But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
in times of threat.

I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.

What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
that.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

> The average citizen has NO need to have...

airplanes or chemistry sets or powerful computers or home weather stations or SUVs. The average citizen does not need seventeen different choices of toothpaste just on one aisle, and the average citizen most definately does not need a big mac.

And actually, a "well regulated militia" would come in handy at 38,000 feet were theere a dispute about who should fly the airplane.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
(note, replied to r.a.piloting, r.a.ifr, and r.a.student, but I don't follow the student group)

Cecil Chapman wrote:

> But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
> for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
> in times of threat.
>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
> just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
> though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
> stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
> against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.

You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
is it?


> What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
> between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
> piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
> simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
> magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
> was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
> tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
> that.

Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
one means and force is the other.


Matt

My totally amazed comments are in you text...



"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
> > No, I just don't see them the same way you do. You can SCREAM in capital
> > letters all you want and decide that I'm suffering from a terminal case
of
> > cognitive dissonance, but that's not a very mature response, now is it?
> >
>
> Naw,,, did NOT scream in capital letters <grin>!
>
> > Perhaps Republicans in Utah are just as touchy as liberals in Cambridge
> > and
> > Berkeley. All that ideological conformity makes these places into
> > ideological veal pens. God forbid you ever have to venture outside that
> > bubble.
>
> Please don't even get me started on Berkeley (sometimes I wish they would
be
> declared a separate state so that their questionable actions/ideas would
be
> associated with Californians as a whole.
>
> I was born in Chicago, but from 1 y.o. and on lived in San Francisco. I'm
> fully aware that venturing outside California is quite different, but that
> doesn't make the observation that bigotry exists any less true. I know
when
> I've been in the South, I was surprised that many of the old attitudes
have
> never left, just that they've gone a little more underground (regarding
> blacks).

I used to have a gijrlfriend who was from SF and extremely liberal. I used
to kid her that the only time she ever actually saw a black person was when
she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same syndrome.

If you were to actually talk to a black person you would find that there is
far less prejudice in the South than in the North. Oh, you might see a
Confederate flag or two in the South but it is more a symbol of Southern
pride than racism. When civil rights came, Southerners adopted them far
quicker than did non-Southerners. Because white Southerners actually knew
black people. As I have discussed with some of my black friends, in the
South you know who doesn't like you because of your color. They flip you off
or yell at you, but you know who they are and you ignore them. But, in the
North (for example), everybody smiles and shakes your hand at the same time
they're putting restrictive covenants on their neighborhoods so black people
can't buy houses there, and they pass laws banning "alley basketball"
because they don't want black kids hanging out on their block.

And do you know where the new "Black Mecca" is? A place where the government
is predominantly run by blacks? A place where black business thrives? A
place where black Americans can live in peace, prosperity, and equality
alongside their black neighbors. It's Atlanta. That's in Georgia; about as
far "down South" as you can get. Yea, the South is a really prejudiced
place!




> It IS like night and day between California and some other states
> regarding attitudes towards same-sex unions - I was just trying to point
out
> that having a gay person or couple in your neighborhood isn't going to
'turn
> you' or your children gay. Just isn't going to happen. Not necessarily
> true in your case,,, but I have noticed that those who are most vehement
> against gays often turn out to be people who are struggling with their
> certainty about their own sexuality.

Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in the
60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.



>
> Unfortunately, the gay citizens that get the most tv coverage here in San
> Francisco are those that are more flamboyant in costume and dress during
Gay
> Pride celebrations. You'd find that most of the gay couples in our
> neighborhood (as well as yours,,,, they likely stay 'hidden') just dress
> like you and me, kiss a loved one on the way to work and aren't wearing
pink
> feathered costumes and a headdress. :0) I guess all I was saying is that
I
> don't understand the intolerance; I don't worry that my wife, my marriage
or
> child are at risk because of Gay people. I WILL say that the only persons
> that worry me most in regards to my 9 year old stepson are Catholic
Priests.
> I DO keep my eye on them (though I understand that most are just fine -
but
> I watch out as much as possible)... but that is another issue altogether.

At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
with their straight sexuality. Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive
choice is probably not a good idea for a pubscent child who is wrestling
with their own sexuality.

Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm sure
some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun things.

With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that a
lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems. I'll
agree that some may have stemmed from abuse, but a lot of these problems do
not. And you are dealing with a lot of "recovered memories" and other very
shaky memories. But any time "child molestation" comes into play there is
just no way for the accused to win.





>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I'm the original poster and I approve this response.
> >
> > "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> > m...
> >>
> >> freaks...... See this is what I mean about people like yourself,,,
they
> >> don't see the connections between their own observations.
> >
> Just like David Brooks, who decided he can't even deal with being in
> > the presence of people who voted for Bush.
> >
> > Best,
> > -cwk.
> >
> >
>
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you take
> two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two different
> answers.

Not if you poll the same people. If you're going to argue variant versus
invariant, you need to hold ALL relevant factors invariant when you're
talking about invariant.

>> You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".
>
> Much better than yours though.

Huh? That's the best you could come up with?

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Yea, the South is a really prejudiced place!

It sure was in the 80's. I can't speak for the current atmosphere, but when
I lived in Virginia, the common refrain when a black man ran for governor
was "I'm not racist, but I just can't imagine one of THOSE people as
governor." Of course, that would never be said to the face of a black
person. But it was said, nevertheless.

The South has a much better handle on manners, and so the racism isn't
nearly as overt as it might be elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the South
isn't still affected by racism.

As far as your so-called examples of "northern racism" go, they are pretty
absurd themselves. I doubt you could present a single example of a
residential covenant that literally makes it "so black people can't buy
houses there", and while it wouldn't surprise me to find rules restricting
or even prohibiting basketball in alleys, you'd be hard pressed to prove to
me that those rules are about keeping blacks out of the alleys rather than
simply keeping loud groups of young people from annoying the neighbors.
It's a pretty racist attitude you've got there to think that only black kids
play basketball.

Your homophobic rants are even more ridiculous...I'm not even going to waste
time responding to them.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you take
>>two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two different
>>answers.
>
>
> Not if you poll the same people. If you're going to argue variant versus
> invariant, you need to hold ALL relevant factors invariant when you're
> talking about invariant.

Maybe, maybe not. People are notoriously fickle. And even if you get
the same responses twice, it only tells you one thing: what those people
said at that instant. It doesn't tell you that much about the broader
population because of the biases we discussed earlier. And thus exit
polls are a complete waste of time because nobody cares what some subset
of the voters think.


>>>You have an odd definition of what's a "fact".
>>
>>Much better than yours though.
>
>
> Huh? That's the best you could come up with?
>
>

Beats "huh?"

Matt

Matt Whiting > writes:
> Earl Grieda wrote:
> > "Matt Whiting" > wrote
> >>>Earl Grieda wrote:
> >>>
> >>>However, since the meaning of words do evolve then it certainly is
> >>>possible that what this person claims is true. But in that case we
> >>>need to use the definition of "Arms" as it was defined when the Bill
> >>>of Rights was written.
> >>
> >>I agree. Private ownership of cannons was fairly common on those days
> >>and they were about the biggest and baddest weapons available to anyone
> >>then.
> >
> > Do you have any reference to prove that cannon ownership was common in those
> > days? Fairly common would constitute an ownership percentage greater than
> > 50% of the population.
>
> Do you own homework. And learn what common means. Pipers are common
> light airplanes, yet they constitute far less than 50% of the fleet.

Cannon were so common that the colonists had to steal
them from the Brits for use in Boston and even then
didn't have much ammunition for them. It was a good
bluff, though, that worked.

"Homophobe"; the last refuge of the village idiot.

I've never heard an intelligent person use that term.





"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...] Yea, the South is a really prejudiced place!
>
> It sure was in the 80's. I can't speak for the current atmosphere, but
when
> I lived in Virginia, the common refrain when a black man ran for governor
> was "I'm not racist, but I just can't imagine one of THOSE people as
> governor." Of course, that would never be said to the face of a black
> person. But it was said, nevertheless.
>
> The South has a much better handle on manners, and so the racism isn't
> nearly as overt as it might be elsewhere. But that doesn't mean the South
> isn't still affected by racism.
>
> As far as your so-called examples of "northern racism" go, they are pretty
> absurd themselves. I doubt you could present a single example of a
> residential covenant that literally makes it "so black people can't buy
> houses there", and while it wouldn't surprise me to find rules restricting
> or even prohibiting basketball in alleys, you'd be hard pressed to prove
to
> me that those rules are about keeping blacks out of the alleys rather than
> simply keeping loud groups of young people from annoying the neighbors.
> It's a pretty racist attitude you've got there to think that only black
kids
> play basketball.
>
> Your homophobic rants are even more ridiculous...I'm not even going to
waste
> time responding to them.
>
> Pete
>
>

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > Yes, that is a fact because it includes the element of time. If you take
> > two polls at the same time in the same place you will get two different
> > answers.
>
> Not if you poll the same people.

assuming that they will answer truthfully each time....

--
Bob Noel

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
>>SNIPPED>>
> -- David Brooks

Don't go away mad! Just...

Bryan

Cowards runs...Real men stay and fight, Political preference withstanding.

On 11/6/04 11:39 AM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
> wrote:

> But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
> for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
> in times of threat.
>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns are
> just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of registration -
> though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed with
> stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
> against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.
>
> What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the line
> between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
> piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
> simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had a
> magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of thinking
> was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
> tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
> that.

Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning in
order to further their agenda, I speak up.

Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words is
a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> > But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> > They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> > INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was
important
> > for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to
call,
> > in times of threat.
> >
> > I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to
have
> > armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).
Any
> > cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you
just
> > point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns
are
> > just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of
registration -
> > though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed
with
> > stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the
street
> > doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> > weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
> > against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.
>
> You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
> allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
> down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
> populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
> is it?
>
>
> > What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the
line
> > between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
> > piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
> > simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had
a
> > magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of
thinking
> > was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
> > tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs
for
> > that.
>
> Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
> 225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
> reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
> one means and force is the other.
>
>
> Matt

The problem is most people believe the populace is subservient to the
government which of course is 180 degrees out of whack. The constitution
provided for us to overthrow the government if necessary but most people are
totally incapable of comprehending the possibility.

Peter Duniho wrote:
So far, you've made no suggestions about why those polls are
> significantly wrong, and as I've already pointed out, the chances of those
> polls being correct are MUCH greater than the chances of them being
> drastically incorrect.

So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?

Cecil Chapman wrote:

But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
> that.

What caliber of round does an AK-47 shoot? Smaller than the average big
game round. Assuming the AK is fixed so it can only shoot semi
automatic you only dislike it because of how it looks.

> *much* closer to the US and has a less imposing military. *Think* for a
> moment and tell me it's logical for us to invade a hostile country half a
> globe away for oil when we have oil exporters in our own hemisphere.

Since Iraq didn't even have a missile delivery system, much less the 'WMD's,
I don't even see how they could be viewed as a hostile threat to the U.S.
The hypocrisy I'm trying to point out is; Bush keeps telling us how we are
there to free the Iraqi's from repression (there is NO doubt, that many
dissidents were brutally treated),,, but what about the mass genocide that
is going on RIGHT NOW (and has been going on for some time) in parts of
Africa. Why aren't we saving them? Could it be that there country has no
economic benefits to offer us and that,,, after all,, it is "just" black
skinned people dying over there?

> Your guy lost. By a significant margin. Get over it and go flying. :)

Significant margin? Not quite,,,, 51 to 48 percent is hardly a national
mandate - in fact it reveals a deeply divided country.

Not to worry,,,, Congress is investigating Halliburton as we speak.........
:0)

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

Dave Stadt wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Cecil Chapman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
>>>They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
>>>INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was
>
> important
>
>>>for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to
>
> call,
>
>>>in times of threat.
>>>
>>>I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to
>
> have
>
>>>armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).
>
> Any
>
>>>cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you
>
> just
>
>>>point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns
>
> are
>
>>>just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of
>
> registration -
>
>>>though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are committed
>
> with
>
>>>stolen weapons, anyways. I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the
>
> street
>
>>>doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
>>>weapons to defend his/her home. Unless he is out in the woods and up
>>>against some real bad-assed deer named Rambo <grin>.
>>
>>You really don't understand the Constitution, do you? The point was
>>allowing people to protect themselves from the government, not the thief
>>down the street. If the government has better weapons than the
>>populace, then protecting yourself from the government isn't possible,
>>is it?
>>
>>
>>
>>>What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the
>
> line
>
>>>between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to one
>>>piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California, a
>>>simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had
>
> a
>
>>>magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of
>
> thinking
>
>>>was absurd and even here in California that part of the legislation got
>>>tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs
>
> for
>
>>>that.
>>
>>Sure he does. You just don't understand the reason. Sure, we've had
>>225+ years of reasonable government, but not all governments stay
>>reasonable. You need a means to ensure that and freedom of the press is
>>one means and force is the other.
>>
>>
>>Matt
>
>
> The problem is most people believe the populace is subservient to the
> government which of course is 180 degrees out of whack. The constitution
> provided for us to overthrow the government if necessary but most people are
> totally incapable of comprehending the possibility.

Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
a point where we must start again. I'll admit that I have a hard time
compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
keenly aware of this issue!


Matt

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
. com...
> But Jeff, the words hearken back to the situation that they arose from -
> They had guns and when they wanted to oust the British control this was
> INDEED handy! The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
> for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to
> call, in times of threat.

It is more than just handy. It ensures our other liberties.

>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same). Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder. Handguns
> are just fine, too and I have had NO problem with the notion of
> registration - though I would be remiss to point out that many crimes are
> committed with stolen weapons, anyways.

No ****. Crimes are committed by criminals. All the anti gun laws in the
world aren't going to stop them.

> I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street doesn't need a shoulder
> fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic weapons to defend his/her
> home. Unless he is out in the woods and up against some real bad-assed
> deer named Rambo <grin>.

You're an idiot. Who are you tto make up this crap about what another
person needs or wants? Ownership is not the problem - it never was. The
problem is the criminals.

>
> What I DO agree with is that some of the legislation tries to blur the
> line between automatic (already illegal) and semiautomatic. According to
> one piece of legislation that almost went through out here in California,
> a simple Marlin .22 rifle was going to be declared illegal because it had
> a magazine that carried the specified amount of rounds - that kind of
> thinking was absurd and even here in California that part of the
> legislation got tossed out on its' butt. But,,,, an AK-47??? Joe Citizen
> has NO needs for that.

I have an "AK-47" or rather the semi auto version from Romania. It is no
more lethal (in fact less so) than a decent hunting rifle. What people seem
to object to is the appearance of it. Do you have any idea what you are
talking about?

>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

> I used to have a girlfriend

I'll bet you did,,, and then she realized you were a racist and off she
went - there's not much tolerance out here for mindless intolerance

>actually saw a black person was when
>she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same syndrome.

Not so,,, our former mayor (who kept getting reelected until he ran against
term limits - he was one of our finest mayors and did great things for our
city) of San Francisco, was definitely quite black! Also, you've obviously
never been in San Francisco for any appreciable length of time,,, I grew up
here.

One of my wife's coworkers related a story where she was attending a college
in the South and was amazed to see on the public bulletin board notices
regarding KKK meetings. Being from L.A. and Northern California, she
developed friendships with the blacks on campus. Then one day, she invited
two of her black girlfriends over to her dorm room. Her roommate wouldn't
say a word but would just glare at her guests. After her guests excused
themselves (clearly made uncomfortable by her roommate), her roommate went
on and told her "Don't you EVER bring one of THEM in this room".

My wife's friend finished the last few months of her semester and
transferred, elsewhere.

>Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in the
>60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
>rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.

Wow,,, the 'Q' word rolls off of your tongue as the 'N' word, I'd guess.
What are you so afraid of? <jeesh>

>At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
>adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
>with their straight sexuality.

I assume you like women, right? Just today,,,, without acting on it,,, I
want you to think about relating sexually with other males ------ WHAT ?
You can't do it? Sure ya can,,, it's a flexible 'choice' according to you.
<shaking my head>

If you weren't so afraid of 'catching' being gay and actually spoke with
regular gay citizens, you would find that they are as hard-wired into their
sexuality as you are (presumably) to women. I just don't get your 'fear'.

> Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive choice is probably not a good
> idea for a pubescent child who is wrestling
>with their own sexuality.

It's not being presented as an attractive or unattractive. Rather it is
being presented as yet another variation of human interaction and just as
valid as a relationship. Realistically, since there are people like you in
the world, why would anyone 'choose' (your word, not mine) to be gay - you
are made fun of, pointed at, called cruel names and in some parts of our
country killed by 'joe-bobs'. No one would CHOOSE to be gay, with all the
prejudice out there. They simply 'are' what they are. Just like you and I
can't 'help' our orientation.

>Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
>dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm sure
>some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun things.

We bring him into the Castro, often, during celebrations and events. We
would no more leave our nine year old on the street corner in the Castro
anymore than we would leave him alone in any other part of town, by himself.
Though we HAVE left him (without second thought) in the company of Gay &
Lesbian friends without a concern, because we knew the persons he was with,
were fine people. I also want to point out that (with the exception of
Catholic Priests) the majority of child molesters of boys AND girls are
straight men married to women in heterosexual relationships.

>With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
>fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that a
>lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems.

REALLY????, they suffer from mental problems after having been sexually
assaulted as a child by a man they have been taught to trust - MY
GOODNESS,,,, what IS wrong with them <jeesh> .... (just shaking my head at
your paragraph) :(

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

>Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Yeah,,, unlike you I'm not a fearful paranoid, crowding arms into his
basement because he is SO sure he is going to 'liberate' the world should
the government ever (however unlikely) turn against its' citizens.. With
the weaponry our government has, it would squash you like an insignificant
bug on the windshield before you could exhale.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
> So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?

I've already said. Please keep up. The poll is a fact. They are 100%
correct about the fact they represent. They are reasonably (and more
importantly, usefully) close to 100% correct about the facts that they ask
about.

If you're having trouble distinguishing between the two, I recommend you
find a decent statistics book.

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> "Homophobe"; the last refuge of the village idiot.

Ahh, yes. The ad hominem attack. The last refuge of the person without a
legitimate argument.

> I've never heard an intelligent person use that term.

Not my fault. Plenty of intelligent people do.

> Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
> interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
> in
> order to further their agenda, I speak up.


But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia WILL
destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
Jeff!
>
> Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
> of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
> is
> a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.

I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
haven't altered any original views, at all.

But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed"

--
If their intent was just that citizens had the right to bear arms, they
wouldn't have the line that comes before it. What is unreasonable about
that?

