things he liked from his
Republican Congresses. Etc.

And then there's the claim that stock market results lag behind what
presidents do, enabling each party to claim credit or pass blame for
what happens on a president's watch, depending on whether or not the
argument suits them.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:JVyvb.205222$9E1.1098537@attbi_s52...
> I never got taught that in grammar. "He" is only capitalized if it's the
> first word of a sentence or in a title.
>

Or if one is referring to General Robert E. Lee....

Chip, ZTL

("Jim Weir" wrote)
> Yes, an aviation newsgroup replete with newbies that haven't FREAKIN'
LEARNED
> HOW TO SNIP.


Newbies? No ...*snip* ???

Must be something to do with their religion. :-)


--
Montblack

they really oughta be more circumspect about those long messages...

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Jim Weir" wrote)
> > Yes, an aviation newsgroup replete with newbies that haven't FREAKIN'
> LEARNED
> > HOW TO SNIP.
>
>
> Newbies? No ...*snip* ???
>
> Must be something to do with their religion. :-)
>
>
> --
> Montblack
>
>
>

Robert Perkins wrote:

> Yes! But what it *doesn't* mean is that there is any need to tear
> apart the philosophical underpinnings of the billions of people who
> *don't* abuse religious notions to foment tyranny.

The problem isn't the billions by themselves, or that the billions are
abusive. On their own, as you note, they're not.

Unfotunately, as someone else wrote, those beliefs are a vulnerability in
the billions by which the few abusers can manipulate those billions into
killing.

To disarm those few, we innoculate the billions. It's how we go after any
disease.

- Andrew

("Chip Jones" wrote)
> > I never got taught that in grammar. "He" is only capitalized if it's
the
> > first word of a sentence or in a title.

> Or if one is referring to General Robert E. Lee....


South's gonna do it again!

That'll make em 0-2. <g>

Minnesota ain't giving back the Battle Flag!!
http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/flag/govt.html

--
Montblack

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
> And then there's the claim that stock market results lag behind what
> presidents do, enabling each party to claim credit or pass blame for
> what happens on a president's watch, depending on whether or not the
> argument suits them.

Ah, so you agree with me.

> Flying here is still feasible and the twr people speak English.

So is flying just "feasible"? Or is it actually "affordable"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> So is flying just "feasible"?

I meant that the regulations and the various zones hadn't got us fun
pilots yet.


Or is it actually "affordable"?

Well, that's another debate. Actually one for the proselytisers of the
microlights-vs-certified-planes sort.
Flying (a certified plane) is more expensive than in the States, due to
the cost of gas, but tends to be cheaper than in most other European
countries, thanks to the number or non-profit airclubs.
Typically, an hour in a 180 hp Robin aircraft (120 kt) should cost
between 100 and 130 euros.
I'm trying to beat that by flying my own Piper Cub (65 kt), but I prefer
not to face the reality of the costs head on.
Not being a proselytiser doesn't prevent one from being a procrastinator.

"David Hill" > wrote in message
...
> Jay Honeck wrote:
> >>Reading Scet's post below, I must saw that I thought differently too. I
had
> >
> > seen some of your conservative views (especially after 9/11), and so was
all
> > the
> >
> >>more surprised by your post. I guess conservative, and religious don't
> >
> > necessarily go in the same sentence! :-) What do you know - you learn
> > something new > everyday!
> >
> > Which is why we desperately need a third political party in the U.S..
IMHO,
> > "my" Republican Party -- the "Alex Keaton Conservtive Party" of the
1980s--
> > has withered and died under the acidic influence of the Religious Right.
>
> We've got a third party already -- The Libertarian Party.
> <http://www.libertarianism.com/>
>
> When I was young and idealistic, I swore I would never vote a straight
> party ticket, that I would always vote for or against individuals. Now
> that I'm old and cynical, if there's a Libertarian running, I vote for
> him/her.

Unfortunately, the Libertarian Party comes across as a bunch of overgrown
adolescents, and the anarchist wing really destroys their credibility.

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
> ...
> > And then there's the claim that stock market results lag behind what
> > presidents do, enabling each party to claim credit or pass blame for
> > what happens on a president's watch, depending on whether or not the
> > argument suits them.
>
> Ah, so you agree with me.
>
Some times it lags 9waiting to see what REALLY will happen; other times it
leads (when the pump priming, etc., runs out.)

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> John Ousterhout wrote:
> >
> > - John (wondering about the other five) Ousterhout -
>
> Well, you can find them in Levitticus. There are actually something like
116
> commandments.

Actually, it started out as 15 Commandments, but Moses stumbled while coming
down from the mount....

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:dGKvb.273791$HS4.2421772@attbi_s01...
> > Which is why we desperately need a third political party in the U.S..
> IMHO,
> > "my" Republican Party -- the "Alex Keaton Conservtive Party" of the
> 1980s--
> > has withered and died under the acidic influence of the Religious Right.
> >
> > Worse, Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative by any stretch of
> the
> > imagination.
>
> So it seems. It is looking more and more that they are a single issue
> (religion) party. I was reading recently how stock markets always do
better
> under DEMOCRATIC administrations.

When the stock market crash in 1929 (from 287), how long (under Democratic
administrations) did it take to reacquire that 1929 level? How long until it
achieved the level adjusted for inflation?

I'm trying to beat that by flying my own Piper Cub (65 kt), but I prefer
not to face the reality of the costs head on.
Not being a proselytiser doesn't prevent one from being a procrastinator.

Ah, a true aircraft owner.

As with so many things, sometimes it's best not to think about it... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Chip Jones" wrote)
> > > I never got taught that in grammar. "He" is only capitalized if it's
> the
> > > first word of a sentence or in a title.
>
> > Or if one is referring to General Robert E. Lee....
>
>
> South's gonna do it again!
>
> That'll make em 0-2. <g>
>

More likely is the next Civil War will be East vs. West (except Kalifornia).

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Z2Svb.81519$Dw6.389274@attbi_s02...
> > Flying here is still feasible and the twr people speak English.
>
> So is flying just "feasible"? Or is it actually "affordable"?
> --

It's affeasible.

Tom S. wrote:


> It's affeasible.
>

I like that. Only have to remember it, now...

"Jim Weir" wrote:
> Yes, an aviation newsgroup replete with newbies that haven't FREAKIN'
LEARNED
> HOW TO SNIP.

...or how to bottom post.

"Larry Fransson" wrote:
> > > My goodness, Jay. Get a grip.
> >
> > Discussing whacko pilots isn't appropriate in a piloting
> > newsgroup?
>
> They hardly seemed like "whacko" pilots from your description. They
> seemed like sincere individuals with a message they thought they
should
> share with you.

Your turn to get a grip, Larry. You could say exactly the same thing
about a group of neo-nazi skinheads. "Sincerity" is no excuse for such
rude, boorish behavior.

> > I'm sincerely afraid to share the airspace with guys who
> > think someone Else is steering...
>
> Then you really should quit flying.

Oh, man. People who don't believe God controls their actions shouldn't
fly? You're starting to sound a little creepy.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jay Honeck" wrote:
> Which is why we desperately need a third political party in the U.S.
> IMHO, "my" Republican Party -- the "Alex Keaton Conservtive
> Party" of the 1980s-- has withered and died under the acidic
> influence of the Religious Right.
>
> Worse, Republicans are no longer fiscally conservative by any stretch
> of the imagination.

America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
aren't liberal.

Where do I sign up for the new party?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> John Ousterhout wrote:
>
>>- John (wondering about the other five) Ousterhout -
>
>
> Well, you can find them in Levitticus. There are actually something like 116
> commandments. They're usually called the "law of Moses". There's a section in
> the New Testament in which Jesus says that a man should do his best to obey all
> of the commandments, but under no circumstances should he violate the ten that
> he felt were most important. This has been corrupted by Christian leaders to
> the concept that there are only ten commandments.
>


Yeah, but Christ wasn't much on beaurocracy, so he distilled them into
just two (Matthew 22:37). And since not many in this NG "love God",
that makes only one that is relevant: "Love thy neighbour as thyself".

Too bad our Christian Leaders and Governments can't follow suit, whether
in beaurocracy or in love.

"Richard Hertz" > wrote in


>
> > straight lines in spherical geometries.
>
> Um, but the shortest distance between two points is STILL a stright
line...

At non-relativistic speeds, it's so nearly a straight line as to be
inconsequential. But, at speeds approaching the speed of light, it isn't.
Unless you don't believe that the speed of light is a constant in vacuo.

le m

The holiest of places I have worshipped.........
Bomb Bay of B-52s at airshows.


On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:00:09 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>> Does this mean next year's Prayer Meeting Party at your campsite at
>> Oshkosh is canceled?
>
>The closest I get to a prayer meeting in OSH is when I start praying that
>the yodeler chokes on his Zaug's breakfast before morning...
>
>:-)

>America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
>aren't liberal.
>
>Where do I sign up for the new party?

WWW.LP.ORG

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:36:44 -0500, "Happy Dog"
> wrote:

>Interesting POV. I gather that you're not a physicist. Empirical experiment
>is still the gold standard.
[...]
>You haven't identified *any* current
>physical models which whither under the light of empirical testing.

I'm trained in science, but you're right, I'm not a physicist. I am
cognizant of the current state of physics to know, though, that String
Theory is unprovable, which continues to support my point, IMO, if
from a different direction.

>That's the same as saying that you'll never know anything. About anything.

No, it really isn't. It's the same as saying that you'll never escape
certain contexts.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > There is damn little in religion that can be proved or disproved.
>
> Did God create the Big Bang or was the Big Bang created by God? And was
> God's first attempt at man a dinosaur? Surely God didn't screw up the
first
> time, throw it all away, take a million year nap and decide to start over?
> --
> Jim Burns III
>
> Remove "nospam" to reply
>

God created everything that we do not yet understand. Of course, even when
something is understood and explainable, the "fanatics" will not accept it.
They would rather live in a fantasy world.

Earl G.

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> God created everything that we do not yet understand. Of course, even
when
> something is understood and explainable, the "fanatics" will not accept
it.
> They would rather live in a fantasy world.


I find it all rather ... quaint.

> God created everything that we do not yet understand.

Electricity used to be "God's will" -- now it's commonplace. A generation
ago showing a live image of someone world-wide would have been considered a
miracle -- now you can see Britney Spears on a stupid awards show, anywhere
in the world.

Why, flight itself would have been considered the work of God 101 years
ago -- now we recreate it at will, daily.

So has God created everything that we do not yet understand, or is it just a
matter of time before we understand *everything*?

> Of course, even when
> something is understood and explainable, the "fanatics" will not accept
it.
> They would rather live in a fantasy world.

What is this "it" the "fanatics" will not accept?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Icebound" > wrote in message
able.rogers.com...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> >
> > John Ousterhout wrote:
> >
> >>- John (wondering about the other five) Ousterhout -
> >
> >
> > Well, you can find them in Levitticus. There are actually something like
116
> > commandments. They're usually called the "law of Moses". There's a
section in
> > the New Testament in which Jesus says that a man should do his best to
obey all
> > of the commandments, but under no circumstances should he violate the
ten that
> > he felt were most important. This has been corrupted by Christian
leaders to
> > the concept that there are only ten commandments.
> >
>
>
> Yeah, but Christ wasn't much on beaurocracy, so he distilled them into
> just two (Matthew 22:37). And since not many in this NG "love God",
> that makes only one that is relevant:

>"Love thy neighbour as thyself".

Doesn't that go against the adultery one?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:M3Xvb.82855$Dw6.399228@attbi_s02...
> > God created everything that we do not yet understand.
>
> Electricity used to be "God's will" -- now it's commonplace. A generation
> ago showing a live image of someone world-wide would have been considered
a
> miracle -- now you can see Britney Spears on a stupid awards show,
anywhere
> in the world.
>
> Why, flight itself would have been considered the work of God 101 years
> ago -- now we recreate it at will, daily.
>
> So has God created everything that we do not yet understand, or is it just
a
> matter of time before we understand *everything*?
>

You answered your question with your examples. At some point we will
understand everything. Genetic engineering will soon allow us to "create
man in his own image." And that is just the start.

> > Of course, even when something is understood and explainable, the
"fanatics" will not accept
> > it. They would rather live in a fantasy world.
>
> What is this "it" the "fanatics" will not accept?
> --

I guess the answer to that depends on what religion the fanatics belong to.
Off the top of my head we have evolution for the Christians and equality of
the sexes for the Moslems.

Earl G.

("Jay Honeck" wrote)
<snip>
> So has God created everything that we do not yet understand, or is it
just a
> matter of time before we understand *everything*?


I've been waiting for this thread to worm its way around to Star Trek
V - The Final Frontier (1989)

Come on Kirk. Does God really *need* a Starship?? Duh!

Remember the movie rule:
2, 4, 6 .....Good flick
1,3,5 .......Bad flick

--
Montblack
"I like to watch"

On 2003-11-22 17:16:27 -0800, "Dan Luke" > said

> > > I'm sincerely afraid to share the airspace with guys wh
> > > think someone Else is steering..
>
> > Then you really should quit flying
>
> Oh, man. People who don't believe God controls their actions shouldn'
> fly? You're starting to sound a little creepy

You misunderstand. If Jay is afraid to share the air with people who give God a significant place in their lives, then he should quit flying because I know the two he ran into aren't the only ones.

Jay,

> So has God created everything that we do not yet understand, or is it just a
> matter of time before we understand *everything*?
>

There are more options ;-)

As I said, "God" is just another, im my opinion sheepish, way to say "I don't
know".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Earl,

> At some point we will
> understand everything. Genetic engineering will soon allow us to "create
> man in his own image." And that is just the start.
>

Well, putting man in a central role like that lead to the belief of the sun
circling the earth, too. Why would we soon understand anything? Nothing is
even remotely supporting that statement. And why should we, too?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Happy,

> Unless you don't believe that the speed of light is a constant in vacuo.
>

What's there not to believe? Anyone using GPS cannot deny Einstein - it
wouldn't work without relativity.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jim,

Amen!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Robert,

> I'm still looking for good freeware W&B and E6B calculators for Pocket
> PC 2002. Anyone know of any?
>

www.pocketfms.com - what you want AND a full moving map, flight planning
tool for PC and PocketPC. Great!
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 23:11:53 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> Flying here is still feasible and the twr people speak English.
>
>So is flying just "feasible"? Or is it actually "affordable"?

it depends on the viewpoint. For Europeans it becomes cheaper every day to
fly to the US as the exchange rate is in our (the European consumers)
favour (for sure not good for our export quota). For Americans it has
become more expensive to come to Europe.

about 2 years ago I bought 80 US cent for 1 Euro, today I buy about 1.20
USD for 1 Euro. So this is ~ a 40% shift.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:41:38 GMT, Earl Grieda wrote:

>God created everything that we do not yet understand.

So it was God who created the FAA?

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

"Earl Grieda" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:M3Xvb.82855$Dw6.399228@attbi_s02...
> > > God created everything that we do not yet understand.
> >
> > Electricity used to be "God's will" -- now it's commonplace. A
generation
> > ago showing a live image of someone world-wide would have been
considered
> a
> > miracle -- now you can see Britney Spears on a stupid awards show,
> anywhere
> > in the world.
> >
> > Why, flight itself would have been considered the work of God 101 years
> > ago -- now we recreate it at will, daily.
> >
> > So has God created everything that we do not yet understand, or is it
just
> a
> > matter of time before we understand *everything*?
> >
>
> You answered your question with your examples. At some point we will
> understand everything.