--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

I can send you a picture, of one, if you'd like? ;)


--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
>>>I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
>>>that
>>>includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
>>>ban that,
>>
>>
>> I almost forgot,,,,what for goodness sake do you need to be firing
>> ammunition as large as the type that the Mauser uses?
>
> Do you even know what a Mauser is?
>

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?
>
>
> I've already said. Please keep up. The poll is a fact. They are 100%
> correct about the fact they represent. They are reasonably (and more
> importantly, usefully) close to 100% correct about the facts that they ask
> about.

Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
Exactly what is useful about other political polls for that matter,
unless you are a democratic who can't think on his/her own and needs a
poll to tell them what to do. :-)


Matt

Right,,, I got that joe-bob,,,, I was referring to the size of the
ammunition it fires.... Back in your pick-up and go back to your fortified
ground cellar and wait for 'the end'.

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

Cecil Chapman wrote:

>>Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
>>interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
>>in
>>order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia WILL
> destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
> Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
> it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
> that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
> Jeff!

No need to restate what is commonly known by anyone at all literate
about the Constitution and those who wrote it.


>>Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
>>of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
>>is
>>a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
> tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
> haven't altered any original views, at all.

You seem to be trying to interpret the Constitution in ways that the
authors never intended, and that is just as bad as trying to change it
outright.


> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
> Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
> new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
> formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
> so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
> attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed"

Yes, that is exactly what the founders had in mind. Can't you do a
little research on your own? The comments on the second amendment by
various folks involved with authoring the Constitution are easy to find,
assuming you really want to know the answer.


Matt

> BINGO!!!
> --
> Jim in NC

Yep, Jim in NC, GOOD point!,,,, can YOU say WMD's?

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
> > Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
> > interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the
meaning
> > in
> > order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia
WILL
> destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
> Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their
decision
> it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
> that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
> Jeff!
> >
> > Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original
views
> > of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
> > is
> > a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who
have
> tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
> haven't altered any original views, at all.
>
> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place?

Do you remember this little event in US history called the Revolution? Of
course the founding fathers would want to afford the citizens the
opportunity to overthrow the government if need be. THEY HAD JUST DONE IT
AND WERE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW IT MIGHT NEED TO HAPPEN AGAIN! Consider
what was happening in other countries around that time. Sheesh, talk about
rational.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day? Exactly
> what is useful about other political polls for that matter, unless you are
> a democratic who can't think on his/her own and needs a poll to tell them
> what to do. :-)
>
>
> Matt
>

Democrats and Republicans will both heavily use the exit polls. In a couple
of months, a book about the size of a dictionary will come out with all the
exit poll data. Both sides will use the info to figure out why people voted
the way they did, and how they can use it to their advantage in the future.
Exit polls are very accurate when used properly.

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>So which is it? Is the poll a fact or nearly a fact?
>
>
> I've already said. Please keep up. The poll is a fact.

The poll is not a fact. It is potentially a close approximation of a fact.


They are 100%
> correct about the fact they represent.

They are almost never correct about the fact they are trying to represent.

> You pushed a button, Cecil. I see this kind of statement repeated with
> sickening frequency
>
> Comparing gay folks to "colored" people is just utter bullsquat. If I
> were black, I'd smack people who say this upside the face. If you weren't
> such a generally nice feller, this honkey would wanna smack you.

I understand, why. Often when people are confronted with the facts that
their feelings are colored by bigotry of one type or another, their first
impulse is to vehemently deny it.
>
> Black folks suffered brutally for hundreds of years right here in America.
> Many still suffer today from generations of whip-toting, slave-owning,
> water-cannon-wielding white folks denying them basic, God given,
> Constitutional rights to equal treatment by their representative
> government.

But they DON"T have equal rights. If their lifetime partner is in the
hospital they have NO legal visiting rights as a spouse would. When their
loved one dies they have NO right to insurance like a 'regular' spouse
would -despite spending decades together as a couple. The list goes on....
This is discrimination Jim and even though they may not be black still makes
it just as wrong and ugly. They don't even have the right to be buried with
their loved one. Sounds like a second class citizen to me, Jim!

>
> Not one should is denying gay folks their constitutional rights to
> practice their behavior in private . . . or even in public. They can
> vote. They can get elected to office. They can hold powerful positions
> in the media and corporate America.

Look above Jim,,,, you REALLY just haven't got a clue.... There are MANY
other rights that they don't have and it all comes from persons like you who
are so afraid that the existence of a gay couple might be a threat to your
sexual orientation or someone else's. Bigotry, Jim,,, not over color, in
your case, but the sexual preference of consenting adults. Why do you give
a flying fish (substitution here) ????? WHAT are you SO afraid of? Your
wife knows you are a straight man - are you afraid that if you agree that
others deserve civil right too, that somehow your sexual orientation will be
questioned? Balderdash!

>
> Hell, they can even fly a high wing airplanes.
>
> But they can't get married and they can't fly low wing planes.

You're right (so far) about the married part, but I know a lesbian couple
who own a Piper Cherokee 140 (definitely a low-wing airplane). Wouldn't you
agree? :)

That's just
> they way it is.
>
> To say that "Denying sexually aberrant citizens 'marital' status is akin
> to human rights abuses endured by black Americans" is an affront to my,
> and your, intelligence.

Bigotry is such an ugly thing,,,, it really doesn't suit, you, Jim. I
never in my wildest dreams pegged you as a bigot :(

>
> --
> Jim Fisher
>
> *"Sexually aberrant" is defined as a behavior that is outside the norm.
> Homosexuality might become a "normal" behavior in the distant future but
> for now it is an aberration, pure and simple.

Oral activity (as well as other practices of straight couples) between
consenting heterosexual or homosexual adults still falls under the sodomy
laws of many states to this day, using aberration and 'non-procreative
activity' as the measure.

Here's hoping you have a clue..... ;)

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

> Is that right? The heterosexual divorce rate is about .40 percent. What
> is it for homosexual marriages, Frank?
>
> --
> Jim Fisher

Hard to tell, Jim..... Bigots won't let them find out!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"

> No, it is just different. Calling it aberrant puts the judgment
> of 'improper' on it. Your opinions aren't axiomatic, Jim. Most
> people in the US used to look on interracial marriage as
> aberrant. Opinions have changed...not axiomatic.

Succinct and to the point! Most excellent reply!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Terry Bolands" > wrote in message
om...

Earl Grieda wrote:
>
> Please provide a referance to back up your etymological evolution of these
> terms.

Look up "militia" in the OED for starters.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).

And they don't have any. The big problem is people like Boxer who label commonly used
ammunition "armor piercing" and play people like you for suckers.

> Any
> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder.

Bull****! A shotgun hits where you point it, and you'd better make damn sure you're
pointing it exactly where you want it to hit. The shot pattern from my 12 gauge will
be about 2" wide at 20'. Point that "in the general direction" of somebody, you're
just going to punch holes in the walls.

> I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
> weapons to defend his/her home.

And these are not available in the U.S. and have not been for many decades.

> But,,,, an AK-47???

The semi-automatic version of the AK-47 is a fine weapon for hunting an animal that
weighs about 180 pounds, especially in brush. That's a deer, by the way.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

The reason most intelligent people don't throw "homophobe" around is because
they actually know what it means, which you obviously don't. Homophobia
refers to a fear of homosexuals or prejudice toward homosexual. Go back and
take another look at my original post and tell me where I exhibited any
homophobia. If you still see it, have some of your liberal dogma drained off
and replaced with brains, and you should be able to get it.

You mentioned a black man running for governor in Virginia, and people
saying they wouldn't vote for "one of them". Well, the man's name was Doug
Wilder, and I lived in Richmond when he was running. None of my friends had
any problem voting for him, but the fact that a lot of my friends were black
might have had something to do with it!

But Governor Wilder won, so there must not have been too many people
unwilling to vote for him. And when he was inaugurated, there was a large
parade which passed right by my apartment. It was planned, but there just
happened to be three naked lesbians sitting around my living room, and when
we saw the parade the women thought it would be great fun to lean out of my
window and flash the Governor. The Governor, the State Police, everybody was
staring at my window and waving.

A few days later I was in the bar next to my apartment where the state
legislators hung out, and Governor Wilder came in. Someone introduced me to
him, and I told him that the flashing was being done from my apartment. He
was laughing big time, and he told me he was pretty excited about being
elected, but he was trying to be somewhat restrained during the parade, and
then he looked up and saw wall-to-wall titties and he was afraid of falling
out of the car. He called one of his aides over and jokingly asked if there
were any more Cabinet positions because they definitely needed me in the
administration. He then told the aide to give me a business card, I gave him
mine, and the Governor told me if I ever needed any assistance dealing with
state government I should call his aide and he would get me taken care of. A
couple of times I did call the aide about problems I was having with
governmental agencies, and he got things cleared right up.

I also used to spend a lot of time in a bar called "Babes", which was about
the largest lesbian bar in Virginia outside of the DC metro area. They
really liked having me in there and constantly comped me drinks. They liked
me because I'm a fairly large guy, I didn't hit on the customers, and I
could calmly explain things to the occasional group of straight guys who
came in and thought they had died and gone to heaven when they saw a bunch
of women shooting pool with their boobs hanging out.

I live in Chicago now, and we have a neighborhood known as "Boy's Town",
which is about the third or forth largest gay "district" in the US. I live
in a high-rise about four blocks from there. We have 14 apartments on my
floor: one apartment is occupied by a single straight woman, one is occupied
by a lesbian couple, my girlfriend and I occupy one, and the other 11 are
occupied by either single gay males or gay male couples. Additionally, about
25% of the rest of the building is occupied by gay males.

I talk to a lot of gay people and a lot of black people every day.

I was initially raised in an unprejudiced home, but when I started junior
high in Arkansas I picked up on the bigotry that most of the kids around me
possessed. But I got involved in some civil rights activities and gay rights
activities and got rid of the bias. But I did it by thinking and talking to
people, not by just sitting there and letting someone force-feed liberal
dogma to me.






"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Homophobe"; the last refuge of the village idiot.
>
> Ahh, yes. The ad hominem attack. The last refuge of the person without a
> legitimate argument.
>
> > I've never heard an intelligent person use that term.
>
> Not my fault. Plenty of intelligent people do.
>
>

Cecil Chapman wrote:
>
> Right,,, I got that joe-bob,,,, I was referring to the size of the
> ammunition it fires....

So, tell us, little man. What size is that?

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
> >Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
>
> Yeah,,, unlike you I'm not a fearful paranoid, crowding arms into his
> basement because he is SO sure he is going to 'liberate' the world should
> the government ever (however unlikely) turn against its' citizens.. With
> the weaponry our government has, it would squash you like an insignificant
> bug on the windshield before you could exhale.

I am not a fearful paranoid... (redundant - just like the three commas you
have there). I am not crowding arms into my basement. I exercise my right
to bear arms. I would also like to defend myself if it ever comes to that.
(most likely against some bad guys you liberals let out of jail and allowed
to live for free on gubment dole, though he may come looking for extra money
in my house and I would like to protect myself) Did you perhaps consider
that people who own firearms might be rational, or do you believe all the
hype and misinformation you see and hear?

Your ill-advised logic and misunderstanding of firearms is baffling. Your
point was that it is ok to have a shotgun or a hunting rifle, but not an
AK47/"assault" rifle. What logic made you come to that conclusion? A
typical hunting rifle is more firepower than the AKs available in gun
stores.

Wake up.

The following is one of my favorites, though it is a paraphrase of the
original...

A vote for gun control is a vote for more women to get raped.


>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
om...
>> Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
>> interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
>> in
>> order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia
> WILL destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue,
> logically. Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in
> their decision it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right
> was to assure that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the
> government. Goodness, Jeff!
>>
>> Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original
>> views
>> of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
>> is
>> a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who
> have tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot'
> Act). I haven't altered any original views, at all.
>
> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
> Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
> new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
> formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
> so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
> attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of
> a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed"


You need to get a clue.

>
> --
> If their intent was just that citizens had the right to bear arms, they
> wouldn't have the line that comes before it. What is unreasonable about
> that?
>
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
> pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
> However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
> a point where we must start again.

A democracy (actually a Constitutional Republic) like ours only gets into
situations like we have (and might encounter) if the people allow it.

Don't blame the Representatives, or Senate, the executives or even the
bureaucracy. NONE of them was put in place by a coup. Rather, blame your
neighbors that vote to allow such practices that are contrary to the supreme
law, or to your ancestors that started taking apart the law and demanding
statist practices over 100 years ago.

> I'll admit that I have a hard time
> compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
> keenly aware of this issue!

The put a lot more trustin "the people" than was evidently justified by
today state of affairs.

In article >,
"Bill Denton" > wrote:

> The reason most intelligent people don't throw "homophobe" around is because
> they actually know what it means, which you obviously don't. Homophobia
> refers to a fear of homosexuals or prejudice toward homosexual.

When did "homophobe" begin to mean "prejudice toward homosexual."
Wouldn't it have originally meant merely (irrational?) fear of
homosexuals? The prejudice part came through common (mis)use of
the word.

--
Bob Noel

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Yes, absolutely. Fortunately, for all of its problems, we've enjoyed
>>pretty good government ... even when the democrats were in control. :-)
>>However, the possibility always exists that our government will move to
>>a point where we must start again.
>
>
> A democracy (actually a Constitutional Republic) like ours only gets into
> situations like we have (and might encounter) if the people allow it.

That is true to a large degree, but it was also true in Europe from
whence our founders fled. However, we do have a lot of "legislation"
now effectively occurring from the bence from judges appointed (not
elected!) for life. This is a lot harder for the people to stop anytime
soon.


> Don't blame the Representatives, or Senate, the executives or even the
> bureaucracy. NONE of them was put in place by a coup. Rather, blame your
> neighbors that vote to allow such practices that are contrary to the supreme
> law, or to your ancestors that started taking apart the law and demanding
> statist practices over 100 years ago.

I wasn't talking about blaming anyone, I was simply stating the purpose
of the Constitution. It is to protect the people from a government run
amok.


>> I'll admit that I have a hard time
>>compehending that myself, but the writers of the Constitution were
>>keenly aware of this issue!
>
>
> The put a lot more trustin "the people" than was evidently justified by
> today state of affairs.

Well, yes and no. They tried to keep the peoples' involvement somewhat
at arms length. I believe that is why we have a Republic rather than a
true democracy. However, do governmental design is perfect and ours is
degrading already as people will always vote for themselves more money
than they want to put in via taxes. Once you create an entitlement
society, which the "new deal" and the "great society" began, you are on
the path to destruction, even with a government as well designed as ours.


Matt

Look at: www.dictionary.com

And it's really not a descriptive word anymore; the left has turned it into
an epithet.



"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Bill Denton" > wrote:
>
> > The reason most intelligent people don't throw "homophobe" around is
because
> > they actually know what it means, which you obviously don't. Homophobia
> > refers to a fear of homosexuals or prejudice toward homosexual.
>
> When did "homophobe" begin to mean "prejudice toward homosexual."
> Wouldn't it have originally meant merely (irrational?) fear of
> homosexuals? The prejudice part came through common (mis)use of
> the word.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

Matt Whiting > writes:
> Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?

One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
electoral polling process.

If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
poll to figure out the source of error...

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

My comments in text...

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
. com...
> > I used to have a girlfriend
>
> I'll bet you did,,, and then she realized you were a racist and off she
> went - there's not much tolerance out here for mindless intolerance

I guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the end
of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who loved
her.

Asshole.


>
> >actually saw a black person was when
> >she went to Oakland. I'm afraid you may be a victim of that same
syndrome.
>
> Not so,,, our former mayor (who kept getting reelected until he ran
against
> term limits - he was one of our finest mayors and did great things for our
> city) of San Francisco, was definitely quite black! Also, you've
obviously
> never been in San Francisco for any appreciable length of time,,, I grew
up
> here.

And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had a
black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac".

And what I wrote was not intended to be a literal statement. Good writers
can write that; good readers can recognize it.



>
> One of my wife's coworkers related a story where she was attending a
college
> in the South and was amazed to see on the public bulletin board notices
> regarding KKK meetings. Being from L.A. and Northern California, she
> developed friendships with the blacks on campus. Then one day, she
invited
> two of her black girlfriends over to her dorm room. Her roommate wouldn't
> say a word but would just glare at her guests. After her guests excused
> themselves (clearly made uncomfortable by her roommate), her roommate went
> on and told her "Don't you EVER bring one of THEM in this room".
>
> My wife's friend finished the last few months of her semester and
> transferred, elsewhere.

I didn't say there were NO racists in the South. I said that the South is
probably less racist than the rest of the nation.

And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If it was
1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of my
third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.



>
> >Have you not read anything lately? That stupid catch-phrase came out in
the
> >60's, when queers first started to come above ground as part of the queer
> >rights movement. It was bogus then and it is bogus now.
>
> Wow,,, the 'Q' word rolls off of your tongue as the 'N' word, I'd guess.
> What are you so afraid of? <jeesh>

I was around when the movement started; the term "gay" was not yet in wide
use. It was known as "Queer Rights". And "queer" and "******" are used
within their respective groups; if you are accepted by those groups you are
allowed to use the terms, also. So, sometimes in the early evening I'll come
out of my building and see four or five of my gay neighbors waiting for
cabs, and I'll say something like: "What's this? Queers night out?" And they
will usually respond with something like how much fun I'd have if I weren't
such a breeder.

And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I was
having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine. I happened to use the term
"gay" and my friend just totally went off: "Gay? Gay? What the hell do you
mean by Gay? I'm not Gay, I'm a depressed queer!"




>
> >At this point, we don't know how many people are "born gay" and how many
> >adopt a gay lifestyle for whatever reason, including an inability to cope
> >with their straight sexuality.
>
> I assume you like women, right? Just today,,,, without acting on it,,, I
> want you to think about relating sexually with other males ------ WHAT ?
> You can't do it? Sure ya can,,, it's a flexible 'choice' according to
you.
> <shaking my head>
>
> If you weren't so afraid of 'catching' being gay and actually spoke with
> regular gay citizens, you would find that they are as hard-wired into
their
> sexuality as you are (presumably) to women. I just don't get your 'fear'.

I resolved whatever sexuality issues I might have had a long time ago. And I
have spent enough time with homosexuals to have caught "being gay" a long
time ago if such a thing were possible. And actually, becoming a lesbian has
always seemed like an attractive prospect.



>
> > Showing the "gay lifestyle" as an attractive choice is probably not a
good
> > idea for a pubescent child who is wrestling
> >with their own sexuality.
>
> It's not being presented as an attractive or unattractive. Rather it is
> being presented as yet another variation of human interaction and just as
> valid as a relationship. Realistically, since there are people like you
in
> the world, why would anyone 'choose' (your word, not mine) to be gay - you
> are made fun of, pointed at, called cruel names and in some parts of our
> country killed by 'joe-bobs'. No one would CHOOSE to be gay, with all the
> prejudice out there. They simply 'are' what they are. Just like you and I
> can't 'help' our orientation.