>Genetic engineering will soon allow us to "create
> man in his own image." And that is just the start.

Might big assumption :-)


>
> > > Of course, even when something is understood and explainable, the
> "fanatics" will not accept
> > > it. They would rather live in a fantasy world.
> >
> > What is this "it" the "fanatics" will not accept?
> > --
>
> I guess the answer to that depends on what religion the fanatics belong
to.
> Off the top of my head we have evolution for the Christians and equality
of
> the sexes for the Moslems.
>
> Earl G.
>
>

Some simple truths:

=====================
God loves you.
We were created have fellowship with Him.
Sin (man's claim to the right to himself) alienates us from God.
Jesus Christ - God's Son - came to earth as God Incarnate and gave up His
rights to Himself to redeem us from sin.
God accepted Christ's sacrifice and signified this by raising Him from the
dead.
If we accept the sacrifice of Christ as a substitutionary sacrifice for our
sins, we are saved from the results of those sins - alienation from God.

"By this gospel you are saved ... that Christ died for our sins according to
the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
according to the Scriptures"

=====================
Everything else is man's attempt to understand God - some do it better than
others but no one's got it all figured out.

John

In article >,
(Wdtabor) wrote:

> >America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
> >aren't liberal.
> >
> >Where do I sign up for the new party?
>
> WWW.LP.ORG

ah, I knew that was coming... :-)

--
Bob Noel

>> >Where do I sign up for the new party?
>>
>> WWW.LP.ORG
>
>ah, I knew that was coming... :-)
>

But have you followed the link and read what the LP stands for?

I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The two
mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:41:38 GMT, Earl Grieda wrote:
>
> >God created everything that we do not yet understand.
>
> So it was God who created the FAA?
>

That was the work of satan.......

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> >> >Where do I sign up for the new party?
> >>
> >> WWW.LP.ORG
> >
> >ah, I knew that was coming... :-)
> >
>
> But have you followed the link and read what the LP stands for?
>
> I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The two
> mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here.
>
> --
> Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
> PP-ASEL
> Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

You are not alone.

John,

> Some simple truths:
>

Truths? Says who? How can you state something like that after having
read the thread, assuming you have? If you had said: "Some simple
beliefs" - that would have been ok. But "truths"? Sad...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

> You misunderstand. If Jay is afraid to share the air with people who give
God a significant place in their lives, then he should quit flying because I
know the two he ran into aren't the only ones.

I think it's a matter of degree. God plays a "significant role" in this
country, without harm. If this is what you mean by "significant", I'm all
for it.

However, I got the impression that these guys, when confronted with an
in-flight emergency, might conceivably just sit back and wait for a miracle.
THAT scares me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> Some simple truths:

From Encarta Dictionary:

Truth [ trooth ] (plural truths [ troothz, trooths ])

noun

1. true quality: correspondence to fact or reality
2. something factual: something that corresponds to fact or reality
spoke the truth
3. true statement: a statement that corresponds to fact or reality

Although your beliefs are commonly accepted by many, I don't think they meet
the standard of "Truth".
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> >America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
> >aren't liberal.
> >
> >Where do I sign up for the new party?
>
> WWW.LP.ORG

Close, but no cigar. The LP's blind faith in laissez-faire capitalism
betrays a failure to understand that *any* unrestrained power threatens
liberty. It matters not whether that power is in the hands of
government, religion, labor unions or business.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> As I said, "God" is just another, im my opinion sheepish, way to say
> "I don't know".

This is the basis of much of the pseudo-science religionists are
currently attempting to force into public school curricula. It is known
as the "God of the gaps." IOW, if I don't understand it, God did it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article >, "Dan Luke"
> writes:

>
>Close, but no cigar. The LP's blind faith in laissez-faire capitalism
>betrays a failure to understand that *any* unrestrained power threatens
>liberty. It matters not whether that power is in the hands of
>government, religion, labor unions or business.
>--

Who in the LP ever advocated unrestrained power?

The central tenet of Libertarian policy is that we do not INITIATE the use of
force. Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism are actually unholy
alliances of government and some individual or corporation. Aircraft
certification is a good example of a group of corporations using the force of
government to bar competition.

How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government played no part
in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put it on the market. Let
the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers, do the rating and let the
individual purchaser assume the risks if he chooses the unrated airplane.

Freedom and competition go together.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

On 2003-11-23 06:43:03 -0800, "Jay Honeck" > said

> Although your beliefs are commonly accepted by many, I don't think they mee
> the standard of "Truth"

Is the truth any less true just because someone chooses not to believe it

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Unless you don't believe that the speed of light is a constant in vacuo.

> What's there not to believe? Anyone using GPS cannot deny Einstein - it
> wouldn't work without relativity.
>
Relativity has certainly been well-tested and (as you say) widely used.
However, there is serious discussion taking place concerning the
possibility of a variable speed of light as an alternative to inflation
during the early phases of the big bang.
See
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1475-7516/2003/07/004 and
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0209014

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:25:11 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>God plays a "significant role" in this
>country, without harm. If this is what you mean by "significant", I'm all
>for it.

Just check what is printed on your money.

hmm. If government says that they trust in God ('In God we trust'), they
also must believe in Santa Claus.

#m
--
http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

> > Although your beliefs are commonly accepted by many, I don't think they
meet
> > the standard of "Truth".
>
> Is the truth any less true just because someone chooses not to believe it?

Nope.

But that's not what we're discussing here.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Boy, now there's an argument that proves conclusively there must be a god.

mike regish

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:25:11 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >God plays a "significant role" in this
> >country, without harm. If this is what you mean by "significant", I'm
all
> >for it.
>
> Just check what is printed on your money.
>
> hmm. If government says that they trust in God ('In God we trust'), they
> also must believe in Santa Claus.
>
> #m
> --
> http://www.declareyourself.com/fyr_candidates.php
> http://www.subterrane.com/bush.shtml

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> Who in the LP ever advocated unrestrained power?

I don't believe I accused the LP of that. I accused the LP of blind
faith in l-f capitalism and the inability to see that it leads to
economic entities with unrestrained power.

> Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism
> are actually unholy alliances of government and some individual or
> corporation. Aircraft certification is a good example of a group of
> corporations using the force of government to bar competition.

That is true but beside the point. Unrestrained corporations using the
force of
economic power can bar competition, as well.

> How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government
> played no part in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put
> it on the market. Let the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers,
> do the rating and let the individual purchaser assume the risks if he
> chooses the unrated airplane.

You're preaching to the choir.

> Freedom and competition go together.

Absolutely. But true, l-f capitalism must inevitably produce economic
colossi that can suppress competition and freedom.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article .net>,
John > wrote:

> Some simple truths:

Facts are immutable.
Truth is what you believe it to be.

> I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The two
> mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here.

Count me in as well.

Dan,

> This is the basis of much of the pseudo-science religionists are
> currently attempting to force into public school curricula. It is known
> as the "God of the gaps." IOW, if I don't understand it, God did it.
>

I know - and I hate it. Teach children to be skeptical, teach them to
accept that they can't know everything and there'S no reason to be afraid
of that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

> during the early phases of the big bang.
>

True. But that's been over for a while ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Martin,

> Just check what is printed on your money.
>

And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Larry,

> Is the truth any less true just because someone chooses not to believe it?
>

A truth that needs "believing in" is not a truth. Read that definition
again!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan Luke wrote:

> Absolutely. But true, l-f capitalism must inevitably produce economic
> colossi that can suppress competition and freedom.

That's what has happened and is currently happening in pretty much every
industry in this country right now.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Larry,
>
> > Is the truth any less true just because someone chooses not to believe it?
> >
>
> A truth that needs "believing in" is not a truth. Read that definition
> again!

Just because no one can currently prove something doesn't mean it isn't true.
One day we will all know if it is truth or not. True or False: I will have my
PPL by the end of next year. I believe it is true, you may not, but what either
of us believe is irrelevant as to weather it is true or not. We will both have
to wait till the end of next year to find out.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Larry Fransson > wrote:

> Is the truth any less true just because someone chooses not to believe it?

Of course not. But I've never fully understood why bible-thumpers
expect non-believers to be persuaded by an argument that essentially
boils down to "It's true because I say it's true" (e.g. the lead
article in this thread), or "It's true because it says so in the
bible".

Part of the explanation why such poor argumentation technique can
nevertheless lead to converts, I think, lies in promises made by
Evangelical Christianity. The slate of a wasted life of immorality
and corruption can be wiped clean and eternal salvation guaranteed by
doing nothing more than accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. What a
deal!

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

Earl Grieda wrote:

> I guess the answer to that depends on what religion the fanatics belong to.
> Off the top of my head we have evolution for the Christians

I am continually amazed at how wrong both the religious and secularist are on
evolution. I like the the way a biology teacher I once had put it. He said
something like this, evolution is a proven fact, it happens every day. If your
going to get all caught up on the issue of whether or not men evolved from apes
you are missing the point. Every living thing evolves to adapt to it's
surroundings as they change. Just because evolution is a fact, it doesn't mean
that men evolved from apes. Although Darwin put that forth as a possibility,
through further study he eventually came to the conclusion that men did NOT
evolve from apes.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

jim rosinski wrote:

> Of course not. But I've never fully understood why bible-thumpers
> expect non-believers to be persuaded by an argument that essentially
> boils down to "It's true because I say it's true" (e.g. the lead
> article in this thread), or "It's true because it says so in the
> bible".
>
> Part of the explanation why such poor argumentation technique can
> nevertheless lead to converts, I think, lies in promises made by
> Evangelical Christianity. The slate of a wasted life of immorality
> and corruption can be wiped clean and eternal salvation guaranteed by
> doing nothing more than accepting Jesus Christ as your savior. What a
> deal!

Not all religions believe it is just a simple matter of accepting Jesus Christ.
Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
people, I think anyone that really understands scripture, knows that no argument
made by anyone can truly convert, if a person is to be converted, that is
something that must happen between them and God. All proselyting is for is to
introduce others to a believe, the conversion is then completely out of the
hands of the proselyter.


--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206
N35° 20.492'
W97° 34.342'

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

On 2003-11-23 10:29:57 -0800, Thomas Borchert > said:

> Larry,
>
> > Is the truth any less true just because someone chooses not to believe it?
> >
>
> A truth that needs "believing in" is not a truth. Read that definition
> again!

I would agree that the truth does not need belief in order to be true. No problem.
But when a statement is made, whether it be truth or not, there is a choice - believe,
or do not believe. A choice not to believe a statement of truth does not make it
any less true.

>> Absolutely. But true, l-f capitalism must inevitably produce economic
>> colossi that can suppress competition and freedom.
>
>That's what has happened and is currently happening in pretty much every
>industry in this country right now.

Think so?

Please point to an example of such a concentration of power in this country
where government has not been used to suppress competition in some way or there
has been unlawful coercion in the marketplace.

Remember that libertarains do not oppose laws that protect us from unlawful
interference in the making and execution of contracts.

I think you are tarring laissez-faire capitalism with the sins of a system that
only *claims* that label.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Wdtabor wrote:

> >> Absolutely. But true, l-f capitalism must inevitably produce economic
> >> colossi that can suppress competition and freedom.
> >
> >That's what has happened and is currently happening in pretty much every
> >industry in this country right now.
>
> Think so?
>
> Please point to an example of such a concentration of power in this country
> where government has not been used to suppress competition in some way or there
> has been unlawful coercion in the marketplace.

Microsoft is the best example. They create new products, and use their marketing
power and money to try and drive competitors out of business, Netscape being just
one of many examples of that there are even some examples where they have failed
because their marketing wasn't enough to over come the worthless product they put
together when the competition in this case had a far superior product. They have
told computer resellers that if they ship any computers with a competitors product
pre installed then they will force that reseller to pay a much higher price for
Microsoft products. In one case Microsoft had some kind of agreement with computer
resellers where they had to put windows on all computers, that way those who want
to run other operating systems still had to pay for windows, this in commonly
refereed to as the Microsoft tax. While the government is involved and has
pretended to do something about it, in reality they have done nothing.

Then there is the music industry where a few very large corporations control
everything and everyone from the DJs to song writers to artists to which songs on a
new CD they are going to let us hear. In this case the government is helping them
make it even worse, by taking our rights that the copyright laws give us.

I'm not trying to suggest that if libertarians were in charge that it would be any
better or worse, just that it is pretty bad the way it is now.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 10:10:06 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Robert,
>
>> I'm still looking for good freeware W&B and E6B calculators for Pocket
>> PC 2002. Anyone know of any?
>>
>
>www.pocketfms.com - what you want AND a full moving map, flight planning
>tool for PC and PocketPC. Great!

Vielen herzlichen Dank, Thomas! It looks like it's what the AOPA
flight software SHOULD be, but isn't!

I knew you and I had something in common! :-)

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Wdtabor" wrote:
> > Who in the LP ever advocated unrestrained power?
>
> I don't believe I accused the LP of that. I accused the LP of blind
> faith in l-f capitalism and the inability to see that it leads to
> economic entities with unrestrained power.

Backasswards.

> > Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism
> > are actually unholy alliances of government and some individual or
> > corporation. Aircraft certification is a good example of a group of
> > corporations using the force of government to bar competition.
>
> That is true but beside the point. Unrestrained corporations using the
> force of
> economic power can bar competition, as well.

It's precisely the point. For one thing, you're confusing economic power
and political power.

>
> > How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government
> > played no part in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put
> > it on the market. Let the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers,
> > do the rating and let the individual purchaser assume the risks if he
> > chooses the unrated airplane.
>
> You're preaching to the choir.
>
> > Freedom and competition go together.
>
> Absolutely. But true, l-f capitalism must inevitably produce economic
> colossi that can suppress competition and freedom.

Just the opposite.

I don't know where you're getting your info from, but damn near every
statement you're making is a complete inversion. Did you derive these from
something you figured out, or from something you read from a non-LFC type?
Paul Krugman?



Check out the main school, http://www.mises.org

"John",

Prove any one of them.

All the best,
Rick

"John" > wrote in message .net>...
> Some simple truths:
>
> =====================
> God loves you.
> We were created have fellowship with Him.
> Sin (man's claim to the right to himself) alienates us from God.
> Jesus Christ - God's Son - came to earth as God Incarnate and gave up His
> rights to Himself to redeem us from sin.
> God accepted Christ's sacrifice and signified this by raising Him from the
> dead.
> If we accept the sacrifice of Christ as a substitutionary sacrifice for our
> sins, we are saved from the results of those sins - alienation from God.
>
> "By this gospel you are saved ... that Christ died for our sins according to
> the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
> according to the Scriptures"
>
> =====================
> Everything else is man's attempt to understand God - some do it better than
> others but no one's got it all figured out.
>
> John

Prove it!

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Judah,
>
>> Nah - you have nothing to worry about... I have it on good authority
>> that the Jews were right anyway.
>>
>
> Oh really? I thought it was Buddha.
>

You got a Talmud free in a hotel? Where were you staying? Borough Park, NY?

And which volume, I'm just curious!

I've never heard of anyone giving away Talmud volumes in hotel rooms, even
in Israel!

But then again, there are fanatics in EVERY religion!



(StellaStar) wrote in
:

>> in any rational system there will be
>>true statements that
>>cannot be proven by recourse only to that system. Put another way,
>>there are questions
>>that God doesn't know the answer to.
>
> Isaac Asimov, a very smart man, said "I prefer rationalism to atheism.
> The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and
> play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in
> either attacking or defending."
>
> Since I was told the books placed in motel rooms are free for the
> taking for those who wish to read them, I have a Book of Mormon. And a
> Talmud, and a Koran, several books on comparative religion, and several
> Bibles including a Catholic Bible (which has different Commandments,
> BTW) I read in one that you are to pray at home in private. I tell
> people that when they wish to bother me with their versions of faith.