"Will & Grace", "Ellen", "Elton John", "Ru Paul", "If These Walls Could
Talk" and many other entertainment personalities and programs portray a
"fun" side to homosexuality. I don't watch network TV but if I did I'm sure
I would find many more. And I'm sure you think these shows just happened to
show up on the networks when they did.



>
> >Since you find no perils in associating with gays, why don't you start
> >dropping your own child off in the Castro on Saturday afternoons. I'm
sure
> >some of the boys over there will be happy to teach him a lot of fun
things.
>
> We bring him into the Castro, often, during celebrations and events. We
> would no more leave our nine year old on the street corner in the Castro
> anymore than we would leave him alone in any other part of town, by
himself.
> Though we HAVE left him (without second thought) in the company of Gay &
> Lesbian friends without a concern, because we knew the persons he was
with,
> were fine people. I also want to point out that (with the exception of
> Catholic Priests) the majority of child molesters of boys AND girls are
> straight men married to women in heterosexual relationships.

Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to do
with homosexuality.



>
> >With regard to priests, always remember this: it's cheaper to pay than to
> >fight, and you don't get near as much publicity. And you will notice that
a
> >lot of these so-called "victims" suffer from a lot of mental problems.
>
> REALLY????, they suffer from mental problems after having been sexually
> assaulted as a child by a man they have been taught to trust - MY
> GOODNESS,,,, what IS wrong with them <jeesh> .... (just shaking my head
at
> your paragraph) :(

You wouldn't be shaking your head if you had actually done some research on
the subject. Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
any mental health problems for the children. A child who is well-balanced
and stable prior to being molested will be well-balanced and stable after
being molested. Mental health issues develop when the parents and/or
caregivers overreact. In the case of children molested by priests, the
events are kept secret, so there is no overreaction and mental health issues
do not develop, in most cases. So a lot of these kids COME INTO the
molestation situation with a lot of mental health issues. Absent or abusive
fathers, incest and many other factors can lead to mental health issues and
drive a child to seek a male role model; and a priest makes a good prospect.

And you will notice that a disproportionate number of the kids molested by
priests are homosexual as teens and adults. A lot of these children are not
old enough to have a fully-developed concept of sexual orientation. Having a
man engage in sexual activity with them does not trigger the same emotional
reactions that would be triggered in an adult. To the child, it is just
something that feels good. So a MAN = PLEASURE dynamic develops, which the
child carries on into adulthood. Still want to tell me it's not catching?



>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
>
>

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>>Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
>
>
> One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
> pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
> exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
> electoral polling process.
>
> If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
> probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
> poll to figure out the source of error...
>
> Chris


I disagree with this. Exit polls are not taken by every person that
votes. I don't participate in them for instance. They only exist so
that the media has something to report throughout the day instead of
just reminding everyone when the polls close and watching the clock in
anticipation. I for one believe the media should keeps its mouth shut
and not even talk about the election other than reminding everyone it is
election day until states are finalized.

Brooks Hagenow > writes:

> Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > writes:
> > > Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
> >
> > One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election.
> > As a pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant
> > systems. The exit poll data can give you an indication of a
> > problem in the electoral polling process.
> >
> > If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it
> > is probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and
> > the exit poll to figure out the source of error...
>
> I disagree with this. Exit polls are not taken by every person that
> votes. I don't participate in them for instance.

I'm confused -- what are you disagreeing with? Are you arguing that
any source of inaccuracy (no matter how small) in the polls
invalidates their usefulness as an indicator? Why?

If you can estimate or measure the potential error from people
refusing to participate then you can adjust your error bounds on the
polling data.

For example, lets say that the exit polls at my local firehouse showed
that 90% of folks voted for Joe the garbageman, and only 10% voted for
Bob the fireman for our new position of block captain. If the
election results showed that Bob the fireman won by a landslide, I
would want to know why! It may be a problem in the polls, but perhaps
something fishy was going on at the firehouse... Are you arguing that
when it looks like there may be a problem it is better to look the
other way?

> They only exist so that the media has something to report throughout
> the day instead of just reminding everyone when the polls close and
> watching the clock in anticipation. I for one believe the media
> should keeps its mouth shut and not even talk about the election
> other than reminding everyone it is election day until states are
> finalized.

I strongly agree that the media should not report any election results
(from polls or otherwise) until the election is complete. It is not
fair to the candidates if their reporting influences people's voting
decision.

Chris
--
Chris Colohan Email: PGP: finger
Web: www.colohan.com Phone: (412)268-4751

Christopher Brian Colohan wrote:

> Matt Whiting > writes:
>
>>Exactly what is "useful" about exit polls taken on election day?
>
>
> One use of exit polls is to check the accuracy of the election. As a
> pilot, you probably appreciate the value of redundant systems. The
> exit poll data can give you an indication of a problem in the
> electoral polling process.
>
> If the election result and the polling data radically disagree, it is
> probably worthwhile to look closely at both the election and the exit
> poll to figure out the source of error...

I absolutely believe in redundant systems, but only if each system is
itself reliable. Exit polls simply aren't reliable enough for me to
consider them a redundant system.


Matt

In article >,
Christopher Brian Colohan > wrote:

> If you can estimate or measure the potential error from people
> refusing to participate then you can adjust your error bounds on the
> polling data.

and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
deliberately lying to the poll)?

--
Bob Noel

> and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
> from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
> deliberately lying to the poll)?

Yes.

You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the time, the error will be
less than 1%. 98% of the time, the error will be less than 5%" (I'm making these numbers up since they depend on how well the poll is conducted, and how big the sample size is, etc). This is where the standard deviation of the mean comes in as an
estimate of how good your measurement is.

Of course it cannot be used as a "backup" to voting. However, it can (and should) be used as a screening to indicate whether this particular situation warrents closer investigation. IF the actual voting disagrees with the exit poll by enough
(depending on how the poll is conducted), then there is a good chance (though not a certanty) that there is funny business going on somewhere. It could be that the poll is incorrectly reflecting the actual intended (by the voters) results. However,
it could also be that the election incorrectly reports the voters' choices.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 11/6/04 10:35 PM, in article
, "Cecil Chapman"
> wrote:

>> Sorry Cecil, I won't argue the amendment. I let it stand on it's own as
>> interpreted by the SC. But when someone tries to misinterpret the meaning
>> in
>> order to further their agenda, I speak up.
>
>
> But Jeff,,, I have no agenda... There is no 'plot' against you,,,, no
> 'secret conspiracy' that I'm trying to pull on you. <jeesh> "paranoia WILL
> destroy ya" <grin>. I'm just trying to approach the issue, logically.
> Also, the Supreme Court upheld the right to bear arms but in their decision
> it was not stated that the reason for supporting the right was to assure
> that the citizens of the U.S. could overthrow the government. Goodness,
> Jeff!

I wasn't really accusing *you* of having an agenda. You did not try to
change the meaning of the words in the 2nd Amendment. But you were defending
the position of the poster that was doing so. Argue the 2nd Amendment all
you wish. I merely stand as a watchdog to the original intent.

>>
>> Change the Constitution if you can, but trying to alter the original views
>> of Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al, by incorrectly using their words
>> is
>> a sure way to invalidate your argument and doom your cause to failure.
>
> I'm not trying to change the Constitution (unlike Bush and Ashcroft who have
> tried to strip away the most basic guarantees with the 'Patriot' Act). I
> haven't altered any original views, at all.
>
> But,,,, and I'm asking you to be rational here; do you REALLY think the
> reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers wanted to
> assure that the citizenry would have the ability to overthrow the new
> government that they were working SO hard to put into place? Jeff?
> Really??? Isn't a more likely explanation that they recognized that their
> new country didn't have a lot of money to fund purchasing weapons for a
> formal army and that they wanted to insure that its' citizens had weaponry
> so that they could be called up to fight in the event the new country was
> attacked? .. "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a
> free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
> infringed"

I have issues just as you do with the Patriot Act. But that isn't the issue
under discussion.

As for your question, rationally yes, I do believe that is one of the
reasons. They stated as much in the Declaration of Independence: "When in
the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another..."
They were able to recognize that governments, even the one that they had
just created, might take a horrible change for the worse, and then: "...it
is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."

They were not so foolish that they did not realize that abolishing and
instituting a new government would involve at least a few exchanges of
gunfire.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino
Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 05:21:40 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>
>
>Cecil Chapman wrote:
>>
>> I go back to what I said before. The average citizen has NO need to have
>> armor piercing bullets (or rounds that will effectively do the same).
>
>And they don't have any. The big problem is people like Boxer who label commonly used
>ammunition "armor piercing" and play people like you for suckers.

You forgot the ones who call the ammo fired in a AK47 as high powered
when they are no more powerful than the low to medium powered
ammunition for deer hunting.

>
>> Any
>> cop-friend will tell you is to get a shotgun for home protection, you just
>> point in the 'general direction' and you'll hit the intruder.

Might scare 'em to death with the noise and muzzle flash indoors but
ya still gotta point the thing at what you want to hit<snicker>
>
>Bull****! A shotgun hits where you point it, and you'd better make damn sure you're
>pointing it exactly where you want it to hit. The shot pattern from my 12 gauge will
>be about 2" wide at 20'. Point that "in the general direction" of somebody, you're
>just going to punch holes in the walls.

True, they don't stop 5 hours down the block but they sure are hard on
the plaster. 2 to 3 inches at 20 feet would be pretty much typical
for an open bore.

I watched, ok... shot with some officers using a double barrel 10Ga.
Even with #8 shot they never did hit a clay pigeon. Sure did make a
lot of noise though.

>
>> I've just been saying that Joe Bob down the street
>> doesn't need a shoulder fired missile, armor piercing bullets, automatic
>> weapons to defend his/her home.
>
>And these are not available in the U.S. and have not been for many decades.

I remember an article in "Guns and Ammo" years back. They purchased a
20mm cannon, had it converted to a bolt action, added a "Hydrochoil
stock", and went plinking with HE ammo. It made that 50 cal sniper
rifle (forget the name of it now) look kinda puny. <LOL> They were
describing how far they were sliding from the recoil when shooting
prone.
>
>> But,,,, an AK-47???

They make a good hunting rifle although a bit bulky. I prefer my old
740 as it's lighter and more powerful. With the AK47 in Michigan you
just have to plug the magazine to 4 plus one in the chamber "as I
recall". You might have to explain to the DNR but it'd be legal. I
can just see a guy carrying one out in the woods with the big magazine
plugged to 4.

>
>The semi-automatic version of the AK-47 is a fine weapon for hunting an animal that
>weighs about 180 pounds, especially in brush. That's a deer, by the way.

Not much bigger than that though. OTOH a friend bagged a Kodiak with
his 44 mag hand gun in Alaska. It wasn't really by choice though.
The Kodiak was trying to remove him from his horse at the time and the
revolver was a whole lot handier than the big bore rifle which was
still in the scabbard. Made the Boon and Crocket records too.

I remember getting one of those deer "way back when". OTOH I bagged
two so far with my cars and one with the Deb. The Deb fared better
than the deer, but it was the biggest I've bagged between the cars,
airplane, and ought six! Even considering it cost over five grand to
replace the gear doors on the passenger side, it was probably a
quarter the cost per pound compared to the hunting<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
> been looking for it.

I encourage you to re-examine your decision, David.

I assume that you occasionally have passengers who's lives depend on your
ability to make mature decisions. If a controller made you angry on IFR
final will you refuse to speak to him? If the weather makes you angry in
an emergency situation will you crawl into the back seat and refuse to fly
the plane? If the answer is no, then I recommend you use that same
discipline and professionalism in this news group and concentrate on the
aviation topics while ignoring that which makes you angry. In other words:
Fly the plane. Ignore the distractions.

If you are going to be a pilot then act like a good one.



Maule Driver wrote:
>It is a sad day but it will look better tomorrow. And some of us try to
>keep to the forum topic most of the time.
>
>Welcome to feeling like a disenfrancised minority. But picking up your
>marbles and going home really isn't a viable life strategy - especially
over
>politics (or sex or race).
>
>Get a good night's sleep or 5 and hope to see you again.
>
>"David Brooks" > wrote...
>> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
>> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
>> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
>> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
>> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
>> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
>> religious man, but telling and apt.
>>
>> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
>> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
>> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
>> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
>> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
>> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
>> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>>
>> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
>> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
>> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home
into
>> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>>
>> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
>> pilot.
>>
>> -- David Brooks
>>
>>
>
>

"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.

It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> > One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> > flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
> > flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> had
> > a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
> > enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> > with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
> > religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
> would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

However, he may have a point -- he may have taken me seriously because so
many others on these forums appear to genuinely believe that anyone who has
religious beliefs should at least be disenfranchised, if not eliminated
altogether. The advocacy of genocide is a modern liberal trait, but the
liberal reasons that if he thinks genocide is a viable option, then his
conservative opponents must, too. If liberals think that religion must be
exterminated, who can blame them for believing that their opponents think
like they do?

Even then, I did not advocate killing anyone. I suggested in that post that
they violate TFRs, similar to the joke that was making the rounds that
Republicans should drive at night with their lights on to show solidarity,
while Democrats should drive with their lights off. It is astonishing that
anyone claiming intelligence would take such a joke seriously, but it is
telling and apt that Mr. Brooks would.

In article >,
Jose > wrote:

> > and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
> > from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
> > deliberately lying to the poll)?
>
> Yes.
>
> You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no
> bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is
> done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the
> time, the error will be
> less than 1%. 98% of the time, the error will be less than 5%" (I'm making
> these numbers up since they depend on how well the poll is conducted, and how
> big the sample size is, etc). This is where the standard deviation of the
> mean comes in as an
> estimate of how good your measurement is.

This is true only if you know the distribution function.

--
Bob Noel

> This [putting a bound on the likely error] is true
> only if you know the distribution function.

One of course never =knows= the distribution function. However, one can make reasonable estimates ("guesses", if you will) based on ones sampling methods and experience with previous polls (comparing past polls with elections for example). True,
your guess of the distribution function might be off, but if you do things right, it's probably close. How close? Well, there's a distribution function to describe that too. :)

One doesn't even know the sun will come up the next day, but as a working theory it seems to be more than satisfactory. Statistics is not mumbo jumbo, although it is true that real mumbo jumbo can be disguised as statistics.

Jose
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.
(note to r.a.student: I only follow r.a.piloting and r.a.ifr, to which this is also posted)

>
> I guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the end
> of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who
> loved
> her.
>
> Asshole.

Not likely, but a clever technique to use to turn the gist of a story,,,
almost believed you! Good try, though!

>> And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had a
> black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
> conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac

You've NEVER been to the city for any appreciable time then or you would
know the demographics of our area - pretty racially mixed - check it out on
the U.S. census site.


> > And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If it
> > was
> 1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of
> my
> third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.

Nope,,, less than 11 years ago, she was working on a Masters degree.


>
> And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I
> was
> having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine.

YOU have a gay friend,,,,, <snicker> as if THAT would be very likely!


> Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to do
> with homosexuality.

You just had said, to leave our nine year old in the castro - your
presumption was that someone there would take advantage of him and that, as
far as I understand, would qualify as child molestation.

>
> Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
> any mental health problems for the children.

Yep, right up there on the 'good ol' boy' list, that women really 'enjoy'
being raped. < just shaking my head at you>
You're either just plain hopeless or you are a troll,,,, I give up on you

bye bye.... :)

> You need to get a clue.

Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
thoughts.

Get better soon!

--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL-IA
Student - CP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -
"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...

I have been trying to have a discussion with you, and you have been trying
to prove that you are an asshole. You have succeeded.

Goodbye...


"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> >
> > I guess "off she went" is appropriate. She slid off a road and hit the
end
> > of a concrete bridge. Yea, she left me, and a lot of other people who
> > loved
> > her.
> >
> > Asshole.
>
> Not likely, but a clever technique to use to turn the gist of a story,,,
> almost believed you! Good try, though!
>
> >> And Willie Brown dropped by your house how often? Just because you had
a
> > black mayor doesn't mean you actually saw a black person. Or that your
> > conversation went beyond: "I'll have a Big Mac
>
> You've NEVER been to the city for any appreciable time then or you would
> know the demographics of our area - pretty racially mixed - check it out
on
> the U.S. census site.
>
>
> > > And you didn't mention when your wife's coworker attended college. If
it
> > > was
> > 1955 I wouldn't find it surprising. But the next door neighbor of one of
> > my
> > third cousin's best friends said it didn't happen anyway.
>
> Nope,,, less than 11 years ago, she was working on a Masters degree.
>
>
> >
> > And one funny: around the time that "gay" was beginning to "kick in", I
> > was
> > having a drink with a homosexual friend of mine.
>
> YOU have a gay friend,,,,, <snicker> as if THAT would be very likely!
>
>
> > Child molesters were not part of my discussion, as that has nothing to
do
> > with homosexuality.
>
> You just had said, to leave our nine year old in the castro - your
> presumption was that someone there would take advantage of him and that,
as
> far as I understand, would qualify as child molestation.
>
> >
> > Research indicated that the molestation itself does not lead to
> > any mental health problems for the children.
>
> Yep, right up there on the 'good ol' boy' list, that women really 'enjoy'
> being raped. < just shaking my head at you>
> You're either just plain hopeless or you are a troll,,,, I give up on you
>
> bye bye.... :)
>
>

On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 16:39:43 GMT, "Cecil Chapman"
> wrote:

> The second amendment just recognizes that it was important
>for its' citizens to have access to guns in order to have a militia to call,
>in times of threat.
and
> The average citizen has NO need to have . . .
> an AK-47??? Joe Citizen has NO needs for
>that.
>
>--

Our forefathers believed that the People had natural and unalienable
rights. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. How's that for some
rights? But just so there was no misunderstanding, they specified &
enumerated certain critical rights.
There is a reason the 2nd Amendment wasn't the 4th or the 7th or 10th
- it's importance to the Founding Fathers was second in importance to
the freedom to speak!
That is because they had just removed an exisitng government, by
bloody revolution, that had become the enemy of the People. The
average American today seems to not understand how they were thinking,
or what was their sacrifice, but it is evident in the writings of
those times.
No matter how you choose to interpret or twist the wording to fit your
agenda, they intended for the People to be armed so that they could
again remove ANY government if or when it became an enemy of the
People.
You can say that it is now impossible for the citizens of the US to
ovethrow the government by force, and you are entirely right. Our only
hope in the face of mass disobedience, would be that the military
would refuse to fire upon and kill it's own citizens, and would turn
upon those who ordered them to do so. That is not something to be
proud of in my opinion. Slowly but surely over 200 years, we have
given up the right & duty to preserve the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
Just say what you really mean, that the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.
That the government is able to take care of us all, and there IS NO
NEED FOR citizens to own firearms any longer, except as a token
freedom. After all, the 4th Amendent appears to be obsolete, since the
US Border Patrol feels it's perfectly OK to set up roadblocks and
checkpoints to stop, detain and search US citizens without probable
cause, dozens of miles from any border, every day, at least here in
California.
Remember however, that in many communities in this country it would be
easy to get voters to approve a ban on flying by private citizens.
There is NO NEED for private citizens to be flying those dangerous
things. It's best left to the airlines and the military!

The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
Rights to mean "trained".

The militia was all the male citizens.

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote:
>
>>
>> He's opposed to private ownership of any firearm except shotguns plugged
>> to
>> three
>> shells. And just where in the Constitution exactly is hunting mentioned?
>> He
>> prattles
>> about "military-style assault weapons" while trying to ban
>> semi-automatics,
>> knowing
>> full well that no military-style assault weapon is semi-automatic.
>>
>> I have the right to own and fire my Mauser, and, as far as I'm concerned,
>> that
>> includes the right to be allowed to buy ammunition for it. Kerry tried to
>> ban
>> that,
>> and we aren't talking anything armor-piercing here.
>>
>
> Want to give us a few details, just for the record, about the "well
> regulated militia" to which you, personally, belong? (given your focus
> on the Constitution, I assume you do) -- Name, location where it's
> registered, number of members, just who it's "well regulated" by, that
> sort of thing?

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
>> You need to get a clue.
>
> Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your paranoid
> thoughts.
>

And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs in
my reasons for owning firearms.

Time and again we see that people with firearms have saved lives and stopped
more criminals from hurting innocent people. Unfortunately the media in the
US chooses to ignore those parts of the reports. For example, if there had
been an armed teacher in the Columbine school or a person on the train with
Colin Ferguson who knew something about handguns then there would be fewer
dead innocents. Unfortunately idiot 'liberals' (a contradition of the use
of the term, as libere means freedom) choose to disarm the law abiding
public, ensuring that ciminals have an easy time of it.

> Get better soon!

And to you, I say, "Wake up soon."

>
> --
> --
> =-----
> Good Flights!
>
> Cecil
> PP-ASEL-IA
> Student - CP-ASEL
>
> Check out my personal flying adventures from my first flight to the
> checkride AND the continuing adventures beyond!
> Complete with pictures and text at: www.bayareapilot.com
>
> "I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery -
>
> "We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
> this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
> - Cecil Day Lewis -
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
> Rights to mean "trained".
>
> The militia was all the male citizens.

At the time it meant "efficient" and/or "accurate"

It derived from "regular", as in regularity...as in frequent bowel
movements...


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m...
> >> You need to get a clue.
> >
> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
paranoid
> > thoughts.
> >
>
> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
in
> my reasons for owning firearms.

http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html

1. Neurosis
The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.

Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
the Fundamental Female Neurosis.

The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and its
characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
evolution of religion, which resolves it.

The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since females
are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
(Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the value,
i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies it
to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised and
her status increases.





2a. Freudian Projection
The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
Freudian Projection.

a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
impulses and traits."


b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to suspect
others of being homosexual."


c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."


d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."


e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies may
then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."


f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
having thoughts that we really have."
2b. (General) Projection
Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to be
undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The following
are given as examples:

1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
informed that B is colour-blind;


2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;


3.. ‘It takes one to know one’;


4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
his fear and alerts others;


5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case 2
include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
interesting scenario left open for discussion.

In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is about
to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have demonstrated
that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
attitudes.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
>> m...
>> >> You need to get a clue.
>> >
>> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
> paranoid
>> > thoughts.
>> >
>>
>> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my posts
>> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken beliefs
> in
>> my reasons for owning firearms.
>
> http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html



WTF is this all about?
or as the canadans say, "aboot?"



>
> 1. Neurosis
> The definition of neurosis in this system is taken from Pavlov: it is the
> stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more responses.
>
> Neurosis will be better understood if we examine its probable origin. Then
> two primal neuroses have been defined: the Fundamental Human Neurosis and
> the Fundamental Female Neurosis.
>
> The Fundamental Human Neurosis derives from the knowledge of impending
> death. Every organism strives to survive: even a humble fly avoids death
> because any creature which does not partake in "the eternal struggle for
> life" fails to pass on its genes, loses its competition with others and
> its
> characters disappear forever from the gene pool. Thus any creature which
> does not so partake has long become extinct. Similarly, humans do not
> generally contemplate death with happy expectation. This conflict, that we
> do not wish to die, while at the same time being conscious of its
> inevitability, is the Fundamental Human Neurosis. It accounts for the
> evolution of religion, which resolves it.
>
> The origin of the Fundamental Female Neurosis is (predictably, since
> females
> are much more sexual than males) sex. The female, at least occasionally,
> wants sex, yet her basic evolution strategy relies on raising its value.
> (Recall that in this system sex is any non-monetary activity: any
> non-business relationship is sex, and 'sex,' 'physical sex' and
> 'relationships' are all equivalent since their only ultimate purpose is
> procreation.) Physical sex is the only amenity which females can provide
> which males cannot: hence all female procedures reduce to raising the
> value,
> i.e. the costs, of sex. Even though the female may desire sex, she denies
> it
> to the male to make it into a scarce resource. Thus its value is raised
> and
> her status increases.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2a. Freudian Projection
> The following is a collection of definitions of projection from orthodox
> psychology texts. In this system the distinct mechanism of projecting own
> unconscious or undesirable characteristics onto an opponent is called
> Freudian Projection.
>
> a.. "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other
> people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is
> especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own
> impulses and traits."
>
>
> b.. "The externalisation of internal unconscious wishes, desires or
> emotions on to other people. So, for example, someone who feels
> subconsciously that they have a powerful latent homosexual drive may not
> acknowledge this consciously, but it may show in their readiness to
> suspect
> others of being homosexual."
>
>
> c.. "Attributing one's own undesirabe traits to other people or agencies,
> e.g., an aggressive man accuses other people of being hostile."
>
>
> d.. "The individual perceives in others the motive he denies having
> himself. Thus the cheat is sure that everyone else is dishonest. The
> would-be adulterer accuses his wife of infidelity."
>
>
> e.. "People attribute their own undesirable traits onto others. An
> individual who unconsciously recognises his or her aggressive tendencies
> may
> then see other people acting in an excessively aggressive way."
>
>
> f.. "Projection is the opposite defence mechanism to identification. We
> project our own unpleasant feelings onto someone else and blame them for
> having thoughts that we really have."
> 2b. (General) Projection
> Here projection is assuming that others act or perceive similarly -
> according to this definition it is not necessary for a projected trait to
> be
> undesirable or unconscious. Projection is probably inherent in social
> animals and the single most important psychological mechanism. The
> following
> are given as examples:
>
> 1.. Individual A assumes that B sees the colour red as he does, until
> informed that B is colour-blind;
>
>
> 2.. Someone who never lies is easy to deceive because he projects his
> truthfulness onto others, assuming that others are honest also;
>
>
> 3.. 'It takes one to know one';
>
>
> 4.. An inept con-man fears that others are trying to cheat him, signals
> his fear and alerts others;
>
>
> 5.. (Freudian) An individual who possesses malicious characteristics, but
> who is unwilling to perceive himself as a protagonist, convinces himself
> that his opponent feels and would act the same way.
> Each of these examples involves an assumption that others exhibit an own
> trait, but various "defence mechanisms" exist. Counter-strategies for Case
> 2
> include (a) being conscious of a tendency to project and compensating with
> increased scepticism, testing scientifically, and (b) lying as much as
> everyone else. Case 3 could occur if an individual is honest about own
> characteristics and inhibits his tendency to project, in which case he may
> accurately recognize his own traits in another without error. Case 4 is an
> interesting scenario left open for discussion.
>
> In Case 5, offensive acts may occur when the projector (which may be an
> individual or a group), erroneously believing that their adversary is
> about
> to likewise, pre-empts the opponent - making the player of this so-called
> defence mechanism into a protagonist. This illustrates just one of several
> problems with the orthodox notion of projection. I hope to have
> demonstrated
> that the conventional definition of projection, here dubbed Freudian
> Projection, merely describes a specific instance of a more general, and
> important, human mechanism. Projection, combined with features such as
> denial of latent desires, accounts for a great deal of human behaviour and
> attitudes.
>
>
>

Or as in a well regulated clock, meaning operating well and efficiently.

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>The word "regulated" was used at the time of the writing of the Bill of
>>Rights to mean "trained".
>>
>>The militia was all the male citizens.
>
>
> At the time it meant "efficient" and/or "accurate"
>
> It derived from "regular", as in regularity...as in frequent bowel
> movements...
>
>
> Matt
> ---------------------
> Matthew W. Barrow
> Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
> Montrose, CO
>
>
>

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 01:48:42 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> and there is the problem - can you really estimate or bound the error
>> from all the error sources (e.g., people not participating or
>> deliberately lying to the poll)?
>
>Yes.
>
>You cannot "bound" the error in an absolute sense, except to say that it's no bigger than the total population, which is useless. However, if a poll is done right, you can estimate the likely error. For example, "95% of the time, the error will be


Ahhhh... How about setting your line wrap to about 70 characters?

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"David Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
>> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
>> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
>had
>> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
>> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
>> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
>> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
>It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody. I
>would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.

If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. <:-)) They are definitely
going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
rich society.



Roger (some of my best friends are religious) Halstead (K8RI & ARRL
life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

"Rip" > wrote in message
. com...
> Or as in a well regulated clock, meaning operating well and efficiently.

You left out accuracy which as the railroads found out was pretty important.

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"David Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> >> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
> >> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
> >had
> >> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
> >> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in
connection
> >> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
> >> religious man, but telling and apt.
> >
> >It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
I
> >would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.
>
> If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
> continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
> or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. <:-)) They are definitely
> going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
> rich society.

I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
Chinese Communists control the Democrats.

> Ahhhh... How about setting your line wrap to about 70 characters?

Well, that's double edged. Wide line wrap (200 char or so) lets newsreaders that autowrap text do their thing gracefully while preventing buffer overruns, but are a pain for those that don't. Line wrapping at (say) 70 defeats autowrap, but ensures
that older newsreaders (I'd presume very old) handle the post gracefully (unless it's quoted too much).

What's a poster to do?

Jose
(note - I don't follow r.a.student)
--
Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Richard Russell" > wrote in message
...
> >
> This is a sad comment to make in the greatest country in the world,
> but my sense is that any party that nominates a woman for president or
> vice-president has conceded the election before it starts.

I think Jean Kirkpatrick could have been elected, possibly in a landslide.
Her "Blame America First" speech created a lot of support for her.

"Bob Chilcoat" > wrote in message
...
> I absolutely agree with you, Jay. Yet again, I had to vote AGAINST a
> candidate, rather than FOR one. I just thought Kerry was the least-bad
> candidate. When Bush opens his mouth, or just looks at the camera, for
that
> matter, the back of my hair goes up.

Funny, that is what I was thinking about Kerry toward the end of the
election. His continual wild accusations made me begin to wonder about his
mental stability. "Bush has a secret plan for a draft!" "Bush is responsible
for the loss of the WMD that Saddam never had anyway!" "Bush is going to
destroy Social Security, date your girl friend, and drive your car around
when you are not looking!" Seriously, it was getting difficult to tell
whether Kerry was talking about Bush or the Good Times virus. :-)

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Laura Clayton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Apparently you can fool 50% of the people, but there is always a noise
> >> function.
> >
> > I've often wondered why some people feel the need to insult the
> > intelligence of their fellow voters who simply do not agree with
> > their world views.
>
> Actually, according to the Gallup Poll, among Republicans you can fool
over
> 60% of the people.
>
> I can't speak for where Bob's coming from, but the truth remains that for
> the most part, people who voted for Bush don't actually have their facts
> straight. This is not disputable.

Neither is it disputable that towards the end of the campaign that Kerry was
getting close to batting zero on getting his own facts straight. Bush's
secret plan for a draft? The "lost" explosives? The destruction of Social
Security? The flu virus conspiracy? I had to wonder what Kerry was smoking.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This is hilarious. Do you think that people who voted for Kerry had
their
> > facts any more straight?
>
> Yes. The Gallup poll shows that to be the case, at least with respect to
> Bush's statements.

It would have been interesting if the Gallup poll would have asked Kerry's
supporters whether Bush really had a secret plan to introduce the draft, or
whether Bush lost those explosives, or whether Bush had a secret plan to get
rid of Social Security, or whether Bush was behind a secret conspiracy to
create a flu vaccine shortage.

The Gallup poll only addressed Republican myths. If it had asked about
Democratic myths it might perhaps have been considerably more balanced in
its result.

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> > Stupidly, they nominated a guy whose political positions were to the
left
> > of Ted Kennedy's, absolutely ensuring a Bush victory.
> >
> > There were many traditional Republicans out here -- myself included --
who
> > would have voted for a conservative Democrat in this election. But
there
> > was just no way for any of us to vote for a guy like Kerry.
> >
> > The moral for the Democrats: Don't ever nominate an ultra liberal to
run
> > for president again.
>
> I have often wondered how some people come to the conclusions that they
do.
> Jay,,, for goodness sake you sound like you are a sock-puppet mouthing the
> words of his puppeteer (Bush - who was famous for the 'Kerry's just like
T.
> Kennedy' line). Kerry was far left? How, where? If anything he was as
> centrist as Clinton was. You'd think he belonged to the Communist party
to
> hear the prattle that is coming off of your tongue.

Kerry's testimony before the Fulbright committee and his meetings with
Communist leaders during a time of war sound pretty far left to me.

>
> Unlike the man whose words you mouth, Kerry didn't pull special favors to
> get into the National Guard to avoid the draft (he VOLUNTEERED for duty),

Bush volunteered for duty, too, and was subject to being sent to SEA. Unlike
Kerry, he did not incite the enemy to abuse prisoners of war, commit war
crimes, or make false claims that everyone else in SEA was committing war
crimes.

> Kerry was never arrested DUI, nor was he a cocaine user. While our boys
> were ducking bullets and embroiled in a hopeless conflict - Bush was
having
> beer parties with the boys - occasionally remembering to show up for
> National Guard duty.

Nevertheless, Bush managed to remember who was President when Kerry was SEA,
which Kerry did not. He also managed to remember where he was, while Kerry
imagines he was in Cambodia.

Also, I'll bet you never even took the time to watch
> the footage of Kerry before the special hearing on Vietnam (which Bush
would
> refer to often, without even citing a single in-context quote from) when
> Kerry spoke most eloquently without political bile of what was wrong with
> the Vietnam War and how it was a mistake.

Oh, please. Making false claims that people were stringing ears together
into necklaces is not political bile?

He did this AFTER having been
> there (something Bush in his petty cowardice, never did). He went there,
> saw how things were going and recognized that we (the US) had made a
> mistake. There wasn't a single misspoken word in his speech, back then
(you
> see, unlike you, I took it upon myself to view all the footage of the
> hearing - before forming my opinions). Does integrity mean anything to
you?
>

Apparently it means nothing to you.

> I worry about a country where there are individuals that can be so easily
> molded with a political dogma and never bother to question or actively
> challenge the ideas that are being presented to them. I've voted for
> Democratic candidates, I've voted for Republican,,, you want to know why,
> Jay? Because it is the benefit for the country that counts not 'belonging
> to a club' and following their 'election charter' like some mindless
> automaton.

You apparently swallowed Kerry's bilge hook, line and sinker without doing
much fact checking.

>
> Your candidate entered a war with an 'enemy' (Saddam) who had not attacked
> us while the fellow that directly attacked us is running around,
comfortably
> making videos and apparently eating well.

Saddam had attacked us numerous times -- shooting at UN aircraft patrolling
the no-fly zone, paying bounties to terrorists who killed Americans, etc.

Bush claimed he was entering the
> war to save the people from his cruel tyranny - but what about the massive
> genocide that is going on in parts of Africa right now - I haven't heard a
> peep from Bush about that, or China's human rights violations, or North
> Korea's forming nuclear arsenal ---- Ooops,,,, wait,,,,, I get it
> now,,,,,,,, there is no OIL in Africa where innocents are being
slaughtered
> every day,,, there is no OIL in North Korea....

There is no OIL in Afghanistan, either, nor does America import OIL from
Iraq. If Iraq is about OIL, where is the OIL?

Isn't it funny,,,, a
> president who is against stem cell research (which only the ignorant don't
> know) uses embryos and NOT fetuses, has BIG problems with using a frozen
> embryo that must be discarded after a certain length of time,,,, BUT he
will
> NOT hesitate to sacrifice living, breathing, human beings in a war that
had
> NO business being fought (I'm talking about Iraq here). So, he will put
> living human beings (including women and children involved in collateral
> damage from bombings that go astray) in body bags,,, but wait! Don't ya
> dare touch a frozen embryo in a 'cryogenics' freezer. Can YOU say ,
> hypocrisy? God forbid, that you are your loved one needs medical aid that
> some new stem cell technology could offer.

While I disagree with Bush's stance on stem cell research, I also disagree
with Kerry on partial birth abortion.

>
> If there is any hope for our country, it will be when people learn to
> abandon their mindless following of party affiliation and do as I (and
> others) do; simply vote for the best man/woman for the job.
>

And in fact Kerry was not the best person for the job. He was quite possibly
the worst.

> But don't let intelligence or logic, pry you away from your blissful
> ignorance. I hope one day, people like you will learn to challenge and
> learn more about what they are told as fact FROM ANY SOURCE,,, then we
will
> REALLY have a great Nation.
>
> A mind is truly a terrible thing to waste..........
>

I would genuinely like to see you start to use yours, if you have any left
after giving so many pieces of it away. :-)

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
> P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
> surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
> DEFICIT.

That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats accusing
Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > [...] most Bush voters, however, look at the data first, then make up
> > their minds.
>
> Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
> involved in the 9/11 attacks?

What percentage of Kerry voters still believe that Bush has a secret plan
for the draft? Oh, wait. I guess Gallup did not want to ask questions that
would make Democrats uncomfortable.

"Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
m...
>
>
> >Guns
> He's a hunter, I'm pretty sure they use guns for that (he's not a
> bowhunter). Just because one doesn't support ownership of AK-47's and
> public access to armor-piercing bullets doesn't make one an enemy to gun
> ownership.

Bush does not support ownership of AK-47s, either. Allowing the so-called
"assault weapons" ban to expire had nothing to do with AK-47s or any other
real assault weapon.

In fact, his record as a senator reveals that he has
> consistently supported appropriate gun ownership. I own two shotguns and
a
> couple of rifles - don't hunt, but skeet and target shoot. Even still, I
> just don't think the average citizen needs armor-piercing bullets or
AK-47's
> (unless you live in remote parts of Alaska <grin>)/.
>
> ?, gay marriage
>
> He stated he was against 'gay marriage'

What he actually said was that although he was against it, he would support
local actions to institute it or to create it substantively through civil
unions. Typical Kerry -- taking both sides of the position at once.

This is not just a religious issue, no matter how hard you try to paint it
that way. It has serious economic and social ramifications.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> It would have been interesting if the Gallup poll would have asked Kerry's
> supporters whether Bush really had a secret plan to introduce the draft,
> or
> whether Bush lost those explosives, or whether Bush had a secret plan to
> get
> rid of Social Security, or whether Bush was behind a secret conspiracy to
> create a flu vaccine shortage.