This question is of no importance whatsoever; it is just something I noticed
and was curious about.

In every picture I have ever seen of a King Air's cockpit, there appears to
be a digital clock/timer in the center of the left yoke, and an analog clock
in the center of the right yoke.

Is this "factory", or is it a field change? You would expect to see either
two analogs or two digitals from the factory.

Is there a reason the two different devices are used, or was it a case of
just upgrading one side.

Thanks!

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The two
> mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here.

Yeah, but so what? In the present system one needs to vote against rather
than vote for, and to effectively vote against, you have to "side with" the
strongest alternative. The LP may very well have some good principles, but
I don't see them getting anywhere serious for a very long time, if ever.

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:br3wb.283748$Tr4.870792@attbi_s03...
> However, I got the impression that these guys, when confronted with an
> in-flight emergency, might conceivably just sit back and wait for a
miracle.
> THAT scares me.

Ironically, Darwinism will take care of that problem.

On 2003-11-23 14:18:04 -0800, "Bill Denton" > said:

> In every picture I have ever seen of a King Air's cockpit, there appears to
> be a digital clock/timer in the center of the left yoke, and an analog clock
> in the center of the right yoke.

> Is there a reason the two different devices are used, or was it a case of
> just upgrading one side.

Can't speak for the King Air, but every Lear 35 I fly has an analog clock on
the left side of the panel, and a Davtron digital clock/timer on the right side
of the panel. (Actually, we might have one that has that el-cheapo digital
clock/timer on the left side. but that's the exception.)

I suppose the advantage to having the analog clock is that it's spring powered,
so as long as somebody winds it, it still runs even if all of the electricity goes
away.

--
Larry Fransson
Seattle, WA

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:56:55 -0500, Andrew Gideon >
wrote:

>If what you're saying is true, then religion is obviously a harmful tool in
>the hands of the greedy. Let's disarm them.

I haven't got the first idea how to do that.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

"Chris W" > wrote in message

>
> ... there are
> even some examples where they have failed because their marketing
> wasn't enough to over come the worthless product they put together
> when the competition in this case had a far superior product.

Was that supposed to support your argument?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
____________________

Wdtabor wrote:

>
>The central tenet of Libertarian policy is that we do not INITIATE the use of
>force. Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism are actually unholy
>alliances of government and some individual or corporation. Aircraft
>certification is a good example of a group of corporations using the force of
>government to bar competition.
>
And I suppose the requirements that physicians must be licensed to
practice medicine
is simply the AMA to do the same thing? Meanwhile, the bar exam is just
another
intrusion into paradise to fatten lawyer's wallets? And I guess the
professional engineers
exam is another way the "good old boys club" is maintained? Heaven
forbid that any
of these might require the applicant to demonstrate competence in the
subject.

>
>How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government played no part
>in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put it on the market. Let
>the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers, do the rating and let the
>individual purchaser assume the risks if he chooses the unrated airplane.
>
Why stop there? Why should the purchaser even have to demonstrate
competence in
his ability to control that aircraft? After all, if he's willing to
assume the risk, what business
is it of mine?

It's just a thought, but it seems to me that whether or not your
'hero' chooses to buy an
unrated plane, and whether or not he chooses to become competent in the
operation of
that aircraft, is VERY MUCH MY BUSINESS! That guy is going to go buzzing
around
over my head, and when (not if, but when) he gets his ass into trouble,
chances are he's
going to try to take me with him. So if you don't mind, I'm going to
continue to insist
that someone make sure that that plane is airworthy, and that pilot is
competent. I'm also
going to insist that the people who make those decisions are competent
to do so, so that
I don't have to become an expert in everything just to protect my skin.

Rich Lemert

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message

>
> And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.

Careful, now. "..Shall make no law barring..." is a far cry from
acknowledging a god. You'll need to come up with a better argument than
that, I'm afraid.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
____________________

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:15:08 GMT, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

>If government says that they trust in God ('In God we trust'), they
>also must believe in Santa Claus.

You've seen that movie too?

Rob, who lives on 3*5*th Street :-)

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 13:49:36 -0700, "Tom S." >
wrote:

>It's precisely the point. For one thing, you're confusing economic power
>and political power.

Power is power. There's no difference, when political power is used to
*take the money*.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Peter wrote:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>
>>> Unless you don't believe that the speed of light is a constant in
>>> vacuo.
>>
>
>> What's there not to believe? Anyone using GPS cannot deny Einstein -
>> it wouldn't work without relativity.
>>
> Relativity has certainly been well-tested and (as you say) widely
> used. However, there is serious discussion taking place concerning the
> possibility of a variable speed of light as an alternative to
> inflation during the early phases of the big bang.

Which demonstrates the fundamental difference between science and
religion - science
is falsifiable, and it is correctable. Religion is not. Science can say
"look here - here's
something that can't be explained by relativity, maybe we need to modify
our theories
a little bit."

When religion can propose a test that, if succesful, would disprove
the existance of God,
then will I be willing to grant it a status on par with science.

Rich Lemert

Chris W wrote:

> I am continually amazed at how wrong both the religious and secularist
> are on
>
>evolution. I like the the way a biology teacher I once had put it. He said
>something like this, evolution is a proven fact, it happens every day. If your
>going to get all caught up on the issue of whether or not men evolved from apes
>you are missing the point. Every living thing evolves to adapt to it's
>surroundings as they change. Just because evolution is a fact, it doesn't mean
>that men evolved from apes. Although Darwin put that forth as a possibility,
>through further study he eventually came to the conclusion that men did NOT
>evolve from apes.
>
A few years ago, Discover magazine had a column in which the author
was relating an
experience he once had teaching biology. He had two skeletons in his
classroom, and
he asked his students to study them to determine which one was from a
male and which
was from a female. One student immediately came up and said he didn't
have to examine
the skeletons, because he would be able to tell just by counting the
ribs. The instructor
told the student to go back anyway and check that hypothesis.

A few minutes later, the student was back with a very distressed look
on his face. He
asked the instructor if he was _sure_ that the skeletons were male and
female. The
instructor said that yes, he was sure. They had come from a reputable
scientific supply
house that advertised them as such, and even if he didn't trust them
there were several
characteristics that lead him to that conclusion anyway.

Then he asked the student why the student was so confused. The
response, as he expected,
was "because they both have the same number of ribs."

The instructor was finally able to convince the student that this was
a flawed argument
regardless of whether or not you interpreted the story of Adam and Eve
literally.

To me, the sad part of the whole exchange was the fact that the
student was unwilling
to challenge what he already "knew" was true.

Rich Lemert

Equally acceptable: Propose a test that would prove any of them wrong.
Rich Lemert

Rick Durden wrote:

>"John",
>
>Prove any one of them.
>
>All the best,
>Rick
>
>"John" > wrote in message .net>...
>
>
>>Some simple truths:
>>
>>=====================
>>God loves you.
>>We were created have fellowship with Him.
>>Sin (man's claim to the right to himself) alienates us from God.
>>Jesus Christ - God's Son - came to earth as God Incarnate and gave up His
>>rights to Himself to redeem us from sin.
>>God accepted Christ's sacrifice and signified this by raising Him from the
>>dead.
>>If we accept the sacrifice of Christ as a substitutionary sacrifice for our
>>sins, we are saved from the results of those sins - alienation from God.
>>
>>"By this gospel you are saved ... that Christ died for our sins according to
>>the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day
>>according to the Scriptures"
>>
>>=====================
>>Everything else is man's attempt to understand God - some do it better than
>>others but no one's got it all figured out.
>>
>>John
>>
>>

Jim Weir > wrote in message >...
> Yes, an aviation newsgroup replete with newbies that haven't FREAKIN' LEARNED
> HOW TO SNIP.
>
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>

It seems I've hit a nerve. Please pray for my bottom-posting soul.

Chris W > wrote:

> Not all religions believe it is just a simple matter of accepting Jesus Christ.
> Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
> people, I think anyone that really understands scripture, knows that no argument
> made by anyone can truly convert, if a person is to be converted, that is
> something that must happen between them and God. All proselyting is for is to
> introduce others to a believe, the conversion is then completely out of the
> hands of the proselyter.

I respect and appreciate this point of view. Kind of a "lead the horse to
water but don't force him to drink" attitude. Problem is, in my experience
most proselytizers could care less how uncomfortable or miserable their
victims become during the discussion. Case in point being the lead article
of the "Bible-beater pilots" thread that preceeded this one. For many people
their religious beliefs are very personal and private. Those folks don't
appreciate being confronted in arbitrary contexts with threats of eternal
damnation if they don't accept some particular doctrine.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

John T wrote:

> "Chris W" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > ... there are
> > even some examples where they have failed because their marketing
> > wasn't enough to over come the worthless product they put together
> > when the competition in this case had a far superior product.
>
> Was that supposed to support your argument?

No, that was just in there as a preemptive strike against those that
might argue that the reason all those other companies went out of
business is because MS has a better produce, they do not. There is the
rare exception where a quality product won out over the bully but I
think it was only because that product had been around for a long time
before MS tried to take them out, and their product had a large and
strong following as well as being of high quality.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

jim rosinski wrote:

> Chris W > wrote:
>
> > Not all religions believe it is just a simple matter of accepting Jesus Christ.
> > Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
> > people, I think anyone that really understands scripture, knows that no argument
> > made by anyone can truly convert, if a person is to be converted, that is
> > something that must happen between them and God. All proselyting is for is to
> > introduce others to a believe, the conversion is then completely out of the
> > hands of the proselyter.
>
> I respect and appreciate this point of view. Kind of a "lead the horse to
> water but don't force him to drink" attitude. Problem is, in my experience
> most proselytizers could care less how uncomfortable or miserable their
> victims become during the discussion. Case in point being the lead article
> of the "Bible-beater pilots" thread that preceeded this one. For many people
> their religious beliefs are very personal and private. Those folks don't
> appreciate being confronted in arbitrary contexts with threats of eternal
> damnation if they don't accept some particular doctrine.

The situation Jay described is very unfortunate and I can't see how a confrontation
like that could ever do any good. Religion is very personal, there are ways to
discuss and share religious beliefs with people you don't know very well, but only if
they are interested in discussing religion and then only in a non confrontational way,
I however rarely discuss it with people I don't know very well and then I always
listen to what they believe and simply tell how my beliefs are different and why I
believe the way I do. It's also unfortunate that even members of my religion can be
confrontational in their proselytizing, although I don't know of any as bad as what
Jay experienced. I think that if you run across someone that is searching for
something different or just curious, they will be willing to talk to you, but if their
not of that mindset, all the confrontation in the world isn't going to do any good,
unless you are a very manipulative person and the person you are talking to is easily
manipulated, in which case I think you have lost the whole point of sharing your
beliefs with others.




--
Chris Woodhouse
3147 SW 127th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73170
405-691-5206
N35° 20.492'
W97° 34.342'

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

>John T wrote:
>
>> "Chris W" > wrote in message
>> > ... there are
>> > even some examples where they have failed because their marketing
>> > wasn't enough to over come the worthless product they put together
>> > when the competition in this case had a far superior product.
>>
>> Was that supposed to support your argument?
>
>No, that was just in there as a preemptive strike against those that
>might argue that the reason all those other companies went out of
>business is because MS has a better produce, they do not. There is the
>rare exception where a quality product won out over the bully but I
>think it was only because that product had been around for a long time
>before MS tried to take them out, and their product had a large and
>strong following as well as being of high quality.

MS bought Fox Software because it was a competitor to
Access. For a while, MS put the Access front-end on FoxPro but
in a short time, FoxPro went away. At the time, FoxPro was
far superior to Access. Don't know about it anymore.

MS tried to buy Intuit to get TurboTax but Intuit successfully
fought it off.

> > However, I got the impression that these guys, when confronted with an
> > in-flight emergency, might conceivably just sit back and wait for a
> miracle.
> > THAT scares me.
>
> Ironically, Darwinism will take care of that problem.

Sadly, I don't think so. Due to the advanced age of the pilot population,
most of us have already reproduced!

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry,

> But when a statement is made, whether it be truth or not, there is a choice - believe,
> or do not believe
>

Uh, no. I mean, yes, you can chose to believe in truths - but it doesn't make any sense.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

L,

> Equally acceptable: Propose a test that would prove any of them wrong.
>

Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.

Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove. Give me one
statement that doesn't hold up to observation in reality. OTOH, the
religious "statements" made by the OP have no basis in observation, they
cannot be proven - they are, for all we know, pure conjecture.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Robert,

Pretty cool stuff, huh?

> I knew you and I had something in common! :-)
>

The desire for good, free software? It was given to us by God. Who else
would work for free? ;-)


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

I never realized there were so many religion nuts in aviation. Amazing!

Rick,

Prove to you that God loves you? - Can't be done.

But, you can prove it to yourself. "If any of you lacks wisdom (the
knowledge of God and His nature), he should ask God, who gives generously to
all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."


All the best to you too,

John

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.
>
> Careful, now. "..Shall make no law barring..." is a far cry from
> acknowledging a god. You'll need to come up with a better argument than
> that, I'm afraid.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> ____________________
>
>
If you're going to use quotes, use them accurately:

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

H.
Parting out N502TB, BE58P

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>L,
>
>
>
>>Equally acceptable: Propose a test that would prove any of them wrong.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.
>
I suggest you go back and read up on the Mikkelson-Morley experiments
with the
speed of light. IIRC they earned the Nobel Prize by proving that "ether"
(the ether
of the ancients, not the chemical) didn't exist.

>
>Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove.
>
"Life as we know it does not exist anywhere in the universe."

In order to prove this statement true, you would have to examine every
possible location
throughout the universe and show that nowhere is there life as we know it.

On the other hand, you can easily prove this statement false - just
find life as we know
it somewhere else.

> Give me one
>statement that doesn't hold up to observation in reality. OTOH, the
>religious "statements" made by the OP have no basis in observation, they
>cannot be proven - they are, for all we know, pure conjecture.
>
I agree. My point is that while they can never be proven true, they
can also never be
proven false.

Rich Lemert

>
>
>

"Larry Fransson" wrote:
> You misunderstand. ...

You're right, Larry; I missed your point. Excuse me.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article >, Chris W > writes:

> Please point to an example of such a concentration of power in this country
>> where government has not been used to suppress competition in some way or
>there
>> has been unlawful coercion in the marketplace.
>
>Microsoft is the best example. They create new products, and use their
>marketing
>power and money to try and drive competitors out of business, Netscape being
>just
>one of many examples of that there are even some examples where they have
>failed
>because their marketing wasn't enough to over come the worthless product they
>put
>together when the competition in this case had a far superior product.

I like arguing politics, and I will even venture cautiously into religion, but
I find it far to polarized a battlefield to argue the relative merit of MS and
it's competitors quality.

However, the market place does not function on 'supply and quality' but on
supply and *demand.* Whether IE or Netscape is the better browser, the demand
for IE won out. That is probably a combination of marketing and integration,
you COULD buy a Ford but get a Chevy engine installed, but the added hassle of
adapting it wouldn't really be worth it. IE won out over Netscape, get over it.