Absolutely, it would have been interesting. Some of your examples are
extreme, and I doubt significant numbers would have affirmed those examples.
But surely it would have turned up a similar lack of knowledge of the actual
facts.

> The Gallup poll only addressed Republican myths. If it had asked about
> Democratic myths it might perhaps have been considerably more balanced in
> its result.

I guess that depends on what information you're interested. But none of
your alternative examples seem nearly as important as the question of
whether a sitting President lied about what he knew, in order to win
approval for a war that wound up miring us in a huge stinking pile of doo,
and then continued to lie about what he said straight through the election.

My main point was simply that the electorate in general believes what they
want to believe, regardless of what the actual truth is. This is true of
all people, regardless of party affiliation. My secondary, much less
important point (especially now that the election is over), might be that I
personally feel that lying to the public in order to justify a deadly war is
a much bigger transgression than has been witnessed in the Executive branch
since the Iran-Contra scandal.

Pete

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> What percentage of Kerry voters still believe that Bush has a secret plan
> for the draft?

Welcome back CJ. You are just as unable to comprehend a point as ever.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> > . net...
> >>
> >> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> >> m...
> >> >> You need to get a clue.
> >> >
> >> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
> > paranoid
> >> > thoughts.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
posts
> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
beliefs
> > in
> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
> >
> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
>
>
>
> WTF is this all about?
> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
>

Ummm...about psychology?

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Rip" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > Or as in a well regulated clock, meaning operating well and efficiently.
>
> You left out accuracy which as the railroads found out was pretty
important.

And the navies of the world.

(see 'Longitude', by Dava Sobel, thestory of John Harrison, the man who
invented the chronograph)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > Unlike the man whose words you mouth, Kerry didn't pull special favors
to
> > get into the National Guard to avoid the draft (he VOLUNTEERED for
duty),

Kerry, by his own admission, volunteered for the Navy RESERVE...SPECIFICALLY
to avoid duty in SEA.

>
> Bush volunteered for duty, too, and was subject to being sent to SEA.

He also volunteered for rather hazardous duty...duty that was patently
hazardous even if he never left Texas, much less tha US. He also volunteered
for duty in VietNam, but was turned down.

In the same vien, Kerry was sent to the Swift Boats, not voluntarily, but
becasue he was a pain in ths ass "Sea Lawyer" (the Navy equivalent of a
civilian "****house lawyer") and his commander wated his off his ship.


> Unlike
> Kerry, he did not incite the enemy to abuse prisoners of war, commit war
> crimes, or make false claims that everyone else in SEA was committing war
> crimes.

And that says a lot, even aside from his overt acts of treason. That is why
there are still serious question that his first discharge was "less than
honorable". Of course, his massively hypocritical hiding his record (why?)
can only fuel the question.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a
hard-earned
> > surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
> > DEFICIT.
>
> That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats
accusing
> Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

And using 2nd grade explanations of history.

Yeah, democrats are so SAVVY....for nine year olds.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Greg Butler" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > [...] most Bush voters, however, look at the data first, then make up
> > > their minds.
> >
> > Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
> > involved in the 9/11 attacks?

Indirectly, he was.

How many of the looney left still can't comprehend that we're engaged in a
war on TERRORIDM, not just on the participants of 9/11?

Christ, we couldn't trust the left to run a lemonade stand, much less some
serious business.

>
> What percentage of Kerry voters still believe that Bush has a secret plan
> for the draft? Oh, wait. I guess Gallup did not want to ask questions that
> would make Democrats uncomfortable.

How many still buy the notion that the peace and prosperity of the 90's was
Bubba's doing?

(Think: Reagan doctrine, and Y2K run-up)

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
>> > . net...
>> >>
>> >> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
>> >> m...
>> >> >> You need to get a clue.
>> >> >
>> >> > Naw,,, you just require a specialist to speak with regarding your
>> > paranoid
>> >> > thoughts.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
> posts
>> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
> beliefs
>> > in
>> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
>> >
>> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
>>
>>
>>
>> WTF is this all about?
>> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
>>
>
> Ummm...about psychology?

And why was it posted?

I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

>
>

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>> > Which Bush voters? The 64% that still believe that Saddam Hussein was
>> > involved in the 9/11 attacks?
>
> Indirectly, he was.

Indirectly, YOU are.

But we're not talking about "indirect involvement" here.

> How many of the looney left still can't comprehend that we're engaged in a
> war on TERRORIDM, not just on the participants of 9/11?

"TERRORIDM"? Uh, okay. If you say so. And yet, that still doesn't explain
what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
terrorism and Iraq.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
> terrorism and Iraq.

Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Stefan

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
>> what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
>> terrorism and Iraq.
>
> Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
> and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of innocent
> civilians terrorism.

Yeah, sorry...I should have been more specific. "No proven connection prior
to our invasion of Iraq between terrorism by Islamic radicals and Iraq".

> No, wait, there's something wrong here...

Yes, there is. :)

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:53:13 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 23:14:02 -0800, "C J Campbell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"David Brooks" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
>> >> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
>my
>> >> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
>> >had
>> >> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
>undying
>> >> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in
>connection
>> >> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
>avowedly
>> >> religious man, but telling and apt.
>> >
>> >It is too bad that Mr. Brooks took seriously what was an obvious parody.
>I
>> >would never seriously advocate extermination of Democrats.
>>
>> If the gain of the religious fundamentalists in the Republican party
>> continues at its present pace, they'll be extinct in 10 years anyway,
>> or about as potent as a neutered tom cat. <:-)) They are definitely
>> going to have to change their approach so they are not identified with
>> rich society.
>
>I think this claim that the "religious fundamentalists" control the agenda
>of the Republican Party is about as big a canard as claiming that the
>Chinese Communists control the Democrats.
>
I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
recon and they are growing all the time.

The two things the article pointed out was they are growing rapidly
and *currently* are Republican.

I think possibly Kathleen Parker (Orlando Sentinel) may have written a
column on it as well.

Roger

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> > what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection between
> > terrorism and Iraq.
>
> Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
> and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
> innocent civilians terrorism. No, wait, there's something wrong here...
>

Yes...it's call intent and deliberation.

No wonder the rest of the world is so full of ****.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
> > posts
> >> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
> > beliefs
> >> > in
> >> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
> >> >
> >> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> WTF is this all about?
> >> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
> >>
> >
> > Ummm...about psychology?
>
> And why was it posted?

Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...

>
> I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.

Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
with you. Did you see yourself defined?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >> And what paranoid thoughts were those? I can't see anything in my
>> > posts
>> >> >> that qualifies as paranoia. You choose to project some mistaken
>> > beliefs
>> >> > in
>> >> >> my reasons for owning firearms.
>> >> >
>> >> > http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/bpsychol.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> WTF is this all about?
>> >> or as the canadans say, "aboot?"
>> >>
>> >
>> > Ummm...about psychology?
>>
>> And why was it posted?
>
> Let's see: we're talking the psychology of gun owners and anti-gunners...

I was accused of being paranoid and asked for a reason why Cecil thought so.
You posted a copy of a web page.

>
>>
>> I asked for a reason why Cecil called me paranoid and you posted a book.
>
> Well, why don't you see if there is something on TV that can define the
> issue in terms your limited attention span can comprehend.

I watch about 2 hours per month, nice try though. I was expecting to see a
post that was relevant to what I had asked, not some regurgitation of
something that had no bearing on my post, though I did see that projection
was mentioned and i can only attribute that to Cecil and his ideas about gun
owners.
>
> BTW, it seems the "book" (which you DIDN'T HAVE TO READ) hit a sore spot
> with you. Did you see yourself defined?

No sore spot, just wondering why it was presented. I asked about paranoia
and was responded to with Freudian nonsense. I also see no neurosis in my
behavior, though will admit that you may not think I can be objective on
this point. Owning firearms and stating so does not make one paranoid or
neurotic, in spite of what the gun control crowd will have people believe.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not so sure. According to the news the other night that element
> was a major voting block for Bush. How much control they have over
> the party platform, I don't know, but they are a force with which to
> recon and they are growing all the time.

Technically, they have no control. But honestly, why would a party that
claims to be "conservative" (it was the Radical Republicans that argued for
ending slavery, for crying out loud..."conservativism" in its purest form,
IMHO) all of the sudden swing around and start wanting to restrict
individual's behavior?

The Republican Party is strongly against legalizing gay marriage and
abortion, is strongly in favor of prayer and religious references in schools
and government (but only Christian prayer and references, naturally), and
there's even a pretty good movement that's been going for the last couple of
decades to teach the book of Genesis in science classes.

For a party that claims to be "conservative", they have swung about as far
way out the other direction as is possible, on several issues, all of which
directly related to personal liberties. Of course, they are still in favor
of businesses being able to do whatever they want.

Basically, the Republican Party is only "conservative" when there's money in
it for them and their own. Otherwise, they've been whoring themselves out
to the Bible Belt for a long while already.

The correlation between the Republican Party's faith-based lawmaking and
Christian evangelical and fundamentalist groups is well-documented. Anyone
who thinks it's just some old canard has their head in the sand.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Stefan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> what we're doing in Iraq, there having been no proven connection
between
> >> terrorism and Iraq.
> >
> > Yes, there is. I'd surely call disregarding international law, attacking
> > and invading a country without a reason and killing thousands of
innocent
> > civilians terrorism.
>
> Yeah, sorry...I should have been more specific. "No proven connection
prior
> to our invasion of Iraq between terrorism by Islamic radicals and Iraq".
>

Well yes, actually, there was a proven connection even during Clinton's
time. Saddam regularly paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers for
Hamas and offered rewards for anyone who would kill Americans.

If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
basically religious.

C J Campbell wrote:

> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
> basically religious.

No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Stefan

Matt Barrow wrote:

> Yes...it's call intent and deliberation.

Guess what? Most victims don't care. And even those who do don't usually
think that the desire of making money with their oil is a valid reason
to kill them.

> No wonder the rest of the world is so full of ****.

Then why the desire to invade it? But what do I expect from a country
which has been built on a genozide.

Stefan

> Then why the desire to invade it? But what do I expect from a country
> which has been built on a genozide.

???

Which country was built on "genozide"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
>> are
>> basically religious.
>
> No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.

I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.

Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
different.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
> basically religious.

And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious) that
had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> > If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
> > basically religious.
>
> No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.

Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft are
> basically religious.

Well, if you kill a man, he won't be paying income taxes anymore. There may even be
some drain on the state funds to support his dependents in some fashion. And if
thieves take much of his property, he may be unable to pay his taxes. It also
encourages theft, and the government hates competition.

Either has adverse effects on the health of society, and, like any good parasite
(symbiotic or not), government has a vested interest in keeping its host healthy.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious) that
> had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm

These people all had religious beliefs.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> m...
> > P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
> > surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
> > DEFICIT.
>
> That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats accusing
> Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.

Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.

So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

-Malcolm Teas

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Well yes, actually, there was a proven connection even during Clinton's
> time. Saddam regularly paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers
> for
> Hamas and offered rewards for anyone who would kill Americans.

Ahh, right. The Hamas. Remind me again...they were the ones that planned
the 9/11 attacks then? Oh, no...it wasn't them, was it?

I'm still waiting for the "connection" that explains why we're in Iraq now.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
> are
> basically religious.

Hardly. A peaceful society requires that members of that society be safe
and that their property remains safe. If murder and theft are allowed, the
outcome is assured: rampant violence, and an enormous waste as everyone
invests most of their resources trying to take what the other members of
society have, including their lives.

You don't need religion to justify rules against murder or theft.

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for the "connection" that explains why we're in Iraq now.

I doubt it will surface for many years. The president said he would still have
invaded even if he had known there were no WMDs and no connection between Al Quaida
and Sadam, so I'd say the real reasons for the invasion are things that haven't been
made public by the administration. Lots of other people have advanced theories,
though.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Peter Duniho wrote:

<snip>

> My main point was simply that the electorate in general believes what they
> want to believe, regardless of what the actual truth is. This is true of
> all people, regardless of party affiliation. My secondary, much less
> important point (especially now that the election is over), might be that
> I personally feel that lying to the public in order to justify a deadly
> war is a much bigger transgression than has been witnessed in the
> Executive branch since the Iran-Contra scandal.
>
> Pete

Very well put Pete.

I'd add that even if the Iraq invasion was justified it was bungled badly.
The administration ignored its own experts and we lost lives because of it.
For that reason alone they don't merit being returned to office.

--
Frank....H

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious)
that
> > had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm
>
> These people all had religious beliefs.

Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> Clinton in office.

And his role in those surpluses was...?

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in
>> "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
>> > P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a
>> > hard-earned surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3
>> > trillion dollar DEFICIT.
>>
>> That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats
>> accusing Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.
>
> Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
> Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)
>
> No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
> nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
> significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
> trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.
>
> So, high time to adjust our view to reality.
>
> -Malcolm Teas

I think a more balanced view might be the relative growth of the budget
vs inflation during various administrations. The main reason Clinton got
to run a surplus was a huge increase in income due to the internet bubble
and the capital gains taxes it generated. While a surplus is a good
thing, it must also be viewed against spending as I certainly don't want
a budget surplus if it means they take all my money!

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
>>Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
>>budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
>>Clinton in office.
>
>
> And his role in those surpluses was...?
>
>
>

Luck. He was lucky to be following George Bush the First.


Matt

In article >,
(Malcolm Teas) wrote:

> Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
> Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)

which brings to mind that saying about the rooster thinking
the sun rises because he crows...

> No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
> nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
> significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
> trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.
>
> So, high time to adjust our view to reality.

it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
Government is responsible for appropriation.

--
Bob Noel

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...

> > These people all had religious beliefs.
>
> Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

I disagree. C.J. has consistently argued that freedom of religion is right and
proper. That implies a recognition that worship of gods other than the
Judaen/Christian tradition are religions. Perhaps he draws the line at the Hindu
pantheon, but he has not implied that he feels that way, AFAIK.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

In article <vnpkd.81153$R05.56261@attbi_s53>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:


> I'm with Stefan on this one (*gasp!*) -- there are plenty of moral and
> logical arguments against murder or theft that don't involve religion.
>
> I, for one, don't practice any organized religion -- but I've taught my
> children morals that quite closely parallel the Ten Commandments.
>
> Morality and religion often run on parallel tracks, but are, in fact, quite
> different.


I agree with you entirely on this and have done exactly the same thing
with my own four now grown children (and my teaching seems to have,
fortunately, "taken" with all four of them, for which I take some
satisfaction, even if not necessarily credit).

I'd also like to extend my understanding of the non-religious arguments
involved in other of our country's current political issues, and maybe
you can help.

I also happen to have -- as I'd be pretty sure you do also -- at least
one specific close relative (not actually one of my children) who is an
openly gay or lesbian person, and who I also know is absolutely a fine,
moral, admirable, and productive person.

So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
reasons that justify this very major step?

Please note: I'm not attributing any views on this issue either way to
you; I have no idea what your views are (and my prediction that you'll
have at least a few gay or lesbian individuals among your not too
distant relatives is based only on simple statistics).

But you're in a Red state, and occasionally outspoken on issues; and I'm
in a Blue state, and genuinely puzzled by this particular issue. So,
what are the non-religious argments on this issue that drive the Red
states to this level of action?

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Peter Duniho wrote:
> >
> > I'm still waiting for the "connection" that explains why we're in Iraq
now.
>
> I doubt it will surface for many years. The president said he would still
have
> invaded even if he had known there were no WMDs and no connection between
Al Quaida
> and Sadam

In fact, Kerry has said the same thing.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Matt Barrow wrote:
> > >
> > > And the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Indians (all atheist or non-religious)
> that
> > > had such laws long before Christianity, they...hmmm
> >
> > These people all had religious beliefs.
>
> Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.

You presume a lot if you are trying to tell me what I think. Yes, these
people had religious beliefs in the sense that I was using the term.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > These people all had religious beliefs.
> >
> > Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.
>
> I disagree. C.J. has consistently argued that freedom of religion is right
and
> proper. That implies a recognition that worship of gods other than the
> Judaen/Christian tradition are religions. Perhaps he draws the line at the
Hindu
> pantheon, but he has not implied that he feels that way, AFAIK.

I do not draw the line there.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
> > are
> > basically religious.
>
> Hardly. A peaceful society requires that members of that society be safe
> and that their property remains safe. If murder and theft are allowed,
the
> outcome is assured: rampant violence, and an enormous waste as everyone
> invests most of their resources trying to take what the other members of
> society have, including their lives.
>
> You don't need religion to justify rules against murder or theft.

No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > If you get right down to it, the only arguments against murder or theft
are
> > basically religious.
>
> Well, if you kill a man, he won't be paying income taxes anymore. There
may even be
> some drain on the state funds to support his dependents in some fashion.
And if
> thieves take much of his property, he may be unable to pay his taxes. It
also
> encourages theft, and the government hates competition.
>
> Either has adverse effects on the health of society, and, like any good
parasite
> (symbiotic or not), government has a vested interest in keeping its host
healthy.

So? There is no cost, either societally or economically, if gay marriages
are legalized?

Besides, why should the government care whether it collects taxes?

"AES/newspost" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
> are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
> the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
> deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
> marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
> reasons that justify this very major step?

There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.

That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of the
consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing gays
to marry might hurt someone.

Like you, I'd love to hear any proposed "non-religious argument against gay
marriage". Mainly because all the ones I've heard so far are so stupid,
they make me laugh. And I love a good joke.

Pete

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> So? There is no cost, either societally or economically, if gay marriages
> are legalized?

Other than the usual cost of marriage, no. There's nothing special about
gay marriages that make them any worse than any other marriage.

> Besides, why should the government care whether it collects taxes?

All depends on the taxpayer, I'd guess.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?

If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you don't
hold that belief.

Fortunately for me, and lots of other people, as humans we agree that being
happy is a good goal, and thus being peaceful and safe is also a good goal.
Very few people are happy when they are not safely at peace with other
humans.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, humanity can progress intellectually,
technologically, and economically fastest if we aren't wasting time trying
to kill each other.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "AES/newspost" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
> > are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go all
> > the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
> > deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
> > marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
> > reasons that justify this very major step?

What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual marriage?
Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits. I
suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more
creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups in
Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely
abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
children, or to allow children to marry each other.

The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small number
of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now, these
judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They
answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or
the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen to
think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in order
to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room for
compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through judicial
fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
war and dissolution of the nation.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual
> marriage?

A general belief in non-discrimination is sufficient to justify allowing
homosexual marriage.

> Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits.
> I
> suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
> willing to pay.

Suggest all you want, it ain't true. Homosexuals make up a very tiny
proportion of our population. Plenty of corporations already extend
"partner benefits" to unmarried couples, including homosexuals, and it has
not made any sort of noticeable dent in the bottom line.