> They
>have
>told computer resellers that if they ship any computers with a competitors
>product
>pre installed then they will force that reseller to pay a much higher price
>for
>Microsoft products. In one case Microsoft had some kind of agreement with
>computer
>resellers where they had to put windows on all computers, that way those who
>want
>to run other operating systems still had to pay for windows, this in commonly
>refereed to as the Microsoft tax. While the government is involved and has
>pretended to do something about it, in reality they have done nothing.
>

There are thousands of computer assemblers who will be happy to sell you a
computer without an operating system. There always have been, but there were
also some vendors who would sell you one with Windows for less than the others
would sell one without an operating system. You are only harmed if you insist
on doing business with those suppliers who made that deal with MS. so long as
you have th choice to take your business elsewhere, you have no complaint.

>Then there is the music industry where a few very large corporations control
>everything and everyone from the DJs to song writers to artists to which
>songs on a
>new CD they are going to let us hear. In this case the government is helping
>them
>make it even worse, by taking our rights that the copyright laws give us.
>

Were those artists forced at gunpoint to sign those contracts? If so, call the
FBI, if not, then whose rights were transgressed?

>I'm not trying to suggest that if libertarians were in charge that it would
>be any
>better or worse, just that it is pretty bad the way it is now.
>

Things are bad only where we have strayed from capitalism by letting the
governemt interfere in some way.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article >, "Peter Gottlieb"
> writes:

>
>"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>> I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The two
>> mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here.
>
>Yeah, but so what? In the present system one needs to vote against rather
>than vote for, and to effectively vote against, you have to "side with" the
>strongest alternative. The LP may very well have some good principles, but
>I don't see them getting anywhere serious for a very long time, if ever.
>
>

This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If that
means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become more
libertarian, then so be it.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article . net>, L Smith
> writes:

>>
>>The central tenet of Libertarian policy is that we do not INITIATE the use
>of
>>force. Most abuses masquerading as laissz-faire capitalism are actually
>unholy
>>alliances of government and some individual or corporation. Aircraft
>>certification is a good example of a group of corporations using the force
>of
>>government to bar competition.
>>
> And I suppose the requirements that physicians must be licensed to
>practice medicine
>is simply the AMA to do the same thing? Meanwhile, the bar exam is just
>another
>intrusion into paradise to fatten lawyer's wallets? And I guess the
>professional engineers
>exam is another way the "good old boys club" is maintained? Heaven
>forbid that any
>of these might require the applicant to demonstrate competence in the
>subject.
>
>>
>>How much less expensive would GA aircraft be if the government played no
>part
>>in certification? Let anyone build an airplane and put it on the market. Let
>>the AOPA, or a consortium of aircraft insurers, do the rating and let the
>>individual purchaser assume the risks if he chooses the unrated airplane.
>>
> Why stop there? Why should the purchaser even have to demonstrate
>competence in
>his ability to control that aircraft? After all, if he's willing to
>assume the risk, what business
>is it of mine?
>
> It's just a thought, but it seems to me that whether or not your
>'hero' chooses to buy an
>unrated plane, and whether or not he chooses to become competent in the
>operation of
>that aircraft, is VERY MUCH MY BUSINESS! That guy is going to go buzzing
>around
>over my head, and when (not if, but when) he gets his ass into trouble,
>chances are he's
>going to try to take me with him. So if you don't mind, I'm going to
>continue to insist
>that someone make sure that that plane is airworthy, and that pilot is
>competent. I'm also
>going to insist that the people who make those decisions are competent
>to do so, so that
>I don't have to become an expert in everything just to protect my skin.
>

The fallacy here is that you assume because the private sector is NOT doing
something now, it still would not if the government were not in the way.

I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
really serve?

The insurer might still insure the quack, but at a much higher rate, raising
his costs sufficiently that he could not compete with me, so the marketplace
would cull the quacks. Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.

No license, no government interference, but no loss to the consumer, as it is
just as easy to see if I am insured as it is to see if I am licensed.

The same thing already applies to airplanes. Try to buy a high performance
airplane with a bank loan. They will require insurance for the loan. The
insurer's requirements for time in type, annual experience and recurrent
training are already in excess of what the FAA requires.

Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free market
will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our liberty.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

> Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free
market
> will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our
liberty.

Hey Don, do you think we should have gone into Iraq?

> Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
> people, I think anyone that really understands scripture,


Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for that
person.

John,

> You'll need to come up with a better argument than
> that, I'm afraid.
>

Seems I don't. See H. Adams Stevens' post.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

L,

Well, Michaelson and Morley set out to determine the properties of the
ether. They ended up _observing_ stuff inconsistent with the ether
theory. So that one went overboard. In the process, they found that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (frame
of reference, special relativity and all that).

It's not that science is never wrong. But scientific laws have a basis
in observation - that's their ultimate test. "There's life on other
planets" is not a scientific law. It's something that, at present, we
have to answer with "I don't know". All we can do is try to calculate
probabilities for that, based on our (limited) knowledge of how life
began. The probability is high.

> "Life as we know it does not exist anywhere in the universe."
>

That is another negative, isn't it? It isn't a "scientific statement"
in the sense I meant, either - as you well know.

As for religious statements: the concept of "proof" is inherently not
part of religion. Religion is about "belief". No need to prove a belief
- and no way to do it, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"H. Adam Stevens" > wrote in message

>
> " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
> "
>
> Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

The quote wasn't intended to be verbatim, but thanks for posting the text as
it illustrates my point quite clearly. Read the text carefully: "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof..."

Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with the
prayer before each session, for instance)? What law has been passed that
establishes a religion? What law infringes the people's free exercise
thereof?

One more point: Don't misconstrue my position on this as an endorsement of
any religion, either. :) The point I'm trying to make is this amendment
was intended to prevent the establishment of a state-sponsored religion
(like the Church of England), not to turn the government into an atheist or
agnostic entity. You still need to find a better argument than the US
Constitution.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> John,
>
> > You'll need to come up with a better argument than
> > that, I'm afraid.
> >
>
> Seems I don't. See H. Adams Stevens' post.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Thanks Tom. The Constitution seems quite clear on the subject, but it is
de-facto ignored when it suits some folks.
Take the second amendment, for example; And more recently the so-called
Patriot Act.

One thing all pilots and only pilots have in common is solo flight.
No amount of government or outside help can save you in that blissful
predicament.
You're on your own. I love it; Have since my first solo in 1967.

BTW my middle name has no "s" at the end. I'm fascinated by the frequency
with which it spontaneously grows that sibilant appendage. Yours is by no
means the first time I've observed my name grow longer of it's own volition.
Blue skies
H.
N502TB

> Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
> money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
the
> prayer before each session, for instance)?

It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the spirit
of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
presumptions and offensive.

"John Harlow" > wrote in message

>
> It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
> spirit of the letter of the constitution.

But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment was
to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
in the US.

> I do not want to see ANY
> religious references on government issued documents; their presence
> is quite presumptions and offensive.

That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference to
religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
we trust", for example, is illegal.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

> Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free
market
> will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our
liberty.

Amen, Brother!

(Whoops...back to religion... ;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message

>
> I'm still looking for good freeware W&B and E6B calculators for Pocket
> PC 2002. Anyone know of any?

http://www.pocketgear.com/software_detail.asp?id=11815

It's a free W&B calculator, but you'll have to tell me how good it is. :)

--
John T
__________

> But, you can prove it to yourself. "If any of you lacks wisdom (the
> knowledge of God and His nature), he should ask God, who gives generously
to
> all without finding fault, and it will be given to him."

Really? I've asked God questions many times throughout my life. I've
attended parochial schools, attended Mass, gone to catechism classes, went
on to Bible Study classes, and taken college-level World Religion classes.

I've attended services of every viable organized religion, and spoken with
their representatives. I've open-mindedly debated the issue with some of
the finest minds around. I've often asked God for answers to the questions
that science (thus far) can't answer.

Thus far, regretfully, I haven't heard back from Him (Her?).

I'll post here when I do.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>>
Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with insured
dentists) gets what they pay for.
<<

You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
Public.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "John Harlow" > wrote in message
>
> >
> > It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
> > spirit of the letter of the constitution.
>
> But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
> More importantly, what makes it illegal? The "spirit" of the amendment
was
> to prevent state-sponsored religion. That has been strenuously adhered to
> in the US.
>
> > I do not want to see ANY
> > religious references on government issued documents; their presence
> > is quite presumptions and offensive.
>
> That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
> religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
> we trust", for example, is illegal.
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
> __________
>
>
>
I argue that it is explicitly unconstitutional for Congress to make a law
placing "In God We Trust" on a government document or "Under God" in the
Pledge of Alliegance. Beginning a session of Congress with a prayer is not
the same thing as making a law. Now if the Executive were to simply direct
the Treasury Department to do something, or if there were some other sort of
decision making, fine. Congress is explicitly prohibited from making any law
whatsoever "respecting an establishment of religion".

Blus skies
H.
N502TB

> > I do not want to see ANY
> > religious references on government issued documents; their presence
> > is quite presumptions and offensive.
>
> That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
to
> religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In God
> we trust", for example, is illegal.


If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is. "In God (or
Allah, Buddha, Satan or whoever) we trust" simply has no place on a
government issued document, no matter how many people it makes feel all warm
and fuzzy.

"John" > wrote in message .net>...
> Some simple truths:
>
> =====================
> God loves you.

<snip (mostly to please His Highness Master Usenet-er Top Poster)>

Can we stop with the religious trolls, already? If that's not an
option, can we at least have some Judaic (?), Islamic, Hindu, Jainist
(?), etc. tracts thrown in for variety?

Yours in Ras Tafari (almighty God is a living man),
Zippy

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:
>
> Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what law is
it that they made?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

>> But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?

The harm is that the whole point of the constitution is to protect the minority
against the tyranny of the majority. Lest this statement ignite a flame war,
consider that although decisions are made by majority (or enhanced majority),
the structure for making those decisions is designed to empower the minorities.

The president is not elected by majority vote. It is a several step process
(like the world series) which in effect elects the president based on the
majority of viewpoints.

Congress is not a majority entity either. The senate has equal (by state)
representation, and the house has equal (by population) representation, and
both have to concur.

Speech is not regulated by the majority. Freedom of speech means that a
minority of one can get his voice heard (though nobody is forced to listen)

The majority does not need protection. They can take care of themselves. It
is the minority which needs protection, and that's the function of laws.

The majority of people are afraid of little airplanes, and would be quite happy
with a total ban. We are in a tiny minority who fly these contraptions all
over kingdom come without so much as a flight plan or a radio, let alone
official permission and clearance to engage in such obviously wreckless acts as
aviation. Be careful in your thinking. Majority rule is fine as long as you
are in the majority.

Change "In God we Trust" to the equally pious "Allah Be Praised" and see how
people take it. Or pick a phrase from any religion you don't like, including
athiesm if that's your target. It doesn't belong on pilot certificates, it
doesn't belong in Congress, and it doesn't belong on money.

That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send me some
if you don't like what it says. :)

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

John Harlow wrote:
>
> If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > > However, I got the impression that these guys, when confronted with an
> > > in-flight emergency, might conceivably just sit back and wait for a
> > miracle.
> > > THAT scares me.
> >
> > Ironically, Darwinism will take care of that problem.
>
> Sadly, I don't think so. Due to the advanced age of the pilot population,
> most of us have already reproduced!

Maybe their kids will be in the plane when it happens.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "H. Adam Stevens" wrote:
> >
> > Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".
>
> Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what
law is
> it that they made?

Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.

>
> George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be
learned
> no other way.

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
> important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If that
> means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become more
> libertarian, then so be it.

Let's see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that, if enough people
vote Libertarian, the other candidates will start to adopt some of the LP views
in an attempt to siphon off some of those votes?

I would like to be able to agree, but I think that Dems and Reps would simply
be afraid of losing votes they already have and afraid of losing the support of
the main party.

In any case, a vote is never "wasted" if you vote for the candidate you prefer.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


> > Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.
> >
> > Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove.
>
> The speed of light is constant over time.
>
> or how about:
>
> The speed of light is the same now as it was billions of years ago.

Or the assumption that carbon 14 has existed and decayed at the same
rate for millions of years, in spite of changes in the intensity of
the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth due to changes in the
ozone layer, Van Allen belts, etc. And this is the entire basis for
radiocarbon dating.

John Harlow wrote:

> > Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
> > people, I think anyone that really understands scripture,
>
> Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for that
> person.

Such as? If I don't know the answer, which is very possible, I know someone who
will.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> I'll post here when I do.

I wouldn't do that, if I were you. There are still many places in the U.S. in
which claiming to hear voices like that is a straight ticket to the looney bin.

It's gotten better, though. They burned Joan d'Arc.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

> > Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for
that
> > person.
>
> Such as? If I don't know the answer, which is very possible, I know
someone who
> will.

Start here....
http://users.adelphia.net/~jimswanson/DrLaura.htm

If you get these, I can come up with plenty more.

"H. Adam Stevens" > wrote in message

>
> I argue that it is explicitly unconstitutional for Congress to make a
> law placing "In God We Trust" on a government document or "Under God"
> in the Pledge of Alliegance.

Not necessarily. As long as the law passed does not endorse any specific
religion, it is within the bounds of the US Constitution.

> Congress is
> explicitly prohibited from making any law whatsoever "respecting an
> establishment of religion".

They have not done so. That's my point. It's fine if you want to make a
case that "In God we trust" should be changed. You just don't have a
Constitutional argument for your case.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message

>
>>> But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's
>>> the harm?
>
> The harm is that the whole point of the constitution is to protect
> the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

My statement was specifically regarding the prayer offered at the opening of
sessions of Congress. Nothing more. Such a prayer can hardly be considered
"tyranny of the majority." :)

> That said, I'll spend money no matter what is printed on it. So send
> me some if you don't like what it says. :)

Completely agreed! :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

In article >, "John Harlow"
> writes:

>
>> Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free
>market
>> will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our
>liberty.
>
>Hey Don, do you think we should have gone into Iraq?
>
>


Yes

This is another place where I disagree with many Libertarians, and my opposing
opinion has been published in the national newsletter.

And I really don't care if we found WMD's or not.

There are two world views that support entirely different paths. One is that we
are engaged in World War 4 (WW3 having been the cold war) against
Islamofascism. Islamofascism is not a country, it is a politcal movement that
has the support of some fraction of the Moslem world in numerous Moslem
countries.

If you are of the view that we are at war with Islamofascism, as I am, then
there is no need to justify Afghanistan, Iraq or any other location the war
takes us, independently, any more than we needed independent justification to
invade Tunisia or Normandy in WW2. We fought the Nazi's where we found them and
we have to fight the Islamofascists and their supporters and hosts wherever we
find them now.

If you do not see us as being at war, then it makes sense to analyse each move
independently rather than as part of a larger strategery.

Choose your world view. After that, either Iraq is a brilliant stroke of
strategery or it is an unjustified invasion of a soveriegn nation.

I believe we are at war, and that if we fail to win it decisively now, our
grandchildren will wind up trading nukes with a much larger and more advanced
Islamofascist threat.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"H. Adam Stevens" wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message

> > Correct. Now. Who's claiming that Congress has made such a law and what
> law is
> > it that they made?
>
> Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.

They passed a *law* to do that?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message ...

> >
> > Placing "Under God" in the pledge of alliegance.
>
> They passed a *law* to do that?

Of course they did. How do you think it go there?

The pledge was written in 1892, but adopted officially by act of congress in 1942.
The first Supreme Court challenge to it came in 1943 . Another congressional act,
signed by President Eisenhower, in 1954 added "under God."

>>
My statement was specifically regarding the prayer offered at the opening of
sessions of Congress. Nothing more. Such a prayer can hardly be considered
"tyranny of the majority." :)
<<

Rethink that. Instead of a Christian prayer, Congress faces Mecca and prays to
Allah. Most congressmen are Muslim. Nothing more.