There's no "major cost". Any potential "minor cost" hypothesized can easily
be offset by further hypothesizing by a "minor benefit". (Economic benefit
to eliminating a discriminated-against group, for example).

> I also suggest that before we start getting any more
> creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
> additional demands might be made by other groups.

Funny. I wonder if the same arguments were made when we gave voting rights
to blacks. Or to women. "Gosh, you never know WHO ELSE will want the same
thing!"

> There are fringe groups in
> Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
> relationships

So, let them. What do I care?

>, even though these relationships are typically extremely
> abusive and incestuous.

Spouse abuse and incest is already illegal, and occurs with frightening
regularity in marriages currently allowed by law. As you also point out,
abuse and incest already happens in "marriages" not legally sanctioned. How
do you know that making such marriages legal won't allow them to be more
public, and provide greater legal standing for spouses who are abused.

> Other groups could easily demand the right to marry
> children, or to allow children to marry each other.

Oh, please. Let them try. A person's sexual orientation isn't anywhere
close to the same difference that exists between a child and an adult. We
have plenty of laws that discriminate against children, and generally for
good reason. You're just being absurd now.

> The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
> number
> of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
> general public, to create a right where none had existed before.

You pretend to know the law better than those judges? Uh, sure. Nice
fantasy world you live in there.

Whether you agree with them or not, judges generally do their best to follow
the letter of the law. If ever there was a canard being thrown around, it's
the "activist judges are changing the law!" panic attack the religious right
is having. I haven't looked as closely at the other states, but in
Washington the two decisions made already (by two different judges!) made
very clear the letter of the law they were following. State constitutional
protection against discrimination is a very strong foundation on which to
base the decisions.

> You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in
> order
> to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
> harmful.

I can?

> If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
> process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
> new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room
> for
> compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
> disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

Widespread violence? Civil disorder? Disrespect and politicization of the
judicial system? You're on a trip, man. Other than a handful of
whacked-out fundamentalists who mind-bogglingly believe that it's okay to
kill full-grown adults, but not blastocysts, what violence and civil
disorder are you talking about? They are a mere blip on the radar compared
to other public safety issues, like gang violence, sexual predators, and
even terrorist attacks like OK City and 9/11.

Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

> I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through
> judicial
> fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
> like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
> war and dissolution of the nation.

Seriously, dude...give me some of what you're taking. I gotta see what the
fuss is all about.

Most people, even the evangelicals and fundamentalists, if homosexual
marriage were legalized, would get over it. The rest of us already do a
host of other crap they think dooms us to hell anyway, and it's not like by
preventing gays from marrying, they prevent them from having sex (well,
maybe it prevents the fundamentalist gays from having sex...I dunno). If we
can get past suffrage for blacks and inter-racial marriage, a few
homosexuals getting married isn't going to doom the country. Not even
close.

Pete

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less so.

not for the children killed during the abortion.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (Malcolm Teas) wrote:
>
> > Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> > Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> > budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> > Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
> > Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)
>
> which brings to mind that saying about the rooster thinking
> the sun rises because he crows...
>
> > No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
> > nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
> > significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
> > trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.
> >
> > So, high time to adjust our view to reality.
>
> it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
> Government is responsible for appropriation.
>

And time that people learned the difference between CORRELATION and
CAUSATION.

Also, it's time they learned to dig in and get economic data that explains
such things as tax revenue during boom years, the y2K run-up, that the boom
90's were mostly attributable to Bill GATES, not Bill CLINTON. That the
ground work and foundation for the 90's were laid in the Reagan 80's...

Savvy? My sweaty behind!!

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > These people all had religious beliefs.
> >
> > Not in the sense that CJ was using the term.
>
> I disagree. C.J. has consistently argued that freedom of religion is right
and
> proper. That implies a recognition that worship of gods other than the
> Judaen/Christian tradition are religions.

And that has...what?, to do with this?

> Perhaps he draws the line at the Hindu
> pantheon, but he has not implied that he feels that way, AFAIK.

The Greeks and Romans, had legends, but they were not based in
superstition. The Hindu's are primarily philosophic, not religious.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?
>
> If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
> nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you don't
> hold that belief.
>

If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what is
it?

After all, if we are nothing but sacks of chemicals, doomed in the end to
become nothing but waste heat, why should we care what happens to us or to
anything else? Nothing we do makes any difference at all if we eventually
just become random ergs scattered throughout the universe.

> There aren't any. Allowing gays to marry would harm no one.
>
> That said, from Jay you'll probably "find out" that you can't trust gay
> people around children of the same sex. He has a very distorted view of
> the consequences of homosexuality, and may very well believe that allowing
> gays to marry might hurt someone.

Thanks, Pete, for filling in for me.

However, your distorted view of my point (from way back when we were
discussing the problems that come along with allowing a homosexual Boy Scout
leader to take boys on overnight camping trips) doesn't cast any light on
the question this gentleman is trying to answer.

CJ did a pretty good job of answering the question, however. It's not a
matter of denying homosexuals the right to marry -- it's a matter of
distorting the definition of "marriage" to fit your agenda.

"Marriage" is the union of a man and a woman. There are no laws (to my
knowledge) forbidding homosexuals from engaging in this practice.
Therefore, no discrimination exists.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> The Greeks and Romans, had legends, but they were not based in
> superstition.

They had religions and worshipped various Gods.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?
> >
> > If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then there's
> > nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you
don't
> > hold that belief.
> >
>
> If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what
is
> it?

Not a religious belief. You should not be trying to redefine religion,
which is based on a god or gods and is best acknowledged as founded on the
gullibility of the many and the calculations of the few.
>
> After all, if we are nothing but sacks of chemicals, doomed in the end to
> become nothing but waste heat, why should we care what happens to us or to
> anything else? Nothing we do makes any difference at all if we eventually
> just become random ergs scattered throughout the universe.

Not random, my moorman friend. You can leave footprints in the sands of
time, or be a lasting legacy like Charles Dickens or Henry Ford, sire
children who will in turn sire children, perhaps even contribute to the
fossil record --- like the missing link between Neanderthal and human
recently discovered, or the subhumanoid bones recently unearthed in
Indonesia.

Having read some of your scribblings, however, I am not encouraged that your
legacy will be anything more than dust.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> not for the children killed during the abortion.

"Children" who in large numbers were dying anyway (making abortion illegal
doesn't get rid of abortion), or who if born would have suffered their
entire short life in many cases.

Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group of
people who don't feel that way, of course

In any case, since you're clearly "anti-choice", you should know as well as
anyone that no thread about abortion is going to get anywhere, not even on
an abortion newsgroup, nevermind a piloting one.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:coMkd.327130$wV.310368@attbi_s54...
> [...]
> "Marriage" is the union of a man and a woman. There are no laws (to my
> knowledge) forbidding homosexuals from engaging in this practice.
> Therefore, no discrimination exists.

I'm not sure why you have your head stuck in the sand, but you do.

Your "definition" of marriage is hardly shared by everyone. It used to be
that the word "person" did not include black people. You can't go running
to the dictionary every time someone has a view you don't hold to. The fact
is that civil marriage grants numerous benefits to those married, and those
benefits are illegally being withheld from homosexuals.

There are plenty of people (perhaps including yourself) that say "so what?
I don't care whether homosexuals are treated equally". Some people even say
"so what? they chose to be homosexuals, if they want the benefits, they can
choose to be heterosexual" (maybe you say this too). But the latter is not
supported by scientific evidence, and neither is a particularly open-minded,
loving attitude.

"No discrimination exists"? Oh well...you're just proving my point about
how huge portions of the electorate simply believe whatever they want to
believe, regardless of the facts.

Pete

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what
> is
> it?

It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We come
pre-wired to desire happiness.

(Malcolm Teas) wrote in message >...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> > "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a hard-earned
> > > surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion dollar
> > > DEFICIT.
> >
> > That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats accusing
> > Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.
>
> Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
> Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)
>
> No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
> nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
> significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
> trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.
>
> So, high time to adjust our view to reality.
>
> -Malcolm Teas

Matt Barrow says:
> And his role in those surpluses was...?

Well, looking at the data, he proposed and succeeded in passing a
budget that reduced the overall deficit for the country.

If you're talking about how the surpluses came about, he took
advantage of the boom to propose budgets - and get them passed - that
created the surpluses.

Matt Whiting:
> Luck. He was lucky to be following George Bush the First

Huh? Perhaps that was luck, perhaps not. I don't, for example,
remember any effort under Bush senior to, for example, make
governement more cost efficient. There was that under Clinton. But,
all presidents have some good luck and some bad. But not all
presidents use the good luck effectively.

John Theune:
> I think a more balanced view might be the relative growth of the budget
> vs inflation during various administrations. The main reason Clinton got
> to run a surplus was a huge increase in income due to the internet bubble
> and the capital gains taxes it generated. While a surplus is a good
> thing, it must also be viewed against spending as I certainly don't want
> a budget surplus if it means they take all my money!

Inflation fell during the Clinton years. It was higher, often
significantly higher in the Bush (senior) and Reagan years. Sure,
there was a boom or bubble. There were booms and bubbles in years
past. Several times in the 60's and 70's too. However, those
presidents didn't take advantage of it to lower our deficit then.

Bob Noel:
>it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
>Government is responsible for appropriation.

Well, the president proposes the budget, Congress passes it. But,
it's also high time we recognize how these things get done too.
There's plenty of negotiation between the two branches on what gets in
and what doesn't. A successful president knows how to negotiate as
well as propose a budget.

Matt Barrow:
>And time that people learned the difference between CORRELATION and
>CAUSATION.

>Also, it's time they learned to dig in and get economic data that
explains
>such things as tax revenue during boom years, the y2K run-up, that
the boom
>90's were mostly attributable to Bill GATES, not Bill CLINTON. That
the
>ground work and foundation for the 90's were laid in the Reagan
80's...

Well, there's something interesting in that Clinton was the ONLY
president that had a budget with a surplus since 1962 (possibly
earlier, that's how early the data I looked as was). This was across
both parties, across differing Congresses, and across boom and bust
cycles. Sounds like correlation to me.

Bill Gates was not personally responsible for the boom. If any single
person was it's Tim Berners-Lee who came up with HTML, HTTP, and the
initial versions of web technology. But, it's not just one person.
It's many people in many areas expanding into the potential of
internet technology. Some of us succeeded wildly, some didn't, some
of us crashed and burned. Actually, Microsoft is more a marketing
driven company than a tech company. Like many large companies they're
more of a follower in technology than a leader. (I write software for
a living and have been involved in computers for a number of years,
seen 'em come and seen 'em go.)

As far as Reagan laying the groundwork, well, he was the one who
proposed & got passed the budgets that caused the significant deficit
in the first place. All prior deficits pale to his. Deficits raise
interest rates and slow investments.

In any case, that's it for me on this debate. Believe what you want.
I enjoy a good debate as a way of better understanding of what each
other thinks. But this isn't it. Back to aviation for me.

-Malcolm Teas

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > not for the children killed during the abortion.
>
> "Children" who in large numbers were dying anyway (making abortion illegal
> doesn't get rid of abortion), or who if born would have suffered their
> entire short life in many cases.

so, you are defending abortion in part because the child would die
anyway? (after all, making murder illegal doesn't get rid of murder).
Can you see the problem with that kind of reasoning?


>
> Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
> that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group of
> people who don't feel that way, of course

I made no such claim.


>
> In any case, since you're clearly "anti-choice", you should know as well as
> anyone that no thread about abortion is going to get anywhere, not even on
> an abortion newsgroup, nevermind a piloting one.

Then why did you bring up abortion?

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> so, you are defending abortion in part because the child would die
> anyway?

I am not of the opinion that a child dies in an abortion. I don't like
abortion, but I don't equate it to slitting the throat of a newborn.

> (after all, making murder illegal doesn't get rid of murder).

Legalizing murder doesn't provide any benefit. But even if it did, we have
clear examples of legalized murder as well, right here in the US.
Ironically, the people who are generally most against abortion are the same
people most in favor of legalized murder.

> Can you see the problem with that kind of reasoning?

What kind of reasoning? The kind of reasoning you falsely ascribe to me?

>> Ignoring for the moment the huge chasm between people like you who claim
>> that it's a "child" the moment the egg is fertilized and a larger group
>> of
>> people who don't feel that way, of course
>
> I made no such claim.

Well perhaps you'd like to explain why you say abortion involves killing a
child then. What "child" is being killed, if not the fertilized egg?

> Then why did you bring up abortion?

I didn't. CJ did. Foolishly, I believed we could stay focused on the
already off-topic discussion without getting mired in an impossible debate,
and responded to his reference to abortion.

Pete

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > Then why did you bring up abortion?
>
> I didn't. CJ did.

ah. I must of missed that. My apologies.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> > Then why did you bring up abortion?
>>
>> I didn't. CJ did.
>
> ah. I must of missed that. My apologies.

Accepted. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming... :)

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >
> > The Greeks and Romans, had legends, but they were not based in
> > superstition.
>
> They had religions and worshipped various Gods.

Their gods were not based on superstitions, but were super-humans.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Malcolm Teas" > wrote in message
om...
> (Malcolm Teas) wrote in message
>...
> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>...
> > > "Cecil Chapman" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > P.S. You're right, we should all thank Mr. Bush for turning a
hard-earned
> > > > surplus budget (earned under Clinton's rule) into a 4.3 trillion
dollar
> > > > DEFICIT.
> > >
> > > That is really funny coming from a Democrat. Here we have Democrats
accusing
> > > Bush of behaving too much like a Democrat. ROFL.
> >
> > Just for historical accuracy I think the "behaving too much like a
> > Democrat" thing is pretty outdated. After all, the only balanced
> > budgets in the last thirty years has been with the Democrat Bill
> > Clinton in office. (Source: Appendix F of the CBO publication The
> > Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014.)
> >
> > No matter what you think of Clinton, neither of the Bush presidents,
> > nor Ford, nor Reagan managed that. In fact, the deficit climbed
> > significantly in the Reagan and first Bush terms. First time over one
> > trillion. two trillion, and three trillion in those years.
> >
> > So, high time to adjust our view to reality.
> >
> > -Malcolm Teas
>
> Matt Barrow says:
> > And his role in those surpluses was...?
>
> Well, looking at the data, he proposed and succeeded in passing a
> budget that reduced the overall deficit for the country.
>
> If you're talking about how the surpluses came about, he took
> advantage of the boom to propose budgets - and get them passed - that
> created the surpluses.
>
> Matt Whiting:
> > Luck. He was lucky to be following George Bush the First
>
> Huh? Perhaps that was luck, perhaps not. I don't, for example,
> remember any effort under Bush senior to, for example, make
> governement more cost efficient. There was that under Clinton. But,
> all presidents have some good luck and some bad. But not all
> presidents use the good luck effectively.
>
> John Theune:
> > I think a more balanced view might be the relative growth of the budget
> > vs inflation during various administrations. The main reason Clinton
got
> > to run a surplus was a huge increase in income due to the internet
bubble
> > and the capital gains taxes it generated. While a surplus is a good
> > thing, it must also be viewed against spending as I certainly don't want
> > a budget surplus if it means they take all my money!
>
> Inflation fell during the Clinton years. It was higher, often
> significantly higher in the Bush (senior) and Reagan years. Sure,
> there was a boom or bubble. There were booms and bubbles in years
> past. Several times in the 60's and 70's too. However, those
> presidents didn't take advantage of it to lower our deficit then.
>
> Bob Noel:
> >it's high time people learned which branch of the Federal
> >Government is responsible for appropriation.
>
> Well, the president proposes the budget, Congress passes it. But,
> it's also high time we recognize how these things get done too.
> There's plenty of negotiation between the two branches on what gets in
> and what doesn't. A successful president knows how to negotiate as
> well as propose a budget.
>
> Matt Barrow:
> >And time that people learned the difference between CORRELATION and
> >CAUSATION.
>
>
> Well, there's something interesting in that Clinton was the ONLY
> president that had a budget with a surplus since 1962 (possibly
> earlier, that's how early the data I looked as was).

Think: Regan peace dividend, Republican cost saving via Welfare reform,
Internet bubble/gobs of tax revenue...

Also, On the Origins of the Long Boom
http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-27-00.html

>This was across
> both parties, across differing Congresses, and across boom and bust
> cycles. Sounds like correlation to me.
>
> Bill Gates was not personally responsible for the boom.

Not personnally, no.

> If any single
> person was it's Tim Berners-Lee who came up with HTML, HTTP, and the
> initial versions of web technology. But, it's not just one person.

Except the liberal statists want to give Bubba the credit. And web
technology would have been stillborn with out Gates to give it life.

> As far as Reagan laying the groundwork, well, he was the one who
> proposed & got passed the budgets that caused the significant deficit
> in the first place.

Not quite; it was the Democratic congress that spent all the money (and then
some) that his tax policies generated (a doubling of revenue in about eight
years). In addition, his de-regulation engendered the shift into new
technologies that Bubba's re-regulation helped to kill the technology rise.
For example, Bubba'sFCC essentially killed the telecomms and that led to the
bubble burst.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/epstein-perils_of_transition.html

and http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_comm-telecom.htm

> All prior deficits pale to his. Deficits raise
> interest rates and slow investments.

Is that why we're still at 4% interst? Is that why Japan is at 1% interst
rates?

>
> In any case, that's it for me on this debate. Believe what you want.

And you do (and do now) likewise. Well, at least you believe what your
MSM/academic handlers shoved down your throat.'

> I enjoy a good debate as a way of better understanding of what each
> other thinks. But this isn't it.

Not when all you do is barf back what the folks mentioned above feed you.
You've got to dig a bit further on your own.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> I didn't. CJ did. Foolishly, I believed we could stay focused on the
> already off-topic discussion without getting mired in an impossible
debate,
> and responded to his reference to abortion.

And even I did not want to start a debate on abortion. Foolishly, I thought
that using it as an example of judicial activism would not do that.
Undeniably, I have to agree with Peter here. The thread is far enough off
topic as it is.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief,
what
> > is
> > it?
>
> It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We
come
> pre-wired to desire happiness.

Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
> accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
> selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.

Really? Basic happiness comes about from several instinctual urges:
procreation, hunger, and protection from elements. Humans, being the
socially complex animals that they are, have managed to find a host of other
ways to stimulate those pleasure centers, but in many cases, those
activities still benefit the human animal in a positive way.

Furthermore, there is a very real health advantage to happiness. A feeling
of happiness is correlated with low stress, while conversely a person who is
not happy has increased stress. Higher stress levels cause problems with
one's immune system (stress stimulates the adrenal glands, which causes the
hormone cortisone to be produced, suppressing the immune system), and
general ability to cope with life (interferes with mental processes,
including problem solving and decision making, for example).

But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't require
religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard time
comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.

Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
require
> religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
> sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
time
> comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
> why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
> together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>

I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the desire
for happiness) could be a negative trait.