You don't think there would be a subtle "tyranny of the majority" present here,
when every day the highest ruling body of the nation acknwledges its
subservience to Allah? It's the same as having our pilot certificate be
printed with Buddah on the background.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Verbs Under My Gel wrote:
<snip>
> Can we stop with the religious trolls, already? If that's not an
> option, can we at least have some Judaic (?), Islamic, Hindu, Jainist
> (?), etc. tracts thrown in for variety?
>
> Yours in Ras Tafari (almighty God is a living man),
> Zippy

************************

One of the things that attracted me to Zen Buddhism was the story of
several monks sitting around discussing religion. One of the rules of
the conversation was no one could mention God. If anyone slipped up and
did, they all laughed so hard they fell over.

That's an appropriate attitude.

************************

I don't know of anyone today actually practicing Christianity. What
most people consider Christianity is actually Paulism, created by a man
who never met Jesus except in a vision, a fanatic anti-christian who
after his "conversion" became a fanatic pro-christian, diluting whatever
message Jesus had by encrusting the faith with his fanatical ideas,
wrapped in the practices and beliefs of the culture he lived in.

The church he created went to war with a group called the Gnostics, who
basically said "The Truth" (whatever that was) had to be passed from
person to person, and that each individual was responsible for his or
her relationship with God. The Paulist church believed that contact
with God was only possible through the authority figures of the church.

The Gnostics were mostly killed, their books were mostly burned, and
subsequently the Paulist church shaped the world's view of
"christianity." The victor decides how the history will be written.

Some of the foundations of modern "christianity" came about because of
political considerations. The divinity of Jesus was decided at the
Council of Nice in 325 CE, not by the bishops, who could not settle the
matter between them, but by a declaration from Emperor Constantine, who
allegedly felt a divine Christ would be better for building a Christian
empire.

************************

I heard an interesting viewpoint recently on Judaism. While Judaism is
considered a monotheistic religion, this person says that early Jews
actually worshipped multiple gods, that all the different names for God
that you find in the Old Testament are actually different gods
worshipped by the early Jews, and that after the concept of One God was
developed, this was "spun" into One God, Multiple Names.

************************

I figure religions are so important to so many people, that the need for
religion must spring from some basic need common to all people. My
theory is that there is a force in the universe, that I can only
describe as "The Tendency Toward Organization", that is a counter to
Entropy (the tendency toward dissolution or chaos).

Matter organizes itself into atoms, molecules, etc. Hydrogen gas clumps
together and organizes itself into stars. Dying stars spew out heavier
elements that end up organizing themselves into planets. Amino acids
organize themselves into self-replicating strands of DNA.

This goes on until we end up with animals and plants trying to organize
things outside themselves, culminating (to this point) in humans who try
to reorganize the surrounding world to suit them.

Part of the need to organize is the need to explain where all this
organization came from. That's the basis of religion, trying to explain
the events of the world we observe, trying to get some control over
those events.

The idea of this "tendency toward organization" as a counter to entropy
occured to me when considering one thought experiment used to demostrate
the one way nature of entropy.

Take a coffee cup. Throw it on the floor. It shatters into pieces. No
matter how many times you pick up the pieces and throw them on the
floor, they will never reassmble themselves into a coffee cup. Nothing
"in nature" will do that. Thus the inevitable entropic dissolution of
the universe is demonstrated.

Except -- how was the coffee cup formed in the first place? The problem
with the thought experiment is that it assumes that something "man-made"
is not "natural," that we humans are something "other" than nature.
This is a viewpoint that is basic to the Abrahamic religions: people are
above or apart from the rest of nature.

Obviously this is not true. Obviously the cup was formed from
components by some process. This process is different from the process
used to destroy the cup, but that does not make it something apart from
nature. Obviously, at least within the scope of the thought experiment,
humans counter entropy.

Nothing's ever that simple, but it seems to me that this property of the
universe, this 'tendency toward organization', might be the underlying
basis for the beliefs in "a higher power."

************************

How's that, Zippy?

<grin>

--
David Hill, Backsliding Buddhist
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore

Religion is based on faith.

Science is based on doubt.

--

FF

John T wrote:

> "H. Adam Stevens" > wrote in message
>
>>
>> " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>> assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>> "
>>
>> Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".
>
> The quote wasn't intended to be verbatim, but thanks for posting the text
> as
> it illustrates my point quite clearly. Read the text carefully:
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establisment of religion or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
>
> Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
> money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
> the
> prayer before each session, for instance)? What law has been passed that
> establishes a religion? What law infringes the people's free exercise
> thereof?
>
<snip>

It doesn't say the Treasury can't use it. The problem comes when someone
wants to put "In Bhudda we trust" on it too. If the government can't (or
won't) do both then it seems to me they are promoting one religion over
another. For this reason it's best to leave it off completely.


--
Frank....H

> Except -- how was the coffee cup formed in the first place? The problem
> with the thought experiment is that it assumes that something "man-made"
> is not "natural," that we humans are something "other" than nature.
> This is a viewpoint that is basic to the Abrahamic religions: people are
> above or apart from the rest of nature.
>
> Obviously this is not true. Obviously the cup was formed from
> components by some process. This process is different from the process
> used to destroy the cup, but that does not make it something apart from
> nature. Obviously, at least within the scope of the thought experiment,
> humans counter entropy.
>
> Nothing's ever that simple, but it seems to me that this property of the
> universe, this 'tendency toward organization', might be the underlying
> basis for the beliefs in "a higher power."

Excellent. Thanks for adding a thought-provoking post to this thread.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article >,
(Teacherjh) writes:

>
>>>
> Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
>get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with
>insured
>dentists) gets what they pay for.
><<
>
>You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
>Public.
>

If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>Wdtabor wrote:
>>
>> This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
>> important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If
>that
>> means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become more
>> libertarian, then so be it.
>
>Let's see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that, if enough
>people
>vote Libertarian, the other candidates will start to adopt some of the LP
>views
>in an attempt to siphon off some of those votes?
>

Not exactly. I want to further libertarian ideas within the Republican Party.
There are more libertarians in the GOP than in the LP as it is, they just don't
realize it themselves.

There are many more who have a basic libertarian viewpoint in economic issues,
but they are big government advocates when it comes to controling morality.
They need to be made to understand that you cannot pick an choose your
freedoms. You cannot have economic freedom and property rights without also
having sexual and lifestyle freedom. Once they learn to trust their fellow
citizens to make their own personal choices, they can then better persuade them
to embrace economic freedom.

With Dems, it is another matter. Most of them are simply socialists and
collectivists and are beyond redemption. But some are in the Dem party based on
some single issue where they feel the GOP threatens them. I have had great
success in recruiting Libertarians from the Gay and Lesbian business community
in the artsy Ghent section of Norfolk. They were economic libertarians all
along, they just fled to the Dem party because it was seen as more permissive
of their lifestyle than the GOP. Once they understand that they don't need
permission if they have freedom, they are converted.



>I would like to be able to agree, but I think that Dems and Reps would simply
>be afraid of losing votes they already have and afraid of losing the support
>of
>the main party.
>
>In any case, a vote is never "wasted" if you vote for the candidate you
>prefer.
>

Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?

What is important to me is that libertarian IDEAS prevail, and I really don't
care if they are put forth by someone who calls himself a Republican instead of
a Libertarian. (Of course, they cannot be put forward by a Dem, or his fellow
party members will stone him.)


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>Except -- how was the coffee cup formed in the first place? The problem
>>with the thought experiment is that it assumes that something "man-made"
>>is not "natural," that we humans are something "other" than nature.
>>This is a viewpoint that is basic to the Abrahamic religions: people are
>>above or apart from the rest of nature.
>>
>>Obviously this is not true. Obviously the cup was formed from
>>components by some process. This process is different from the process
>>used to destroy the cup, but that does not make it something apart from
>>nature. Obviously, at least within the scope of the thought experiment,
>>humans counter entropy.
>>
>>Nothing's ever that simple, but it seems to me that this property of the
>>universe, this 'tendency toward organization', might be the underlying
>>basis for the beliefs in "a higher power."
>
>
> Excellent. Thanks for adding a thought-provoking post to this thread.

Cool! Does that mean I get to stay one night free at the Alexiz Park Inn?

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore

H.,

> BTW my middle name has no "s" at the end.
>
sorry for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

> Start here....
> http://users.adelphia.net/~jimswanson/DrLaura.htm
>

Great!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Gene,

> in spite of changes in the intensity of
> the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth due to changes in the
> ozone layer, Van Allen belts, etc.
>

There is a grave misunderstanding of radioactive decay in that
sentence.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John Harlow wrote:

> > > Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for
> that
> > > person.
> >
> > Such as? If I don't know the answer, which is very possible, I know
> someone who
> > will.
>
> Start here....
> http://users.adelphia.net/~jimswanson/DrLaura.htm
>
> If you get these, I can come up with plenty more.

Man and I thought you were going to give me a tough one. Those can all be
answered at once. They are all (at least I am pretty sure) part of the Law of
Moses, and Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses, and therefor the Law of
Moses is no longer in effect. Of course if you are Jewish and don't believe in
Jesus Christ then you've got problems.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> John Harlow wrote:
>
>>If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is.
>
>
> Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
> religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
> phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.

Actually they passed several such laws. The first was in 1864 and
authorized the use of the phrase on the new two-cent coin. Later acts of
Congress extended the use to other coins and finally an act in 1908 made it
mandatory on almost all coins. It wasn't until 1957 that it appeared on
paper money based on a joint resolution of Congress to that effect in 1956.
See
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
for details.

> > Excellent. Thanks for adding a thought-provoking post to this thread.
>
> Cool! Does that mean I get to stay one night free at the Alexiz Park Inn?

Depends. What do you fly?

We might be able to work out a trade? :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 21 Nov 2003 10:01:38 -0800, (Brian Cox) wrote:

God works in
>ways we don't often understand.
>
>Brian Cox
>Pilot, and (I guess) Bible Beater

Well you got THAT right Brian. Frankly god seems more than a bit
wierd and actually quite sadistic, given the death and despair
he/she/it tolerates in the world. Kills off the innocent, empowers
dictators, ethnic cleansing... yup, mysterious all right. And people
want to be near this being?

Corky (doesn't sound safe) Scott

David Hill wrote:


> I figure religions are so important to so many people, that the need for
> religion must spring from some basic need common to all people. My
> theory is that there is a force in the universe, that I can only
> describe as "The Tendency Toward Organization", that is a counter to
> Entropy (the tendency toward dissolution or chaos).

It's only a local counter towards Entropy, as it receives energy from some
external source moving towards Entropy (ie. the sun). But, in general, I
agree. That tendency is pretty much the definition of biological
evolution, in fact.

- Andrew

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> it _might_ be insulting (to people with no or other belief)

First of all, I'm not interested in protecting the people I *might* offend.
That's the issue I have with the modern environment of political correctness
run amok. It's not about the intent to offend, but the perception of
offense - and everybody's offended by something.

> and why has to start every day in school with the Pledge of
> Allegiance? (one nation UNDER GOD [!])

Why doesn't a frog have wings? For that matter, why does the Pledge have to
be repeated? Isn't a single pledge enough?

> it _might_ be insulting (to people with no or other belief)

See above. If people stopped *being* offended, everybody would get along so
much better. There are far bigger issues to deal with around here than
having "Allah" or "God" or "Buddha" printed on my money.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message

>
> Rethink that. Instead of a Christian prayer, Congress faces Mecca
> and prays to Allah. Most congressmen are Muslim. Nothing more.

If this were a predominantly Muslim nation, I'd expect that to be normal.
Look, don't misconstrue my argument here. My *only* point was that the
phrase "In God we trust" is not a violation of the anti-establishment clause
of the First Amendment.

> You don't think there would be a subtle "tyranny of the majority"
> present here, when every day the highest ruling body of the nation
> acknwledges its subservience to Allah?

Again, my understanding of the rationality of prayer is not the issue. That
was brought up as an example of violation of the anti-establishment clause -
and it's not.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

In article >, Martin Hotze
> writes:

>
>"John T" > wrote:
>
>> But...if that's the bias of the majority of the Members, where's the harm?
>
>that's the _problem_ wih democracies ... you have to defend minorities.
>
>

No, that is not a problem with democracies, which IS the problem with
democracies.

Our Constitution protects minorites from the tyranny of the majority, but a
true democracy provides no such protection, as there is no limit to the whim of
the majority.

No sane person would want to live in a democracy.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Science does postulate things such as the speed of light and the
'weight' of a photon. However scientists are always working on
proving/disproving hypotheses and postulates to refine them. This
can't be said for all studies.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/constant_changing_010815.html

-lance smith



Bob Noel > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
> > Nope! Science isn't about proving negatives. It just doesn't make sense.
> >
> > Give me one statement in science that you cannot prove.
>
> The speed of light is constant over time.
>
> or how about:
>
> The speed of light is the same now as it was billions of years ago.

H. Adam Stevens opined

>"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 04:41:38 GMT, Earl Grieda wrote:
>>
>> >God created everything that we do not yet understand.
>>
>> So it was God who created the FAA?
>>

>That was the work of satan.......

God created Satan, so He is still responsible.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message

>
> So it is OK for you to print "Allah is great" on US money?

If you're asking whether I *care* if "Allah" were on the money, the answer
is "not unless it means I can't spend it." :)

Again, my only point in this sub-thread has been that there isn't a
Constitutional argument against the phrase. Those wishing to have it
removed may have a point, but they need to find another argument to make
their case.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

Dan Luke opined

>"Wdtabor" wrote:
>> >America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
>> >aren't liberal.
>> >
>> >Where do I sign up for the new party?
>>
>> WWW.LP.ORG

>Close, but no cigar. The LP's blind faith in laissez-faire capitalism
>betrays a failure to understand that *any* unrestrained power threatens
>liberty. It matters not whether that power is in the hands of
>government, religion, labor unions or business.

Of all the organizations mentioned, only governments claim the right to shoot
first and ask questions later.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:44:43 -0500, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>> Also, while many try and use the poor argument you described to "convert"
>> people, I think anyone that really understands scripture,
>
>
>Who claims to "really understand scripture"? I have some questions for that
>person.

Post your questions, and tell us what you mean by "really understand
scripture".

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

> Again, my only point in this sub-thread has been that there isn't a
> Constitutional argument against the phrase. Those wishing to have it
> removed may have a point, but they need to find another argument to make
> their case.

What "argument" other than "it serves no need being there" do you need?

It just plain doesn't belong there. Period.

In article >,
"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>
> Then you don't know what is. Congress is only forbidden to pass a *law* about
> religion. Even in this case, Congress didn't pass any law stating that the
> phrase "In God We Trust" be placed on our money.
>

Sure they did. One instance amont many is the 1865 law "An Act to
authorize the Coinage of Three-Cent pieces, and for other Purposes."
This includes the following...

"And be it further enacted, That, in addition to the devices and legends
upon the gold, silver, and other coines [sic] of the United States, it
shall be lawful for the director of the mint, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, to cause the motto 'In God We Trust' to be
placed upon such coins hereafter to be issued as shall admit of such
legend thereon."

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:26:42 +0100, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>and why has to start every day in school with the Pledge of Allegiance? (one
>nation UNDER GOD [!])

Participating in the pledge has long been optional, with the only
requirement being that the dissenter quitely respect those who *do*
participate.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:05:52 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>> in spite of changes in the intensity of
>> the cosmic radiation bombardment of the Earth due to changes in the
>> ozone layer, Van Allen belts, etc.
>>
>
>There is a grave misunderstanding of radioactive decay in that
>sentence.

I thought so too. I had thought that radiocarbon dating was supposed
accurate because the C-14 was embedded deep in the organic materials
dated, along with a certain amount of C-12 (?). The ratios tell the
age.

Then again, I don't know how that relates to stone fossils, since the
organic material would have been longgone.

But none of it troubles me at all, really, since the idea of biblical
(or koranic, or talmudic) inerrancy is anathema to me.

(Evangelicals don't like my belief system very much at all)

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On 24 Nov 2003 08:48:15 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:

>Religion is based on faith.
>
>Science is based on doubt.

Two sides of the same coin.

Experimentation is based on faith.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:38:09 GMT, David Hill
> wrote:

>Nothing's ever that simple, but it seems to me that this property of the
>universe, this 'tendency toward organization', might be the underlying
>basis for the beliefs in "a higher power."

It's the thing many believers point to as their evidence of the
"higher power."

And it's not so simple to define natural processes as mindless things
following their own pattern. There's no way to test and see if the
pattern itself is created or accidental (and thus no way for believers
to use thier evidence in scientific method, but no way for
non-believers to do so, either)

The real rub is the provability of the source of those patterns matter
and natural life both follow. If you succeed in producing experimental
conditions which approximate the patterns sufficiently, and the
experimented-upon matter behaves as in nature, what have you proven
with respect to God?

Think about it!

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Especially in today's world where news travels fast.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.



> The fallacy here is that you assume because the private sector is NOT doing
> something now, it still would not if the government were not in the way.
>
> I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
> would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
> company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
> my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
> i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
> really serve?
>
> The insurer might still insure the quack, but at a much higher rate, raising
> his costs sufficiently that he could not compete with me, so the marketplace
> would cull the quacks. Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
> get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with insured
> dentists) gets what they pay for.
>
> No license, no government interference, but no loss to the consumer, as it is
> just as easy to see if I am insured as it is to see if I am licensed.
>
> The same thing already applies to airplanes. Try to buy a high performance
> airplane with a bank loan. They will require insurance for the loan. The
> insurer's requirements for time in type, annual experience and recurrent
> training are already in excess of what the FAA requires.
>
> Just get the heavy hand of the government out of the way, and the free market
> will take care of things better, chewaper, and without trampling our liberty.

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message ...

> I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
> would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
> company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
> my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
> i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
> really serve?
>
Because, the interests of the insurance company is not necessarily the interest
of your patient. The insurance company only cares about the probability and
the magnitude of any loss they'd have to pay out. This is not necessarily mean
competent dental care for your prospective patients. The fact that you are paying
insurance doesn't tell me if you're any good (mind you neither does the fact that
you got the certificate on your wall from the Commonwealth).

In article >, "Ron Natalie"
> writes:

>"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of it, I
>> would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the
>insurance
>> company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would
>check
>> my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see
>if
>> i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the
>license
>> really serve?
>>
>Because, the interests of the insurance company is not necessarily the
>interest
>of your patient. The insurance company only cares about the probability and
>the magnitude of any loss they'd have to pay out. This is not necessarily
>mean
>competent dental care for your prospective patients. The fact that you are
>paying
>insurance doesn't tell me if you're any good (mind you neither does the fact
>that
>you got the certificate on your wall from the Commonwealth).
>

Exactly.

There are some truly lousy dentists around with valid licenses. You have to do
a lot more to loose your license than to become uninsurable.

What's more, the marketplace does a lot of things short of stopping you from
practicing to encourage good care.

A dentist who gets sued a lot pays very high malpractice insurance, while
someone like me, who has a 30 years without the insurance company having paid
out a dime, gets a substantial discount.

To loose your license, you have to be consistently grossly negligent, commit a
felony, or forget to pay your renewal.

So, what goood does the license do that the private sector has not already done
better?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"John Harlow" > wrote in message

>
> What "argument" other than "it serves no need being there" do you
> need?

Why should I care? Why put dead presidents on the money? Why put anything?
*Any* decoration you put there will offend somebody so why bother in the
first place?

Sheesh. The energy you're wasting on that would be better directed to
something *really* worthwhile - like eliminating the DC ADIZ. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message ...

>
> To loose your license, you have to be consistently grossly negligent, commit a
> felony, or forget to pay your renewal.
>
> So, what goood does the license do that the private sector has not already done
> better?

Will they issue you insurance without you showing a license? If not, then the
insurance company is relying (partially) on a government function to weed out
some of the undesirables.

But you still haven't made a case that the insurance industry is providing any
"better" service to anybody other than you.

> There are some truly lousy dentists around with valid licenses. You have
to do
> a lot more to loose your license than to become uninsurable.

What do you think this guy's rates will be? ;)

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/charlotte/news/7296916.htm

Well I like Douglas Adams. From Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest
thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from
its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious
mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with.
It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix
formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve
signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has
supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a
Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to
you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear
decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your
Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the
NON-existence of God.

The argument goes like this:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith,
and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It
could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so
therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly
disappears in a puff of logic.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that
black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's
kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune
when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well,
That about Wraps It Up for God."

Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers
to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more
and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.


*****************************
-lance smith

You missed my point - I'm not saying God will give you the answer to
everything you don't understand - I said that God will reveal His nature to
you - that is the essence of real wisdom.

Humankind being what it is, we tend to think we have a right to understand
everything. I myself did all the things you spoke of - raised Catholic,
studied all the religions, etc.

I'd like to understand why God allows such things as Hitler, Stalin,
terrorism, pain and suffering of innocent children, etc. but have come to
realize that His ways are greater than mine. Again, it is the conceit of man
that we have a right to understand - that's what Satan promised Adam and
Eve - "You shall not surely die... God knows that when you eat of it your
eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

We place ourselves at the level of gods, thinking that if we can reason
something out, we can then understand it and thereby bring it under our
control. That is the essence of our "sin" - we think we have a right to
ourselves and to control our destiny.

We were created by God for His purposes - not ours. He is the Supreme
Being - not us. We don't care for that and want to bring God down to our
level by saying that we understand God. And when we can't do that, we say He
doesn't exist (I did that for some time) or that He is in nature or that He
doesn't care or that He is dead or anything that help us understand what's
happening.

Like I said, focus on the simple truths. That's not something the world
cherishes today.


John

On 24 Nov 2003 03:27:43 GMT, (Blanche Cohen)
wrote:

>>John T wrote:

>>No, that was just in there as a preemptive strike against those that
>>might argue that the reason all those other companies went out of
>>business is because MS has a better produce, they do not. There is the
>>rare exception where a quality product won out over the bully but I
>>think it was only because that product had been around for a long time
>>before MS tried to take them out, and their product had a large and
>>strong following as well as being of high quality.
>
>MS bought Fox Software because it was a competitor to
>Access. For a while, MS put the Access front-end on FoxPro but
>in a short time, FoxPro went away. At the time, FoxPro was
>far superior to Access. Don't know about it anymore.

Foxpro is still being sold and is up to version 8.

http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22&pcid=a49847af-7fad-4ac5-9660-855b18c663c1&type=ovr








randall g =%^)> - PPASEL+Night - #320 only 346 short
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos.htm

John wrote:

> We were created by God for His purposes - not ours. He is the Supreme
> Being - not us. We don't care for that and want to bring God down to our
> level by saying that we understand God. And when we can't do that, we say
> He doesn't exist (I did that for some time) or that He is in nature or
> that He doesn't care or that He is dead or anything that help us
> understand what's happening.
>
> Like I said, focus on the simple truths. That's not something the world
> cherishes today.

The simple truth that you believe yourself - and everyone else - to be
chattel? The simple truth that you assign your morality to some outside
party, and will do anything you believe it commands of you? The simple
truth that you believe you've no choice in the matter because you're merely
property?

It's little wonder that religion serves as a tool for manipulation of the
masses by those with malice or greed in their hearts.

But remember: you were just following orders.

- Andrew

"John" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> You missed my point - I'm not saying God will give you the answer to
> everything you don't understand - I said that God will reveal His nature
to
> you - that is the essence of real wisdom.

I have been hearing that one for over 50 years but have never experienced it
nor have I ever met anyone who has. Could you provide real life examples
from average Joe type folks. Zealots need not apply.

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> I like arguing politics, and I will even venture cautiously into religion,
but
> I find it far to polarized a battlefield to argue the relative merit of MS
and
> it's competitors quality.

Amazing what the world has come to when religion evokes less of an emotional
response than the choice of a piece of software.

On 24 Nov 2003 14:25:12 -0800, (lance smith)
wrote:

>Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's
>kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune
>when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well,
>That about Wraps It Up for God."


I like Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of theological blockbusters:

"Where God went Wrong"
"Some more of God's greatest Mistakes"
and
"Who is this God Person anyway?"




randall g =%^)> - PPASEL+Night - #320 only 346 short
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg
Lots of aerial photographs of British Columbia at:
http://www.telemark.net/~randallg/photos.htm

> > You missed my point - I'm not saying God will give you the answer to
> > everything you don't understand - I said that God will reveal His nature
> to
> > you - that is the essence of real wisdom.
>
> I have been hearing that one for over 50 years but have never experienced
it
> nor have I ever met anyone who has. Could you provide real life examples
> from average Joe type folks. Zealots need not apply.

Yes, please. I "second" Dave's request!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:43:49 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>I have been hearing that one for over 50 years but have never experienced it
>nor have I ever met anyone who has. Could you provide real life examples
>from average Joe type folks. Zealots need not apply.

No point to it, if "average Joe" is defined as someone who has not had
a religious experience, and "zealot" defined as someone who has.

I can't be sure that sharing real life examples will just be
disrespectfully slapped down, so I think anyone with something that
precious is probably smart enough to abstain.

Rob, abstaining

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

>>
If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
the stupid, we are going to disagree.
<<

Sometimes not accomodating the stupid leaves the stupid in control, and then we
are all worse off.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Peter
Gottlieb"
> > writes:
>
> >
> >"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I suspect there are few pilots who are not libertarians at heart. The
two
> >> mindsets mesh far too well for me to be the only one here.
> >
> >Yeah, but so what? In the present system one needs to vote against
rather
> >than vote for, and to effectively vote against, you have to "side with"
the
> >strongest alternative. The LP may very well have some good principles,
but
> >I don't see them getting anywhere serious for a very long time, if ever.
> >
> >
>
> This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
> important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If
that
> means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become more
> libertarian, then so be it.

That is a reasonable approach under the circumstances. At least you are
moving things in the right direction. Perhaps some of their ideas are
overly simplistic and/or naive but definitely a good start.

"Wdtabor" > wrote in message
...
> There are many more who have a basic libertarian viewpoint in economic
issues,
> but they are big government advocates when it comes to controling
morality.
> They need to be made to understand that you cannot pick an choose your
> freedoms. You cannot have economic freedom and property rights without
also
> having sexual and lifestyle freedom. Once they learn to trust their fellow
> citizens to make their own personal choices, they can then better persuade
them
> to embrace economic freedom.

The problem may also be related to their ties to the Church. Since this
relationship brings them votes - in many cases enough to decide elections -
it will be hard to wean them from this.

Then there is the matter of fiscal responsibility, which everyone in
Washington seems to have abandoned.

> With Dems, it is another matter. Most of them are simply socialists and
> collectivists and are beyond redemption. But some are in the Dem party
based on
> some single issue where they feel the GOP threatens them. I have had great
> success in recruiting Libertarians from the Gay and Lesbian business
community
> in the artsy Ghent section of Norfolk. They were economic libertarians all
> along, they just fled to the Dem party because it was seen as more
permissive
> of their lifestyle than the GOP. Once they understand that they don't need
> permission if they have freedom, they are converted.

I believe many more than you suspect fall into this category. And, in this
area, there are a good many "Republicans" who got fed up with a single issue
in the Democratic camp. What I am saying is that there are a lot of people
close to the fence in both parties.

H. Adam Stevens opined

>"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
>> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
>>
>> >
>> > And then check the constitution. VERY disturbing.
>>
>> Careful, now. "..Shall make no law barring..." is a far cry from
>> acknowledging a god. You'll need to come up with a better argument than
>> that, I'm afraid.
>>
>> --
>> John T
>> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
>> ____________________
>>
>>
>If you're going to use quotes, use them accurately:

>" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

>Seems to me "no" means "no" as in "none", "not any", "zero".

An established religion has a specific meaning. It means that to be in
parlement or congress or in some cases to own property one must be a member of
the national -established- religion. Like Islam in Saudi Arabia. Or the CofE
in 18th century England.

It means far less than the ACLU claims these days.



-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

Rob, abstaining wrote:
===========
No point to it, if "average Joe" is defined as someone who has not had
a religious experience, and "zealot" defined as someone who has.

I can't be sure that sharing real life examples will just be
disrespectfully slapped down, so I think anyone with something that
precious is probably smart enough to abstain.

=============

Me too - I'm done!

Matthew 7:6

G.R. Patterson III opined

>Wdtabor wrote:
>>
>> This is a fight I have with my fellow LP members often. TO me, it is more
>> important that libertarian ideas prevail, not Libertarian candidates. If
>> that means gently persuading Republicans and even some Democrats to become
>> more libertarian, then so be it.

>Let's see if I understand you correctly. Your theory is that, if enough
>people vote Libertarian, the other candidates will start to adopt some of the
>LP views in an attempt to siphon off some of those votes?

>I would like to be able to agree, but I think that Dems and Reps would simply
>be afraid of losing votes they already have and afraid of losing the support
>of the main party.

The Progressive Party never won an election in the 20s and 30s, but their
policies were adopted by the Dems. I think it was in Oregon in '02 that the
Repub lost by less than what the LP canadsate got.

>In any case, a vote is never "wasted" if you vote for the candidate you
>prefer.
>
>George Patterson
> A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
> no other way.


-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:39:54 -0500, John Harlow wrote:

> of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
> references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
> presumptions and offensive.

This reminds me of the people who buy a house next to an airport and then
cry about the planes.

The same solution exists in both cases.

**********Me too - I'm done!

**********Matthew 7:6


Thank God!

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>Excellent. Thanks for adding a thought-provoking post to this thread.
>>
>>Cool! Does that mean I get to stay one night free at the Alexiz Park Inn?
>
>
> Depends. What do you fly?
>
> We might be able to work out a trade? :-)

<sigh> Whatever I can rent, until I get my replica of this thing
<http://www.hillfamily.org/david/aviation/Epps1924/Epps1924p01.htm>
built. When I get it done, let's see if I have the balls to fly it on a
570.4 nm trip, *then* talk about it.

--
David Hill
david at hillREMOVETHISfamily.org
Sautee-Nacoochee, GA, USA

filters, they're not just for coffee anymore

On 2003-11-24 15:30:12 -0800, Robert Perkins > said

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 06:43:13 -0500, "Jules Beaudoin
> > wrote
>
> >I never realized there were so many religion nuts in aviation. Amazing
>
> Really? I counted less than five..

I'm guessing he was counting the anti-religion nuts as part of the whole
;-

Five is five too many.

Five is five too many.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 15:56:07 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

> But you still haven't made a case that the insurance industry is providing any
> "better" service to anybody other than you.

Especially when you consider that you will probably have insurance until
you exceed whatever quota they decide to grant you in mistakes.

I wouldn't want to base my decision on a Dentist/Doctor/whatever based on
if a guy had insurance.

I was hit by an old lady with glasses so thick it was amazing she could
even wear them, come to think of it she wasn't. Another hack at
insurance, she just had 3 previous accidents and still had coverage, I
don't buy the insurance/private industry taking care of things. They
won't until after x amount of events and I don't want to be that event...

Look how well private industry did at the beginning of the industrial
revolution, a remarkable track record of humanity don't you think?

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:23:59 -0600, Chris W wrote:

> Moses is no longer in effect. Of course if you are Jewish and don't believe in
> Jesus Christ then you've got problems.

Dr. Laura is of the Jewish faith, so I think it's wildly humorous. I'd
love to hear somebody call her up with the selling of their daughter bit,
it'd be the funniest thing I've heard all year. In fact, I saved the text
from that web page, it's fantastic.

I flew into Jackson Hole solo in a perfect P Baron on a perfect day; once.
That was a spiritual experience anyone would relish.
However there are no references to Jackson Hole in the Bible.
Too bad.

H.
N502TB


"Jules Beaudoin" > wrote in message
...
> Five is five too many.
>
>

Wdtabor wrote:

> I am a dentist, licensed by the state. But if the state stayed out of
> it, I
>
>would still need professional liability insurance. It would be in the insurance
>company's best interest to only insure competent dentists, so they would check
>my credentials and my record before insuring me. YOu need only check to see if
>i have insurance to know if I am qualified, so what purpose does the license
>really serve?
>
Would the fact that you had insurance _really_ say anything about your
competence?
Or would it just say that you had found someone who was willing to
provide you with
_some_ coverage at a price you were willing to pay? Without examining
_your_ policy,
I have no idea whether they consider you a low-risk client (i.e. highly
qualified, keeping
up with the latest developments in your field, etc.), or if they think
you're a claim that
just hasn't been filed yet. I don't know whether you have a fairly
inclusive policy, or
one that's so limited that the only way they'll pay is if the claimant
can prove intentional
premeditated damages planned at least two years in advance.

And how am I to even know that this insurance company is a reputable
company?
Do they have enough reserves to handle potential claims and remain
solvent? Do they
have the expertise to evaluate your performance?

So far, all I've seen from your argument is a claim that I don't need
to be an expert
in dentistry to tell if you're competent. However, I now need to become
an insurance
expert in order to determine whether or not the insurance you _claim_ to
have has
any validity.

Rich Lemert

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Religion is about "belief". No need to prove a belief
>
>- and no way to do it, either.
>
This would be fine if the people holding that belief recognized that
that's all it is,
and that another person's beliefs have just as much basis as there's,
and are therefore
just as valid. The problem comes when people mistake "beliefs" for
"truths", and
start insisting that anyone who doesn't believe the same way is damned.

Rich Lemert

I believe in life after death, only in minds of the living. :D


--
studentpilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

You Yanks spruke a lot of ****, isn't there some religious sight you
religious zelots can go on to do battle quoting various phrases from
fairy stories?:mad:


--
studentpilot
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -

"Matthew P. Cummings" wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 11:23:59 -0600, Chris W wrote:
>
> > Moses is no longer in effect. Of course if you are Jewish and don't believe in
> > Jesus Christ then you've got problems.
>
> Dr. Laura is of the Jewish faith, so I think it's wildly humorous. I'd
> love to hear somebody call her up with the selling of their daughter bit,
> it'd be the funniest thing I've heard all year. In fact, I saved the text
> from that web page, it's fantastic.

I have a great deal of respect for the Jewish faith. However, it would be
interesting to hear what they have to say about those passages.


--
Chris W

"They that can give up essential liberty
to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania

John wrote:

>You missed my point - I'm not saying God will give you the answer to
>everything you don't understand - I said that God will reveal His nature to
>you - that is the essence of real wisdom.
>
>
It's apparent that you feel God "has revealed his true nature" to you.
So what happens if
He reveals his true nature to me, and that nature is nothing like what
you experienced?
For many people that answer would be obvious - I must have been fooled
by a false god.
And yet I can't help but wonder, why is it not possible for them to be
wrong?

Rich Lemert

Wdtabor wrote:
>
> Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
> replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?

Well, personally, I will vote for *anyone* running against Schumer that has a
chance of winning. With the possible exception of Clinton (either one). Since
I don't live in New York, however, I don't presently have that opportunity.
That also means that I don't have to call him "my" senator.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>
> I believe many more than you suspect fall into this category. And, in this
> area, there are a good many "Republicans" who got fed up with a single issue
> in the Democratic camp. What I am saying is that there are a lot of people
> close to the fence in both parties.

I think you're right, and the problem is the fact that they now have to toe
the party line to get funding because of the contribution reform laws passed
around 1980. Either these laws should be repealed or the national parties
should be placed under the same restrictions as major corporations. Before they
were passed, it was possible for someone to buy a congresscritter or two, and
there were some that couldn't be bought. Now, you can buy an entire party and
get half of Congress in one whack.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
be learned no other way.

On the contrary, the "spirit" was to avoid state-forced religions and
persecution. There is a big difference. Just because you don't like any
reference to god or God does not mean that it is inconsistent with the
authors' intentions.


"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > Where does it say that the Treasury cannot use "In God we trust" on its
> > money? Where does it say that Congress shall not acknowledge God (with
> the
> > prayer before each session, for instance)?
>
> It is an obvious bias to a specific theology; which goes against the
spirit
> of the letter of the constitution. I do not want to see ANY religious
> references on government issued documents; their presence is quite
> presumptions and offensive.
>
>

That ain't even CLOSE to state-sponsored religion.

For real examples of state sponsored or oppressed religions, try Iran, Iraq,
Europe in Middle Ages, Soviet Russia, Cambodia's Kmer Rouge, the Vatican,
etc for examples. The differences might be too subtle for you to see, but
to most folks, the difference is like night and day.


"John Harlow" > wrote in message
...
> > > I do not want to see ANY
> > > religious references on government issued documents; their presence
> > > is quite presumptions and offensive.
> >
> > That is the crux of your argument: You don't *want* to see any reference
> to
> > religion. That's a far different matter than trying to claim that "In
God
> > we trust", for example, is illegal.
>
>
> If that's not state sponsored religion I don't know what is. "In God (or
> Allah, Buddha, Satan or whoever) we trust" simply has no place on a
> government issued document, no matter how many people it makes feel all
warm
> and fuzzy.
>
>

"John" > wrote

> We place ourselves at the level of gods, thinking that if we can reason
> something out, we can then understand it and thereby bring it under our
> control. That is the essence of our "sin" - we think we have a right to
> ourselves and to control our destiny.

What a profoundly depressing view of one's life. We have no right to
attempt to control anything about ourselves or our destiny. And if we
attempt to do so via Man's greatest capability, the ability to reason,
then we are sinners. If I believed that I'd probably just go jump off
a bridge right now.

Fortunately, I don't believe any of it. In fact, reading it makes me
want to go out and reread Atlas Shrugged.

Jim Rosinski
N3825Q

jim rosinski wrote:
>
> What a profoundly depressing view of one's life.

My mother believes that we inherit all our abilities and can't do any better
than our ancestors. If one of us gets training in something and turns out to be
good at it, she immediately starts trying to figure out which of our ancestors
we "got that from".

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:51:44 -0500, "Jules Beaudoin"
> wrote:

>Five is five too many.
>

So speaks the voice of the demagogue!

"The only good Indian is a Dead Indian!"

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On 25-Nov-2003, studentpilot >
wrote:

> I believe in life after death, only in minds of the living. :D

I believe in death after life (seems more logical to me).

Fred,

> Religion is based on faith.
>
> Science is based on doubt.
>

A good one!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003, Jay Honeck wrote:

> However, I got the impression that these guys, when confronted with an
> in-flight emergency, might conceivably just sit back and wait for a miracle.
> THAT scares me.

Smells like resignation to me. Isn't that one of the Dangerous Attitudes
we're warned about in ground school? Pilot Decision Making for Private
Pilots and all that good stuff?

Religion could also lead to the invulnerability Dangerous Attitude. (Dog
protects me, therefore I'm safe, etc)...

Doesn't sound safe to me.

Only half joking,

Brian.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Ash Wyllie wrote:

> Dan Luke opined
>
> >"Wdtabor" wrote:
> >> >America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
> >> >aren't liberal.
> >> >
> >> >Where do I sign up for the new party?
> >>
> >> WWW.LP.ORG
>
> >Close, but no cigar. The LP's blind faith in laissez-faire capitalism
> >betrays a failure to understand that *any* unrestrained power threatens
> >liberty. It matters not whether that power is in the hands of
> >government, religion, labor unions or business.
>
> Of all the organizations mentioned, only governments claim the right to shoot
> first and ask questions later.

Really? Read some history before you make statements like that. I'd start
with the British East India Company, Dutch East Indies Company, the
Belgians in the Congo, and anything Cecil Rhodes was involved in.

All those wonderfully unrestrained capitalist companies - and they started
to look a lot like governments after a fairly short while. Including the
use of force and similar entertainments.

Brian.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Wdtabor wrote:

> In article >,
> (Teacherjh) writes:
>
> >
> >>>
> > Anyone so foolish as to go to an uninsured dentist to
> >get a cheaper price (and they would have to be cheaper to compete with
> >insured
> >dentists) gets what they pay for.
> ><<
> >
> >You overlook the importance of marketing, and the gullibility of the American
> >Public.
> >
>
> If you are expecting me to advocate structuring our government to accomodate
> the stupid, we are going to disagree.

Does consumer/public protection always equal "accomodating the stupid",
though?

Actually, what I wonder is what's in it for the *insurance companies* in
this regulation-by-insurance scheme. They don't seem to gain anything by
it except additional trouble.

Let's stick with dentists for a bit, seeing as we got their insurance
involved earlier in the thread. Currently, AFAIK, if you apply for dental
malpractice insurance, and can't produce a gov't approved Dr of Dentistry
certificate, the company is going to say, "Talk to us after you graduate,
kid."

After all, the certificate shows at least basic competence in dentistry. I
bet that most new dentists pay nearly the same insurance rates, and that
those later go up/down depending on how much you use your insurance to
protect yourself.

Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
competent now?

The company now has to somehow test the competence of everyone who applies
to get their dental practice covered, or risk going broke paying out
malpractice claims. This means additional expense & complication for the
insurance company. Why would any sane, minding-the-bottom-line company
WANT this libertarian ideal to take root?

What if a dentist wants to change insurance companies? Sooner or later
you'd wind up back at a universally accepted standard of training, and
recognition of that with... wait for it... certificates/degrees etc in
dentistry.

Don't forget that most professional colleges, associations, etc started
out as self-regulating bodies to maintain/improve the respectability of
the profession. The AMA & co sought to reduce the number of quack doctors;
more recently we've seen midwives, massage therapists & other
para-medicals organize in their sectors.

Ultimately, I think Libertarianism is based on economic & sociological
theories that are just as flawed as those in Marxism...

To drag this back on topic (sort of...) swap "pilot" or "aircraft
designer" for "dentist" in my example above.

Brian.

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
>
> jim rosinski wrote:
> >
> > What a profoundly depressing view of one's life.
>
> My mother believes that we inherit all our abilities and can't do any better
> than our ancestors. If one of us gets training in something and turns out to be
> good at it, she immediately starts trying to figure out which of our ancestors
> we "got that from".

Wow. So what's she going to do when one of her grandkids/great-grandkids
becomes an astronaut & goes to the Moon? :)

No ancestor to 'get that from'! (Well, except for whatever descendants
twelve lucky Yanks have!)

Brian.

John,

> There are far bigger issues to deal with around here than
> having "Allah" or "God" or "Buddha" printed on my money.
>

Uh, yes? Look at what state the world is in because of people believing
in God, Allah and Buddha. Seems to me it's pretty important how we deal
with these myths.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

John,

> Sheesh. The energy you're wasting on that would be better directed to
> something *really* worthwhile - like eliminating the DC ADIZ. :)
>

The DC ADIZ is there because some people took their version of "In God
we trust" just a little bit further - that's the point. Ok, they took it
a whole lot further, but I'm sure you understand my point.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

> Amazing what the world has come to when religion evokes less of an emotional
> response than the choice of a piece of software.
>

Soudns to me like rationality has gone up ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Robert,

> Experimentation is based on faith.
>

Huh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

L,

We agree on that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jules Beaudoin wrote:

> I never realized there were so many religion nuts in aviation. Amazing!

I never realized there were so many atheist nuts in aviation. Amazing!

Brian Burger wrote:
>
> Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
> telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
> does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
> competent now?

In fact, why bother to get insurance at all? Just pick up a fake insurance
certificate at the nearest printer and hang it on your wall to reassure the
s^Hu^Hc^Hk^He^Hr^Hs^h patients. There's no regulation that requires it to be
*real*, is there?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

In article . ca>, Brian Burger
> writes:

>
>Actually, what I wonder is what's in it for the *insurance companies* in
>this regulation-by-insurance scheme. They don't seem to gain anything by
>it except additional trouble.
>

THey don't have to gain anything, it is a byproduct of their existing business
interests.

>Let's stick with dentists for a bit, seeing as we got their insurance
>involved earlier in the thread. Currently, AFAIK, if you apply for dental
>malpractice insurance, and can't produce a gov't approved Dr of Dentistry
>certificate, the company is going to say, "Talk to us after you graduate,
>kid."
>
Diplomas are issued by dental schools, not licensing boards. The insurance
companies are perfectly capable of determining which schools produce dentists
who do not generateexcessive malpractice claims.

>After all, the certificate shows at least basic competence in dentistry. I
>bet that most new dentists pay nearly the same insurance rates, and that
>those later go up/down depending on how much you use your insurance to
>protect yourself.
>

YOu can get lower rates by having a clean record, but you can also lower rates
by getting advanced training.

>Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
>telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
>does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
>competent now?
>

Requiring they have a diploma from a reputable school.

>The company now has to somehow test the competence of everyone who applies
>to get their dental practice covered, or risk going broke paying out
>malpractice claims. This means additional expense & complication for the
>insurance company. Why would any sane, minding-the-bottom-line company
>WANT this libertarian ideal to take root?
>

The State licensing boards only test a dentist once, when he applies for the
license, and never again unless he moves to a state which does not practice
reciprocity.

>What if a dentist wants to change insurance companies? Sooner or later
>you'd wind up back at a universally accepted standard of training, and
>recognition of that with... wait for it... certificates/degrees etc in
>dentistry.
>
>Don't forget that most professional colleges, associations, etc started
>out as self-regulating bodies to maintain/improve the respectability of
>the profession. The AMA & co sought to reduce the number of quack doctors;
>more recently we've seen midwives, massage therapists & other
>para-medicals organize in their sectors.
>

Actually the AMA and ADA are more about protecting their members interests than
the publics. Which is how it should be.


>Ultimately, I think Libertarianism is based on economic & sociological
>theories that are just as flawed as those in Marxism...
>
>To drag this back on topic (sort of...) swap "pilot" or "aircraft
>designer" for "dentist" in my example above.
>

And again, the insurance companies' standards are higher than the governments
anyway in aviation just as in health care.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article .net>, L Smith
> writes:

>
> So far, all I've seen from your argument is a claim that I don't need
>to be an expert
>in dentistry to tell if you're competent. However, I now need to become
>an insurance
>expert in order to determine whether or not the insurance you _claim_ to
>have has
>any validity.

Do you know my dental license is not forged? Do you know what standards are
required for maintaining a license?

The insurance companies have a financial interest in insuring dentists who will
not generate malpractice claims. The state licensing board has a financial
interest only in there being a state licensing board again next year. Whose
interests are most in parallel with yours?