Personally, I do not consider happiness to be undesirable. I think the role
of religion should be to increase happiness.

> Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
> basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
> case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).

To the contrary, I believe there must be a biological basis for religious
conviction. But you must understand, too, that I regard religious conviction
(at least in part) as the desire to make sense and order out of things where
there appears to be none. Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes a
religion, albeit perhaps a very rudimentary one. That my personal religion
may be more elaborate than yours is another matter. It matters little to me
what people worship, whether it be happiness, the dollar, or aliens from
Betelgeuse -- whatever you worship constitutes a religion. Whether it is a
true religion, that is, whether your particular god or gods actually exist
and can communicate with you, is irrelevant at that level. Nevertheless, I
hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some religious feeling as I
have defined it.

I am of course very cognizant that this definition is not universally
accepted, except, perhaps by universalists. However, I think it is the only
definition that works in this context. Constraining the definition religious
belief to organized religions, particularly Christianity, seems too
exclusive and narrow and prone to severe problems of ethnocentricity.

I also recognize that my own organized religion and religious beliefs are
highly structured. Make no mistake, I firmly believe in it. But that does
not mean that I do not recognize that there are other religions. I do think
that many people err when they say that they do not have religious beliefs
when it is very obvious that they are worshipping something.

See the recent Scientific American articles re: The "God Gene"

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>
> require
>
>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
>
> time
>
>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>
>
>
> I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
> stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the desire
> for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>
> Personally, I do not consider happiness to be undesirable. I think the role
> of religion should be to increase happiness.
>
>
>>Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
>>basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in this
>>case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).
>
>
> To the contrary, I believe there must be a biological basis for religious
> conviction. But you must understand, too, that I regard religious conviction
> (at least in part) as the desire to make sense and order out of things where
> there appears to be none. Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
> happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes a
> religion, albeit perhaps a very rudimentary one. That my personal religion
> may be more elaborate than yours is another matter. It matters little to me
> what people worship, whether it be happiness, the dollar, or aliens from
> Betelgeuse -- whatever you worship constitutes a religion. Whether it is a
> true religion, that is, whether your particular god or gods actually exist
> and can communicate with you, is irrelevant at that level. Nevertheless, I
> hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some religious feeling as I
> have defined it.
>
> I am of course very cognizant that this definition is not universally
> accepted, except, perhaps by universalists. However, I think it is the only
> definition that works in this context. Constraining the definition religious
> belief to organized religions, particularly Christianity, seems too
> exclusive and narrow and prone to severe problems of ethnocentricity.
>
> I also recognize that my own organized religion and religious beliefs are
> highly structured. Make no mistake, I firmly believe in it. But that does
> not mean that I do not recognize that there are other religions. I do think
> that many people err when they say that they do not have religious beliefs
> when it is very obvious that they are worshipping something.
>
>

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
> stems from the desire to be happy.

So what? I never said one wasn't.

> [...] Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
> happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes
> a
> religion, [...] Nevertheless, I
> hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some religious feeling as I
> have defined it.

How conveniently tautological of you.

" jls" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > No? Why is it important that society be peaceful or safe?
>> >
>> > If you don't believe in trying to maximize human happiness, then
>> > there's
>> > nothing important about making society peaceful and safe. Maybe you
> don't
>> > hold that belief.
>> >
>>
>> If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief, what
> is
>> it?
>
> Not a religious belief. You should not be trying to redefine religion,
> which is based on a god or gods and is best acknowledged as founded on the
> gullibility of the many and the calculations of the few.
>>
>> After all, if we are nothing but sacks of chemicals, doomed in the end to
>> become nothing but waste heat, why should we care what happens to us or
>> to
>> anything else? Nothing we do makes any difference at all if we eventually
>> just become random ergs scattered throughout the universe.
>
> Not random, my moorman friend.

Is he really a Mormon. Uh oh.


Arguing about ethics and morals and religion is probably a waste of time
here. (not specifically due to the mormonism/LDS but just in general)

For a clear statement of objective laws see Ayn Rand - probably the most
succint philosophy on this subject, but certainly not succint with her
prose!!!



>You can leave footprints in the sands of
> time, or be a lasting legacy like Charles Dickens or Henry Ford, sire
> children who will in turn sire children, perhaps even contribute to the
> fossil record --- like the missing link between Neanderthal and human
> recently discovered, or the subhumanoid bones recently unearthed in
> Indonesia.
>
> Having read some of your scribblings, however, I am not encouraged that
> your
> legacy will be anything more than dust.
>
>

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
> require
>> religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>> sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
> time
>> comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
>> why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>> together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>
>
> I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
> stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
> desire
> for happiness) could be a negative trait.

It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.


>
> Personally, I do not consider happiness to be undesirable.

Excellent. Good for you.


> I think the role of religion should be to increase happiness.

You can think what you want. In some cases religions were started to make
the founders happy. The followers' happiness is many times overlooked.

>
>> Religion need not come into the issue at any time. Lack of a religious
>> basis does not necessarily require a biological basis (even though in
>> this
>> case, there certainly is a biological imperative to try to be happy).
>
> To the contrary, I believe there must be a biological basis for religious
> conviction.

How can this be?

> But you must understand, too, that I regard religious conviction
> (at least in part) as the desire to make sense and order out of things
> where
> there appears to be none. Thus, I think that recognition of a desire for
> happiness (or any other desires or appetites, for that matter) constitutes
> a
> religion,

You are now making up a new meaning for the word. You choose to force
people to fit into your world view and that does not always work out.

> albeit perhaps a very rudimentary one. That my personal religion
> may be more elaborate than yours is another matter. It matters little to
> me
> what people worship, whether it be happiness, the dollar, or aliens from
> Betelgeuse -- whatever you worship constitutes a religion. Whether it is a
> true religion, that is, whether your particular god or gods actually exist
> and can communicate with you, is irrelevant at that level.

I have yet to see any god of any religion communicate with any follower.
Again, you are using a very loose and ill defined meaning of religion.

> Nevertheless, I hypothesize that virtually all laws stem from some
> religious feeling as I
> have defined it.

>
> I am of course very cognizant that this definition is not universally
> accepted,

Right. Look up worship and religion in a decent dictionary. You may then
have a clue about why it is not universally accepted...

> except, perhaps by universalists. However, I think it is the only
> definition that works in this context. Constraining the definition
> religious
> belief to organized religions, particularly Christianity, seems too
> exclusive and narrow and prone to severe problems of ethnocentricity.

Generally religion is reserved for diety worship or recognition. To call
pursuit of wordly things a religion is carrying it too far.

>
> I also recognize that my own organized religion and religious beliefs are
> highly structured. Make no mistake, I firmly believe in it. But that does
> not mean that I do not recognize that there are other religions. I do
> think
> that many people err when they say that they do not have religious beliefs
> when it is very obvious that they are worshipping something.

Horse****

>
>

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "AES/newspost" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > [...]
>> > So, I'd really like to know what the non-religious arguments are that
>> > are so strong and so important that many people are pushing us to go
>> > all
>> > the way to the extreme measure of a Constitutional amendment, just to
>> > deny people like this the same benefits and rewards (and costs) of
>> > marriage as heterosexual couples enjoy. What are the NONreligious
>> > reasons that justify this very major step?
>
> What are the non-religious reasons to justify allowing homosexual
> marriage?
> Most of those reasons have to do with allowing marital economic benefits.
> I
> suggest that those are a major cost that a lot of people might not be
> willing to pay. I also suggest that before we start getting any more
> creative with the definition of marriage we might want to consider what
> additional demands might be made by other groups. There are fringe groups
> in
> Utah, for example, that want legal recognition of their polygamous
> relationships, even though these relationships are typically extremely
> abusive and incestuous. Other groups could easily demand the right to
> marry
> children, or to allow children to marry each other.
>
> The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
> number
> of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of the
> general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now,
> these
> judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees. They
> answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the laws or
> the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I happen
> to
> think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

Why shant they have the right if other people have the right to marry?

>
> You only need to look at how divisive the abortion issue has become in
> order
> to see how allowing judges to decree new law in such major ways can be
> harmful. If the abortion issue had been resolved through the political
> process, some compromise and consensus might have been reached. Creating a
> new right via judicial decree instead polarized the nation, left no room
> for
> compromise, and has resulted in widespread violence, civil disorder, and
> disrespect and politicization of the judicial system.

You are incorrect. It is not the issue about judges that made it divisive,
rather the nature of the subject is divisive. Some people want to control
other people, that is all.

>
> I strongly believe that legalization of homosexual marriage through
> judicial
> fiat could have far-reaching consequences that would make Dredd Scott look
> like a minor skirmish. It is not inconceivable that it could lead to civil
> war and dissolution of the nation.

You have got to be kidding me?! Civil war over gay marriages? Where do you
get this stuff?

>
>

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>
>> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>> so.
>
> not for the children killed during the abortion.

What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)


>
> --
> Bob Noel

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>
>>require
>>
>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
>>
>>time
>>
>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things). That's
>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>>
>>
>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>desire
>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>
>
> It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
> criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.

Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
and killing were OK?

Matt

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> >
> >> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
> >> so.
> >
> > not for the children killed during the abortion.
>
> What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Bob Noel

He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
within the purview of the homicide laws.

There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
the instant of conception.

My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
Forster)

" jls" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
>> >> less
>> >> so.
>> >
>> > not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>
>> What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bob Noel
>
> He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
> never
> been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
> e.,
> capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
> within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
> There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
> prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
> fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
> the instant of conception.
>
> My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
> Forster)
>
>

Well in the Peterson case in of all places the People's Republic of
California he is charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child. He is
hardly the forst to be charged with this. The law seems to be the
embryo/fetus is a human when the mother says it is.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:47:26 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>
>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > If a belief in maximizing human happiness is not a religious belief,
>what
>> > is
>> > it?
>>
>> It's an innate desire, not a religious belief. It's basic biology. We
>come
>> pre-wired to desire happiness.
>
>Again, why? And please understand, I am not some wild-eyed creationist; I
>accept evolution as scientific fact. However, I fail to see a strong
>selective advantage in a sack of chemicals wanting to be happy.
>
Self aware and self determination; Being happy feels better than
unhappy. Hence we do our best to do the things that make us happy.
There is an ingrained force for like to band together and to shun or
destroy what is different. That is true throughout the animal kingdom.
Being happy, or content is a survival trait for the species.

Religion is basically a common belief. Having faith gives most people
comfort, be it in a god, God, or a pet rock. The definition of
religion has changed over the years, but in general is based on the
belief in a god, or the supernatural. If you have an old enough
dictionary (over 50 years) look up cult and occult. The definitions
were much broader back then and did not exclude orthodox religions.

If someone comes along with a different belief that makes them happy,
it threatens the belief of the other. When each says they are the
only way then one must be wrong. What once was making us feel good
now makes us feel threatened even if only at the subconscious level.
Some one who's belief system is strong can discuss opposing views
calmly. Those who get excited, argumentative, and even aggressive do
so because they feel threatened (Psychology 101)

It matters not what the differences, be it, or they, physical, or
philosophical. If they are different then they are perceived as a
threat to our happiness.

Whether it be the neighbors land, resources, car, wife, belief
system... What ever we see as desirable we want so we can be happy.
Sooo...The logical conclusion is we end up fighting wars mot because
we enjoy fighting, but because we want to be happy.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

jls wrote:

> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> . net...
>
>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>>>>so.
>>>
>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>
>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>
>>
>>
>>>--
>>>Bob Noel
>
>
> He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
> been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
> capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
> within the purview of the homicide laws.

foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> jls wrote:
>
> > "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> > . net...
> >
> >>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>In article >,
> >>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
less
> >>>>so.
> >>>
> >>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
> >>
> >>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>--
> >>>Bob Noel
> >
> >
> > He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
never
> > been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
e.,
> > capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
being
> > within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
> foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>
>
> Matt
>

Ah, my poor klutz, I was using the original uncorrupted Latin spelling:

fetus also foetus (fê´tes) noun
plural fetuses
1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural
resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In human beings, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after
conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

[Middle English, from Latin.]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>
>>>require
>>>
>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
>>>
>>>time
>>>
>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>That's
>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>desire
>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>
>>
>> It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>> criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>
> Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
> and killing were OK?

Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
those it is anarchy.

Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

>
> Matt
>

C J Campbell wrote:

<snip>
>
> The Constitutional amendment would never have been needed if a small
> number of judges had not decided, on their own and against the wishes of
> the general public, to create a right where none had existed before. Now,
> these judges are often elected by no one; they are political appointees.
> They answer to no one. They simply have decided that no matter what the
> laws or the Constitution say, they can simply order anything they want. I
> happen to think that this is very dangerous to the rule of law.

This is a red herring. Judges rule on cases brought before them. This whole
'activist judges' argument makes it sound like these guys are making it up
in traffic court.

That judge with the ten commandment fetish (I can't remember his name), now
there's an activist judge.

<snip>
--
Frank....H

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> jls wrote:
>
>> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
>> . net...
>>
>>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>>>>>so.
>>>>
>>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>>
>>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Bob Noel
>>
>>
>> He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
>> never
>> been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
>> e.,
>> capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
>> within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
> foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>
>

You are truly an idiot


> Matt
>

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>>
>>>>require
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a hard
>>>>
>>>>time
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>>That's
>>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and steal
>>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>>desire
>>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>>
>>>
>>>It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>>>criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>>
>>Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
>>and killing were OK?
>
>
> Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
> and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you must
> accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government. Without
> those it is anarchy.

What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
government? Who said anarchy was bad?


> Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.

Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
you base yours on .... what?


Matt

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> jls wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>>>>>>so.
>>>>>
>>>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>>>
>>>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Bob Noel
>>>
>>>
>>>He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
>>>never
>>>been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
>>>e.,
>>>capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
>>>within the purview of the homicide laws.
>>
>>foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>>
>>
>
>
> You are truly an idiot

Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?

Matt

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>>>
>>>>>require
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a
>>>>>>hard
>>>>>
>>>>>time
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>>>That's
>>>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the
>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and
>>>>>steal
>>>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>>>desire
>>>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>>>>criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>>>
>>>Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
>>>and killing were OK?
>>
>>
>> Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
>> and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you
>> must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government.
>> Without those it is anarchy.
>
> What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
> government? Who said anarchy was bad?

I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to
kill/steal?

>
>
>> Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>
> Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe
> that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.

Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary.
Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you
must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live
given the nature of people.

This has nothing to do with religion.

>
> The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you
> base yours on .... what?

What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that
many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new
testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians"

A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently opposed
to religion as she is.

the word 'religion' here is being tossed about to mean any passing interest
or affinity. That is not its meaning and cannot be in spite of yours and
others' attempts to make it so.


>
>
> Matt
>

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> jls wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not
>>>>>>>less
>>>>>>>so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>>>>
>>>>>What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>Bob Noel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has
>>>>never
>>>>been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i.
>>>>e.,
>>>>capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human
>>>>being
>>>>within the purview of the homicide laws.
>>>
>>>foetus??? You don't even know how to spell what you are talking about.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> You are truly an idiot
>
> Does writing this make you feel better? Superior?
>

No. You blasted the poster and you were incorrect, so perhaps that
accusation/question should be directed at yourself.

> Matt
>

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 08:23:46 -0500, " jls" >
wrote:

>
>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > "Peter Duniho" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Legalized abortion has in the long-run made our country safer, not less
>> >> so.
>> >
>> > not for the children killed during the abortion.
>>
>> What is the definition of a child? (from a legal standpoint)

I always thought it was 21, at least for some. Higher for others.

Roger
>>
>>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bob Noel
>
>He doesn't know, obviously, but at common law the foetus or embryo has never
>been treated as a child. In some cases the foetus when "quickened," i. e.,
>capable of living outside of the uterus, has been viewed as a human being
>within the purview of the homicide laws.
>
>There is a movement among religious pharmacists to refuse to fill
>prescriptions for the morning-after pill. Watch this absurdity grow and
>fester, including the belief of many religious that a human life begins at
>the instant of conception.
>
>My lawgivers are Erasmus and Montaigne, not Moses and St. Paul. (E. M.
>Forster)
>

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
>
> Well in the Peterson case in of all places the People's Republic of
> California he is charged with the murder of his wife and unborn child. He
is
> hardly the forst to be charged with this. The law seems to be the
> embryo/fetus is a human when the mother says it is.

Peterson was, in fact, convicted of second degree murder of his unborn son.

Personally, I would not like to see a general prohibition against abortions.
I think at some point, though, you have to say that you know, you had plenty
of opportunity to terminate the pregnancy up until now. But now the child,
if it was born, has some viability of a human being, and you begin to have a
duty to protect and care for it. In particular, I would like to see a ban on
partial birth abortions.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>
> Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
> believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.
>
> The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
> you base yours on .... what?

The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These people
who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would do well to
remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe in God from
participating in the political system. However, I have found that it is too
much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend the same
courtesy to me.

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> A good start would be Ayn Rand's work, though I am not as violently
opposed
> to religion as she is.
>

Ms. Rand, although I admire much of her thought, was wrong about many
things. The least she could have done was to check her own premises once in
awhile.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But regardless, none of this is even required to show that you don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>>require
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>religion to justify happiness. A simple global desire to be happy is
>>>>>>>sufficient (if you have no such desire to be happy, you may have a
>>>>>>>hard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>time
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>comprehending this, but it sure would explain some other things).
>>>>>>>That's
>>>>>>>why large groups of humans get together and agree to try to be happy
>>>>>>>together, rather than killing and stealing from each other all the
>>>>>>>time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think a good argument can be made that one reason people kill and
>>>>>>steal
>>>>>>stems from the desire to be happy. In this respect happiness (or the
>>>>>>desire
>>>>>>for happiness) could be a negative trait.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It makes no difference why they do it. Unless it is self defense it is
>>>>>criminal. That has nothing to do with religion.
>>>>
>>>>Criminal by whose standard? What if the majority decided that stealing
>>>>and killing were OK?
>>>
>>>
>>>Majority has nothing to do with it, you are violating my right to my body
>>>and property. If you accept the premise of laws, then certainly you
>>>must accept that those two are the fundamental basis for government.
>>>Without those it is anarchy.
>>
>>What rights? Who gave you these rights? Who said that we need
>>government? Who said anarchy was bad?
>
>
> I never said anarchy was bad. So you suggest that it is acceptable to
> kill/steal?

Not to me, but it obviously is to a lot of people. I'm making the point
that Christians believe there is an absolute standard of right and
wrong. Most liberals believe it is all relative - situation ethics and
all that crap.


>>>Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>>
>>Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You believe
>>that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.
>
>
> Bull****. That is not my religion. Go look up religion in a dictionary.
> Also, nowhere in my post did I say that I need a government. However, you
> must be an idiot if you really feel that anarchy is a suitable way to live
> given the nature of people.

I never said that. Read it again, Sam.