That is not to say that state licensing boards are evil, but they really don't
serve a purpose that the insurance industry cannot fulfill just as well, at
lower cost.

Why do you assume the consumer is less able to make his own choices in health
care and legal services providers than he is for auto repair?

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>Wdtabor wrote:
>>
>> Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
>> replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?
>
>Well, personally, I will vote for *anyone* running against Schumer that has a
>chance of winning. With the possible exception of Clinton (either one). Since
>I don't live in New York, however, I don't presently have that opportunity.
>That also means that I don't have to call him "my" senator.
>

Yes, but the problem is that an LP party candidate can siphon off enough votes
that would otherwise go to a "Ron Paul Republican" to allow a "Schumer
Democrat" a win in a close race. I advocate, within the LP, that we only run
candidates in races where we either have a real chance of winning, or no chance
of changing the outcome.

We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we instead
caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been GOP. The
result has been a successful Kennedy led filibuster keeping Strict
Constructionist appointees off the appeals courts, a perfect politcal example
of carefully shooting ourselves in the foot.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

In article >, "Ron Natalie"
> writes:

>>
>> So, what goood does the license do that the private sector has not already
>done
>> better?
>
>Will they issue you insurance without you showing a license? If not, then
>the
>insurance company is relying (partially) on a government function to weed out
>some of the undesirables.
>
I would think educational credentials, like a DDS or DMD degree from a
reputable dental school would be a good starting point. Certainly better than a
license from the state.

>But you still haven't made a case that the insurance industry is providing
>any
>"better" service to anybody other than you.
>
>

For a good example of how this could provide better service, look under your
toaster. You will see the UL acceptance number. Underwriters Laboratory is
supported by the product liability insurance business and by self insured
manufacturers and sets generally accepted safety standards with no help from
the government.

Licensing of professionals provides very little in the way of safety, the real
purpose of licensing is collusion with government for restraint of trade.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

>>
For a good example of how this could provide better service, look under your
toaster. You will see the UL acceptance number. Underwriters Laboratory is
supported by the product liability insurance business and by self insured
manufacturers and sets generally accepted safety standards with no help from
the government.
<<

But every toaster (in a line) is the same. Not every patient is. Leaving it
to the insurance companies or some other soulless entities may induce doctors
and dentists to simply not take difficult cases, or cases where the outcome is
less than certain. But those are the cases where you most need medical
expertise. I suspect that a lot of the "wellness" stuff going on has to do
with the fact that the doctor can make just as much money seeing well patients
as sick ones, and there is less chance of copmlications and (thus)
"consequences".

There are unintended consequences to each method (licensing, insuance,
marketplace) of regulation. It is simplistic to think that any one is "the
answer"

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>Brian Burger wrote:
>>
>> Now, let's say a Libertarian Paradise breaks out. No more nasty govn't
>> telling anyone they can't practice dentistry. Cool. BUT... how the heck
>> does an insurance company know that someone is at least basically
>> competent now?
>
>In fact, why bother to get insurance at all? Just pick up a fake insurance
>certificate at the nearest printer and hang it on your wall to reassure the
>s^Hu^Hc^Hk^He^Hr^Hs^h patients. There's no regulation that requires it to be
>*real*, is there?
>

Umm, I buy that insurance so that if I make a mistake I do not lose my home,
business and savings.

Also, most dental insurance companies require that you be insured to do
business with them, and they DO check your claimed coverage with the insurer.
The point being that I need the insurance to do business anyway.

Another problem solved by the private sector without any need for the boot of
government on our necks.


--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

Brian Burger > wrote:
>Don't forget that most professional colleges, associations, etc started
>out as self-regulating bodies to maintain/improve the respectability of
>the profession. The AMA & co sought to reduce the number of quack doctors;
>more recently we've seen midwives, massage therapists & other
>para-medicals organize in their sectors.

Actually, most organizations have their roots in the Guild system of
the Middle Ages. And the sole purpose of the Guilds were to protect
their members from unemployment. Not a member of the Guild? Sorry,
you can't [fill in the blank].

Robert Perkins > wrote in message >...
> On 24 Nov 2003 08:48:15 -0800, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
>
> >Religion is based on faith.
> >
> >Science is based on doubt.
>
> Two sides of the same coin.
>
> Experimentation is based on faith.
>

No.

Classically, an experiment is designed to disprove an hypothesis.

--

FF

Brian Burger opined

>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Ash Wyllie wrote:

>> Dan Luke opined
>>
>> >"Wdtabor" wrote:
>> >> >America: where the Conservatives aren't conservative and the Liberals
>> >> >aren't liberal.
>> >> >
>> >> >Where do I sign up for the new party?
>> >>
>> >> WWW.LP.ORG
>>
>> >Close, but no cigar. The LP's blind faith in laissez-faire capitalism
>> >betrays a failure to understand that *any* unrestrained power threatens
>> >liberty. It matters not whether that power is in the hands of
>> >government, religion, labor unions or business.
>>
>> Of all the organizations mentioned, only governments claim the right to
>> shoot first and ask questions later.

>Really? Read some history before you make statements like that. I'd start
>with the British East India Company, Dutch East Indies Company, the
>Belgians in the Congo, and anything Cecil Rhodes was involved in.

The key word is *claim* . The East India companies were chartered by
governments, and the governments may well have delegated its right to
slaughter to the companies. It is a bit hard to compare the behaviour of 16th
century companies to 21st century comanies. I have not been shot once for
leaving a show room with out buying something.

It was King Leopold who bought the Congo (using money loaned by the Belgian
parliment) as his private hunting preserve. It's hard to call him a company
since he was a reigning monarch - in fact he was the government.

Good old Cecil made himself a government.

>All those wonderfully unrestrained capitalist companies - and they started
>to look a lot like governments after a fairly short while. Including the
>use of force and similar entertainments.

You are confusing mercantilists with capitalists. Capitalists prefer to trade.
It is more profitable in the long run.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:31:03 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>The DC ADIZ is there because some people took their version of "In God
>we trust" just a little bit further - that's the point. Ok, they took it
>a whole lot further, but I'm sure you understand my point.

If they trusted in God, they wouldn't have taken matters into their
own hands, IMO.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:31:05 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Robert,
>
>> Experimentation is based on faith.
>>
>
>Huh?

Most of the diatribe against faith posted around here is directed
against what those in my church call "blind faith", or faith without
submitting the subject matter to a test. But it isn't at all what I've
meant by "faith" since about the age of 15.

In scientific method, you advance your hypothesis and propose a test.
Publish it. Anyone who acts to submit your hypothesis to that test is
acting on faith in that hypothesis.

If it's proven out, that faith becomes knowledge. If not, toss the
hypothesis on the scrap heap and wait for or formulate refinements.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Wdtabor opined

>In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>>Wdtabor wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, would you vote LP if it meant that someone like Ron Paul would be
>>> replaced by someone like Chuck Schummer?
>>
>>Well, personally, I will vote for *anyone* running against Schumer that has
>>a chance of winning. With the possible exception of Clinton (either one).
>>Since I don't live in New York, however, I don't presently have that
>>opportunity. That also means that I don't have to call him "my" senator.
>>

>Yes, but the problem is that an LP party candidate can siphon off enough
>votes that would otherwise go to a "Ron Paul Republican" to allow a "Schumer
>Democrat" a win in a close race. I advocate, within the LP, that we only run
>candidates in races where we either have a real chance of winning, or no
>chance of changing the outcome.

>We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
>to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we
>instead caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been
>GOP. The result has been a successful Kennedy led filibuster keeping Strict
>Constructionist appointees off the appeals courts, a perfect politcal example
>of carefully shooting ourselves in the foot.

That is what hapened in the Kennedy's last Mass election ('00 I think). Carla
did not do well :(.

-ash
for assistance dial MYCROFTXXX

On 25 Nov 2003 08:09:26 -0800, (Fred the Red
Shirt) wrote:
>Robert Perkins > wrote in message >...
>> Experimentation is based on faith.
>No.

Yes.

>Classically, an experiment is designed to disprove an hypothesis.

Yes, I agree. But I'm not talking about how experiments are designed,
I'm talking about the mindset of a person who follows the directions
of the experiment, in an attempt to verify or disprove. If you do the
experiment, and it's properly designed, then you're interested in the
outcome. That's faith. If you didn't believe in the first place, one
way or the other, you wouldn't go to the trouble of doing the
experiment.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

>>
If you do the
experiment, and it's properly designed,
then you're interested in the
outcome. That's faith.
<<

Not in my lexicon. "Interested in", "Having an interest in" and "believing in"
are three different things.

"Believing in" means running your life and your mind as if the hypothesis were
true.

"Having an interest in" means standing to benefit from others believing in the
truth of the hypothesis.

"Interested in" means curious about; wanting to know whether the hypothesis is
true or false.

In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
whether it is =actually= true or not.

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

On 25 Nov 2003 18:47:22 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
>hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
>whether it is =actually= true or not.

Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

>>
>In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
>hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
>whether it is =actually= true or not.

Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.
<<

OFTEN to the point of... , not ALWAYS to the point of...

In any case, "faith" does not come in when testing a hypothesis. In fact, it's
lack of faith that is involved, after all if you had (enough) faith, you
wouldn't need to test it. So the original statement (maybe not yours) still
doens't ring for me - that testing a hypothesis is an act of faith, blind or
otherwise.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

Dave Stadt wrote:
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>"Love thy neighbour as thyself".
>
>
> Doesn't that go against the adultery one?
>
>
>
>

LOL.

You've got me conjuring up this mental image of an adulterer trying to
love himself the way he just did his neighbour.




--
God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the
courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
--- Serenity Prayer

Robert Perkins > wrote in message >...
> On 25 Nov 2003 08:09:26 -0800, (Fred the Red
> Shirt) wrote:
> >Robert Perkins > wrote in message >...
> >> Experimentation is based on faith.
> >No.
>
> Yes.
>
> >Classically, an experiment is designed to disprove an hypothesis.
>
> Yes, I agree. But I'm not talking about how experiments are designed,
> I'm talking about the mindset of a person who follows the directions
> of the experiment, in an attempt to verify or disprove. If you do the
> experiment, and it's properly designed, then you're interested in the
> outcome. That's faith.

No. That is interest in the outcome. Interest is not faith.

> If you didn't believe in [believe in WHAT, exactly?--FF]
> the first place, one
> way or the other, you wouldn't go to the trouble of doing the
> experiment.
>

No. The experimenter can be said to have faith in the experimental
method, that is to say faith that the question being posited can
be answered by conducting experiments. Perhaps that is what you
are driving at. But an experimenter should not have faith in
a particular outcome, and indeed it is when the outcome is
unexpected that the gretest opportunity for advancement is
realized. I'll readily agree that scientists have faith in
the method of science. It is continuing doubt in the conclusions
derived from the use of the scientific method that is the
driving force behind pure science.

As, for example, when one of Rutherford's students incorrectly
assembled an experimental aparatus and discovered backscatter of
alpha particles. Rutherford had never looked for backscatter, one
could say that he had faith that there would be none.

It seems were are not discussing this in an appropriate newsgroup.
If you wish to follow-up, feel free to post (preferable not
cross-post) in an appropriate newsgroup.

--

FF

On 25 Nov 2003 21:26:39 GMT, (Teacherjh)
wrote:

>>>
>>In my argot, faith refers to running your life and your mind as if the
>>hypothesis were true, often to the point of no longer being "interested in"
>>whether it is =actually= true or not.
>
>Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
>you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.
><<
>
>OFTEN to the point of... , not ALWAYS to the point of...
>
>In any case, "faith" does not come in when testing a hypothesis. In fact, it's
>lack of faith that is involved, after all if you had (enough) faith, you
>wouldn't need to test it. So the original statement (maybe not yours) still
>doens't ring for me - that testing a hypothesis is an act of faith, blind or
>otherwise.

Testing a hypothesis is what got Moses' ass in trouble -- whacking the
rock with his stick, when the Big Guy had just told him to order it
verbally to gush water. No Promised Land for poor Moe.

Thus is Faith defined in Exodus.

Don

And refreshing...

mike regish

"Steve Robertson" > wrote in message
...
>
> I never realized there were so many atheist nuts in aviation. Amazing!
>

That's what always got me about the terrorists. If they really believed in
allah, and we were really that bad, wouldn't some allah induced terror
befall us?

I guess, in a way, they're saying they're not satisfied with allah's job
performance.

mike regish

"Robert Perkins" > wrote in message
...
>
> If they trusted in God, they wouldn't have taken matters into their
> own hands, IMO.
>
> Rob
>
> --
> [You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
> ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
> educate themselves.
>
> -- Orson Scott Card

>>>
>In any case, "faith" does not come in when testing a hypothesis. In fact,
it's
>lack of faith that is involved, after all if you had (enough) faith, you
>wouldn't need to test it. So the original statement (maybe not yours) still
>doens't ring for me - that testing a hypothesis is an act of faith, blind or
>otherwise.

Testing a hypothesis is what got Moses' ass in trouble -- whacking the
rock with his stick, when the Big Guy had just told him to order it
verbally to gush water. No Promised Land for poor Moe.

Thus is Faith defined in Exodus.

<<<

I think that supports my point. I wasn't there so don't know what Moses was
thinking, but it was likely either:

"I don't believe what God told me to do will work. I'll try my method."

--> lack of faith in God's method. Lack of faith being defined in Exodus.
Lack of faith getting him in trouble. (for this to work, the thing one has no
faith in has to be true - lack of faith in gravity will get you into trouble
when you jump off a cliff)

or

"I wonder whether my new method will work."

--> curiosity getting him in trouble. This is similar to wondering whether
flying throug a thunderstorm is a good shortcut. Again, it is not faith that
gets you into trouble. Exodus may be defining curiosity this way, not faith.

In both cases, it is the fact that reality is different from the hypothesis,
and the testing of the hypothesis is dangerous, that gets you into trouble.
Poor expermiental design.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

mike regish wrote:
>
> I guess, in a way, they're saying they're not satisfied with allah's job
> performance.

Isn't there something in the Christian faith to the extent of "the Lord helps
those as helps themselves"?

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Robert Perkins wrote:
>
> If you do the
> experiment, and it's properly designed, then you're interested in the
> outcome. That's faith.

Not in my dictionary. Faith would be not needing to do the experiment 'cause
you know how it's going to come out anyway.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
no other way.

Robert Perkins wrote:

> In scientific method, you advance your hypothesis and propose a test.
> Publish it. Anyone who acts to submit your hypothesis to that test is
> acting on faith in that hypothesis.

I don't follow your definition of faith, as used here. Would you be so kind
as to provide that definition (instead of an example)?

- Andrew

Robert Perkins wrote:

> Then we have a difference in argot, which is no surprise to me. What
> you're describing, in my worldview, is *blind* faith.

I've just reviewed the Merriam-Webster definition of faith. I don't see
anything akin to your use of the word there.

Where do you find faith defined as "interested in the outcome"?

- Andrew

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 14:34:48 +0000, Wdtabor wrote:

> We should run someone against Ted Kennedy, who will surely be elected anyway,
> to introduce the public to LP ideas, but in the last two elections, we instead
> caused two senate seats to go to Dems that otherwise would have been GOP. The

Running against TK shouldn't be an issue. Nobody will ever win against
him, so go for it.

The way I figure it, he could call everybody a moron, admit to any crime
you care to imagine and he'd be elected. He could run from prison and
win, he's a Kennedy and can not lose. So run against him and put out some
ideas.