> This has nothing to do with religion.
>
>>The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and you
>>base yours on .... what?
>
>
> What are you using for the definition of Christians? Certainly not one that
> many people would agree with as there as far too many parts of the new
> testament that are completely ignored by supposed "christians"

Such as?

Matt

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


David Brooks" > wrote in message >...
> One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of my
> flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I had
> a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my undying
> enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an avowedly
> religious man, but telling and apt.
>
> But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a weak,
> hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on the
> left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad sweep
> and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48% who
> didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but they
> are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
>
> That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can no
> longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home, into
> the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
>
> So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a better
> pilot.
>
> -- David Brooks

"Gene Seibel" > wrote in message
om...
> http://pad39a.com/gene/pusa.html
> --
> Gene Seibel
> Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
> Because I fly, I envy no one.
>
>
> David Brooks" > wrote in message
>...
> > One thing - one of so very many things - I learned in my five years of
> > flying is that partisan politics does not fit into the cockpit. Most of
my
> > flight instructors have, I know, been to the right of me politically. I
had
> > a most enjoyable flight with CJ - although he has since earned my
undying
> > enmity by unapologetically using the term "Final Solution" in connection
> > with me and people like me, an astonishing thought coming from an
avowedly
> > religious man, but telling and apt.
> >
> > But now it seems the nation has, albeit by a slim margin, re-elected a
weak,
> > hypocritical, murderous coward. Three years ago, when some writers on
the
> > left started talking about fascism, I thought that an absurd stretch. No
> > longer. The parallels are not precise - they never are - but the broad
sweep
> > and many of the components of a new fascist state are in place. The 48%
who
> > didn't vote for this disaster keep knocking on my consciousness, but
they
> > are now feeble and impotent. The thugs are in charge.
> >
> > That being so, and despite what should be an apolitical setting, I can
no
> > longer in good faith keep company with a group of which the majority, I
> > know, has elected to deliver the country I love, and chose as my home,
into
> > the hands of Bush and his repressive, regressive masters.
> >
> > So long. Thanks for all the conversations. You guys have made me a
better
> > pilot.
> >
> > -- David Brooks
This is shocking. Could somebody send me the entire post by David Brooks. I
could not find it in Google.

A few days before the election I worked for the Democrats trying to get out
the vote here in NC. My partner in this effort was a retired screenwriter
who had escaped Germany before the shooting began. His parents foresaw what
was coming and sent him to the USA. They later died at Auschwitz. We talked
at length as we drove around distributing literature. He was in his teens,
he said, when Hitler began to rattle swords. He went on at great length
telling of parallels he now sees in this country --- the churches meddling
in politics and the great power of the evangelicals, unprovoked declaration
of war, the so-called Patriot Act, divisiveness and patriotic fervor, and on
and on. He was so convincing and so eloquent in his argument I thought a
couple of times I was going to gag.

Now I'd like to comment on the following words without regard to identity of
their writers:



..R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
... > > > Frank Stutzman wrote: >> >> In
rec.aviation.ifr Jim Fisher > wrote: >> >> >
Ahh, but it is a truism if one accept the absolute fact that "marraige" >> >
has >> > been recognized for thousands of years as a religous tenant. >> >>
So True. But arn't we supposed to have a separation of church and state?

Yes, and putting the clergy in charge of marriages is a violation of the
Establishment Clause. The marriage contract should be secular, not
religious. All enforceable contracts are matters of the state, not
religion. Some states even license "secular" ministers to perform marriage
ceremonies.

On the subject of marriages I cannot understand why the majoritarians who
voted for those stupid resolutions or state constitutional amendments
against gay marriages think it is so harmful to the institution of marriage
for gay partners to have rights of survivorship and other rights like
spouses have. What business is it of theirs? So, don't call it a
marriage. Call it something else but at least let gay people enjoy the
equal protection of the laws. They didn't ask to be gay. I cannot believe
the bigotry and hatred spewing out over this country like molten lava.




? > Not as far as the Constitution goes. The Constitution simply forbids >
Congress from > passing any laws related to religion. The actual wording is
"Congress > shall make no > law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free > exercise > thereof;". >

This is a misstatement of the law and represents the typical evangelical
buzzwords misinterpreting the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. It
contravenes Jefferson's Letter to the Baptists at Danville, the Federalist
Papers, and a long line of recent Supreme Court decisions. It contradicts
the 14th Amendment which applies the First Amendment's prohibitions against
each and every state in this country and every subdivision thereof. If you
want citations I can provide them to show this poster is badly mistaken.
Take a look at the cases on religion and the Constitution's Establishment
Clause at findlaw.com if you need further understanding.

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> > Again, the point is that it has nothing to do with religion.
>>
>> Sure it does. Religion is nothing more than a belief system. You
>> believe that you have rights and need government. That is your religion.
>>
>> The difference is that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible and
>> you base yours on .... what?
>
> The belief that there is no God is in fact a religious belief. These
> people who want to disenfranchise those who have religious beliefs would
> do well to remember that. I do not try to prevent those who do not believe
> in God from participating in the political system. However, I have found
> that it is too much to expect that those who disagree with me would extend
> the same courtesy to me.

I would never exclude you and your opinions from the political debate.

Where the line is crossed is when the 'religious' attempt to codify some of
their beliefs in law. Too often nowadays the debate is focused on a
particular issue as 'right vs. wrong' when it really is a question of what
is the appropriate role of a 'religion neutral' government. It leads to the
great polarization we see today because there is no room to compromise on
'core' beliefs. It also implies that one set of religious beliefs are being
favored over another.

Abortion and gay rights are the big ones today and they are perfect
examples.

No one, not even the most liberal, believes that abortion is a good thing.
Yet they are often portrayed as being "for abortion". The appropriate
question is should the government be involved in medical decisions and/or
can the government decide what a woman can or can't do to her own body?

In the gay marriage issue we should be debating whether or not the
government should be involved in deciding who one can marry and if it
should even be in the marriage business at all.

When I was growing up Catholics weren't allowed to eat meat on Fridays.
Would anyone suggest that the government step in and close all the steak
houses? Of course not. But not because it is a trivial matter. Rather it is
readily apparent that not all religions share this view and the government
would be seen as favoring one religion over another if it were to try to
intervene.

I believe that life doesn't begin until you can breathe on your own and that
if two consenting adults want to marry then that's the way "God" wanted it.
I expect my government to give equal weight to my 'religious' beliefs as
yours.

Who was the wise man that said 'You can't legislate morality'?

--
Frank....H

Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing
to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down
from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves evolution,
something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more than others.

mike regish

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:vqadnZi1WJDNtw_cRVn-
>>
>> No. Moral, yes, but religious, no. This is not the same thing at all.
>
> Really? Explain to me, please, the difference.
>
>

"mike regish" > wrote in message
news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
> Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
> thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
> you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
retribution from God either.

It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
if you want your distinction to "stick".

Pete

mike regish wrote:

> Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing
> to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down
> from above or send you to some imaginary hell.

Who determines what the "right things" are?


> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves evolution,
> something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more than others.

Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
heard in a long time.


Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote:
>> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>> evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>> than others.
>
> Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
> heard in a long time.

What's funny about it?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>> thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>> you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>
> Who determines what the "right things" are?

In my case, I do. Duh.
>
>
>> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>> evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>> than others.
>
> Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've heard
> in a long time.

Learning right from wrong comes from evolution. Or better said, learning
better ways of doing things...like talking rather than fighting.

mike regish

Yep.

mike

> wrote in message
...
> So very true.
>
> The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>
>

wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
>>
>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>
>>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
>>retribution from God either.
>
>
> No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
>
>>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
>>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
>>if you want your distinction to "stick".
>>
>>Pete
>
>
> What distinction? Moral vs religious?
>
> There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
> been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
> group.
>

That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
rest believe is some higher power.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
>
>>>That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
>>>evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
>>>than others.
>>
>>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
>>heard in a long time.
>
>
> What's funny about it?

Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. Biological
evolution, then thats a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe. But
what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with
influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious
influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the
non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious law.

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Whiting" wrote:
> >> That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
> >> evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
> >> than others.
> >
> > Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
> > heard in a long time.
>
> What's funny about it?

It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they?



"Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
. com...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
> > "Matt Whiting" wrote:
> >
> >>>That's morality and it doesn't involve religion. It only involves
> >>>evolution, something we evidently have a long way to go on. Some more
> >>>than others.
> >>
> >>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
> >>heard in a long time.
> >
> >
> > What's funny about it?
>
> Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. Biological
> evolution, then thats a good laugh. Societal evolution, maybe. But
> what drives societal evolution? How about the beliefs of those with
> influence. If those people are religious or had grown up with religious
> influences, then maybe that also deserves a chuckle because then the
> non-religious are ignorant to the fact they are living under religious
law.

Bill Denton wrote:

> Yea, those early Christians were influential as hell, weren't they?
>

I did not say the Christians were funny.

"Brooks Hagenow" wrote:
>>>Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one I've
>>>heard in a long time.
>>
>>
>> What's funny about it?
>
> Depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about. Biological
> evolution, then thats a good laugh.

Why?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
>> > Now that is funny. Morality results from evolution. Best one
I've
>> > heard in a long time.
>>
>> What's funny about it?
>
> It's inverted...that's what's funny about it.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that; please explain.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Brooks Hagenow" > wrote in message
om...
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"mike regish" > wrote in message
> >>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
> >>
> >>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
> >>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to
strike
> >>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
> >>
> >>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
> >>retribution from God either.
> >
> >
> > No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
> >
> >>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but
don't
> >>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better
argument
> >>if you want your distinction to "stick".
> >>
> >>Pete
> >
> >
> > What distinction? Moral vs religious?
> >
> > There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
> > been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
> > group.
> >
>
> That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?
>
> Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
> only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
> rest believe is some higher power.
>
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm

Well, isn't this the most cosmopolitan newsgroup. I was (pleasantly)
surprised to find so many freethinkers here, but not surprised at this
poster. My friend, priests practice intolerance and commit murders, not
philosophers. Be a philosopher, not a priest. Most philosophers are
freethinkers, anyway.

Don't believe everything you read on the net about "athiests," my friend,
whatever THEY are. Some of us are atheists, some agnostic, some just
freethinkers.
*****************
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
---Epicurus

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:42:14 GMT, "mike regish" >
wrote:

>Yep.
>
>mike
>

Because they know they are the only ones in the right and must either
convert of destroy the opposition.

Roger

> wrote in message
...
>> So very true.
>>
>> The world is overrunning with immoral religious types.
>>
>>
>

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 02:59:17 GMT, Brooks Hagenow
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"mike regish" > wrote in message
>>>news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03...
>>>
>>>>Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right
>>>>thing > to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike
>>>>you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell.
>>>
>>>For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of
>>>retribution from God either.
>>
>>
>> No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such.
>>
>>>It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't
>>>be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument
>>>if you want your distinction to "stick".
>>>
>>>Pete
>>
>>
>> What distinction? Moral vs religious?
>>
>> There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have
>> been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable
>> group.
>>
>
>That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source?

Sure. Try this one:

Holy Horrors
An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness

James A. Haught





If you want something more immediate, here's a sample"





HOLY HORROR--ATROCITIES IN THE NAME OF GOD.

ONE OF THE PIECES WHICH ACCOUNTS FOR WHY ALL PEOPLE WITH THE SPIRIT OF
PHILOSOPHY FIND THE RELIGIONS OF THE MASSES OFFENSIVE.

Library: Modern: James A. Haught: Holy Horrors (1990)
Order books by James A. Haught now
[This article was originally published in Penthouse, August 1990.]


A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The
animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New
Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed
Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and
clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a
dozen cities and left more than 200 dead.
This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious
behavior that has been recurring for centuries.

Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for
good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people
"the character they need to get through life." This view is held by
millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience
shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense
beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can
a society hope to become humane.
The history of religion is a horror story. If anyone doubts it, just
review this chronicle of religion's gore during the last 1,000 years
or so:

-- The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus
Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land.
Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us,"
Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their
homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the
religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where
they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city.
Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode
in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just
and marvelous judgment of God."

-- Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America
between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent
god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had
their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded.
Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed
children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans
performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the
first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess.
In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and
followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.

-- In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre
in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives -- many of them women and children
-- taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a
search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives
were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in
launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a
pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

-- The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith
required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to
13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq
and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols -- but
their vile name survives.

-- Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews
were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their
blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this "blood
libel." Some of the supposed sacrifice victims -- Little Saint Hugh of
Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent -- were beatified
or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and
miracles.

-- In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against
Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of
Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to
distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He
commanded: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly 20,000 were
slaughtered -- many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses,
or used for target practice.

-- The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of
transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the
body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were
stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them
to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried
out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake
in 1243 in Belitz, Germany -- the first of many killings that
continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German
knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146
defenseless Jewish communities in six months.

-- In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society
dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering
sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200
children were burned as offerings. Special "chosen women" -- comely
virgins without blemish -- were strangled.

-- Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to
establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope
Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican
priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken
on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to
identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183
people to the stake in a single week.

-- In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape
persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At
least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other
countries included the burning of scientists such as
mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus's
theory that the planets orbit the sun.

-- When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that
it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered
thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned
bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the
Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to
suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped
themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a
gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had
burned his Jews for the honor of God.

-- The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought
human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed
yearly to appease gods -- especially the sun god, who needed daily
"nourishment" of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and
some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned,
beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god,
shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears
might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for
24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest
in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl's
coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.

-- In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft.
Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they
were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the
devil -- then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch
hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of
the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages
were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000
"witches" were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900
were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was
religious madness at its worst.

-- The "Protestant Inquisition" is a term applied to the severities of
John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the
1500s. Calvin's followers burned 58 "heretics," including theologian
Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed
Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.

-- Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in
the 15OOs -- until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint
Bartholomew's Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized
Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and
slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in
which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions
continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of
Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered
their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.

-- Members of lndia's Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to
appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the
1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2
million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s
until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug
was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still
sacrifice goats to Kali.

-- The Anabaptists, communal "rebaptizers," were slaughtered by both
Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists
took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a
New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the
townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and
executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists
were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in
iron cages from a church steeple.

-- Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only
Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general
commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor.
After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, "God made them as
stubble to our swords." He demanded the beheading of the defeated King
Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the
1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the
execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests,
calling it "a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous
wretches."

-- Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the
banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish
Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century
bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part
of the Orthodox Russian empire.

-- The Thirty Years' War produced the largest religious death toll of
all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic
emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between
Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious
armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France
and Italy. Sweden's Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther's "Ein
'Feste Burg" in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe
into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany's
population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing
was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant
fields, or conduct education.

-- When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a
religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to
flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the
tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital
offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the
1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were
killed and 150 others imprisoned.

-- In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be
expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop's
exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the
residents to death.

-- Islamic jihads (holy wars), mandated by the Koran, killed millions
over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith
rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects
branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them.
The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all
"sinners" and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan
Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the
Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, 'Umar al-Hajj,
led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes -- with
massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the
1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad
that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of
Khartoum led by British general Charles "Chinese" Gordon.

-- In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story
that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged
parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews

-- When the Baha'i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime
sought to exterminate it. The Baha'i founder was imprisoned and
executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred
20,000 Baha'is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new
Baha'i leader, Baha'ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim
prisons for the rest of his life.

-- Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the
1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 "spotless" men were
buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city.
When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers
decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried
at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually
buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.

-- In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in
India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper
cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased
with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean,
and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a
crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of
European women and children were massacred after being promised safe
passage.

-- Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the
czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic
groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of
pogroms ensued -- in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the
Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the
final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were
killed.

-- In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian
Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic
Ottoman Empire.

-- When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the
"great soul" of Mahatma Gandhi wasn't able to prevent Hindus and
Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took
perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought
him too pro-Muslim.

-- In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and
Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.

-- In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones
killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered
cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that
shocked the world.

-- Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands
or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the
Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate
Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985
because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age
princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in
1987, a 25-year-old carpenter's daughter was sentenced to be stoned to
death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in
1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery -- but,
as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid's
baby was born.

-- In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with
automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning
and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was
just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken
2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent
again in 1969.

-- Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than
3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung
dirty sandals on a Hindu leader's portrait as a religious insult. This
act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded,
13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail.

-- Religious tribalism -- segregation of sects into hostile camps --
has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil
war tell of "Maronite Christian snipers," "Sunni Muslim suicide
bombers," "Druze machine gunners," "Shi'ite Muslim mortar fire," and
"Alawite Muslim shootings." Today 130,000 people are dead and a
once-lovely nation is laid waste.

-- In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa
killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels.
They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived
to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed
powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets.
It didn't.

-- Today's Shi'ite theocracy in Iran -- "the government of God on
earth" -- decreed that Baha'i believers who won't convert shall be
killed. About 200 stubborn Baha'is were executed in the early 1980s,
including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha'is fled the country.
Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock
of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the
country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women's
photos except for faces; (3) women aren't allowed to ski with men, but
have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds.

-- The lovely island nation of Sri Lanka has been turned hellish by
ambushes and massacres between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils.

-- In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa'ad e-Din el'Alami
of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance)
promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who
would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria.

-- Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the
Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist
preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have
a "religious duty to send opponents to hell." Throughout the 1980s
they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984,
after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50
bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three
days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains,
chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were
castrated.

-- In 1984 Shi'ite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a
hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it "for the
pleasure of God."

Obviously, people who think religion is a force for good are looking
only at Dr. Jekyll and ignoring Mr. Hyde. They don't see the
superstitious savagery pervading both history and current events.
During the past three centuries, religion gradually lost its power
over life in Europe and America, and church horrors ended in the West.
But the poison lingered. The Nazi Holocaust was rooted in centuries of
religious hate. Historian Dagobert Runes said the long era of church
persecution killed three and a half million Jews -- and Hitler's Final
Solution was a secular continuation. Meanwhile, faith remains potent
in the Third World, where it still produces familiar results.
It's fashionable among thinking people to say that religion isn't the
real cause of today's strife in Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Northern Ireland,
India and Iran -- that sects merely provide labels for combatants. Not
so. Religion keeps the groups in hostile camps. Without it, divisions
would blur with passing generations; children would adapt to new
times, mingle, intermarry, forget ancient wounds. But religion keeps
them alien to one another.
Anything that divides people breeds inhumanity. Religion serves that
ugly purpose.
"Holy Horrors" is copyright © 1990 by James A. Haught. All rights
reserved.
The electronic version is copyright © 1997 by Internet Infidels with
the written permission of James A. Haught. All rights reserved.

End of quote-----------

I challenge you to come up with a list of more atrocities by any other
single group, and I'll give you the Nazis and the Communists
(although the Nazis were mostly christians.)



>
>Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that
>only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The
>rest believe is some higher power.


So what?




>
>http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm