New demands for more GA security

[C J Campbell]

From an AP article today:

"Officials said that the thousands of general aviation airports - which host
recreational planes, business jets, helicopters and other kinds of
noncommercial aircraft - must all have security measures that are equivalent
to TSA mandates at commercial airports."

It would be interesting to know precisely what "officials" said this, but
the article refers to them only as "officials" throughout.


--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


Ne Obliviscaris

[Ray Bengen]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/politics/14terror.html?hp&ex=1110862800&en=70b0fdb5b15b689e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:33:18 -0800, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> From an AP article today:
>
> "Officials said that the thousands of general aviation airports - which
> host
> recreational planes, business jets, helicopters and other kinds of
> noncommercial aircraft - must all have security measures that are
> equivalent
> to TSA mandates at commercial airports."
>
> It would be interesting to know precisely what "officials" said this, but
> the article refers to them only as "officials" throughout.
>
>

[Paul kgyy]

FBI and Homeland Security - both genuine experts on aviation...

[Jim Burns]

Yep.... and replace the word airplane with boat, car, truck, train,
taxi-cab, subway, bus, motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, rollerskate, or
horse and buggy and it would make just as much sense.

"Paul kgyy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> FBI and Homeland Security - both genuine experts on aviation...
>

[C J Campbell]

"Ray Bengen" > wrote in message
...
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/politics/14terror.html?hp&ex=1110862800&en=70b0fdb5b15b689e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
>

The article still only refers to them as "officials." No names. It is not
even clear that these particular "officials" work for the FBI or Homeland
Security; only that the "officials" are commenting on a report written by
those organizations.

The vast majority of terrorist attacks seem to be with car bombs and rocket
propelled grenades, yet I have not noticed a call by any "officials" for
metal detectors and bomb sniffers in every garage. I want to know who these
"officials" are and I want to know why they have not been fired.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The vast majority of terrorist attacks seem to be with car bombs and
rocket
> > propelled grenades, yet I have not noticed a call by any "officials" for
> > metal detectors and bomb sniffers in every garage. I want to know who
these
> > "officials" are and I want to know why they have not been fired.
> >
>
> Gee, I wonder if it could be because so many Americans have been
> misled into supporting the neocon *******s who are destroying
> everything America stands for and are responsible for keeping them in
> their jobs.

Near as I can tell, the commie scum who claim to oppose them are even worse.

In article >,
says...
> From an AP article today:
>
> "Officials said that the thousands of general aviation airports - which host
> recreational planes, business jets, helicopters and other kinds of
> noncommercial aircraft - must all have security measures that are equivalent
> to TSA mandates at commercial airports."
>
> It would be interesting to know precisely what "officials" said this, but
> the article refers to them only as "officials" throughout.
>
>
>
Will they put three shifts of TSA wanders with xray machines at the
little field I use that has maybe 10 departures per day? Need both
genders for the selectee grope. At least 6 full timers. The security fee
could get pretty steep.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> In article >, C J Campbell
> > wrote:
>
> > "Tom Fleischman" > wrote in
message
> > rthlink.net...
> > > In article >, C J Campbell
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > The vast majority of terrorist attacks seem to be with car bombs and
> > rocket
> > > > propelled grenades, yet I have not noticed a call by any "officials"
for
> > > > metal detectors and bomb sniffers in every garage. I want to know
who
> > these
> > > > "officials" are and I want to know why they have not been fired.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Gee, I wonder if it could be because so many Americans have been
> > > misled into supporting the neocon *******s who are destroying
> > > everything America stands for and are responsible for keeping them in
> > > their jobs.
> >
> > Near as I can tell, the commie scum who claim to oppose them are even
worse.
> >
> >
> Near as I can tell, the days of "commie scum" being any kind of threat
> to America ended in the 1980's. The neocons, however, are destroying
> our way of life, our freedoms, our standing in the world community, and
> our economy as we speak. And more to the point of the thread, your
> so-called "commie scum" do not in any way, shape, or form have anything
> to do with the idiocy we see coming out of the oxymoronically named
> Dept. of Homeland Security.

Sure, you want to call people names, but you don't like being called names
in return. You commie scum. What a hypocrite.

[Morgans]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
news:150320050023494142%> Wake up, CJ. Find the hurt little boy inside
yourself and get some
> help. I'm sure it must be hell for you going through life with so much
> hate and anger inside.
\
Nah, he just hates having weenies dump on his political party. So do I .
Keep the politics out, and just call a weenie a weenie.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Tom Fleischman" wrote)
> Wake up, CJ. Find the hurt little boy inside yourself and get some
> help. I'm sure it must be hell for you going through life with so much
> hate and anger inside.


He's Mormon and so probably still a little upset that his people never did
get paid for digging that tunnel on the first transcontinental railroad.

BTW, I've got myself a skinny little kid inside me. He's all the time
yelling I'm hungry, eat something, now!! Talk about demonic possession.

Mmm, ice cream, newsgroups, and up past bedtime (...see what I mean)


Montblack

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:33:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::


>It would be interesting to know precisely what "officials" said this, but
>the article refers to them only as "officials" throughout.

For those who care to read more about this without divulging their
personal information to the NY Times, here are the more important
parts of the article:



http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/14/politics/14terror.html
Government Report on U.S. Aviation Warns of Security Holes
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: March 14, 2005


ASHINGTON, March 13 - Despite a huge investment in security, the
American aviation system remains vulnerable to attack by Al Qaeda and
other jihadist terrorist groups, with noncommercial planes and
helicopters offering terrorists particularly tempting targets, a
confidential government report concludes.

Intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda may have discussed plans to
hijack chartered planes, helicopters and other general aviation
aircraft for attacks because they are less well-guarded than
commercial airliners, according to a previously undisclosed 24-page
special assessment on aviation security by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security two weeks ago.

....

While Homeland Security and the F.B.I. routinely put out advisories on
aviation issues, the special joint assessment is an effort to give a
broader picture of the state of knowledge of all issues affecting
aviation security, officials said.

The analysis appears to rely on intelligence gathered from sources
overseas and elsewhere about Al Qaeda and other jihadist and
Islamic-based terrorist groups.

A separate report issued last month by Homeland Security concluded
that developing a clear framework for prioritizing possible targets -
a task many Democrats say has lagged - is critical because "it is
impossible to protect all of the infrastructure sectors equally across
the entire United States."

The aviation sector has received the majority of domestic security
investments since the Sept. 11 attacks, with more than $12 billion
spent on upgrades like devices to detect explosives, armored cockpit
doors, federalized air screeners and additional air marshals.

Indeed, some members of Congress and security experts now consider
airplanes to be so well fortified that they say it is time to shift
resources to other vulnerable sectors, like ports and power plants.

....

Still, the new aviation assessment, examining dozens of airline
incidents both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, makes clear that
counterterrorism officials still consider the aviation industry to be
perhaps the prime target for another major attack because of the
spectacular nature of such strikes.

The assessment, which showed that the F.B.I. handled more than 500
criminal investigations involving aircraft in 2003, will likely serve
as a guide for considering further security restrictions in general
aviation and other areas considered particularly vulnerable, the
officials said.

The report, dated Feb. 25, was distributed internally to federal and
state counterterrorism and aviation officials, and a copy was obtained
by The Times. It warns that security upgrades since the Sept. 11
attacks have "reduced, but not eliminated" the prospect of similar
attacks.

"Spectacular terrorist attacks can generate an outpouring of support
for the perpetrators from sympathizers and terrorism sponsors with
similar agendas," the report said. "The public fear resulting from a
terrorist hijacking or aircraft bombing also serves as a powerful
motivator for groups seeking to further their causes."

The report detailed particular vulnerabilities in what it called "the
largely unregulated" area of general aviation, which includes
corporate jets, private planes and other unscheduled aircraft.

"As security measures improve at large commercial airports, terrorists
may choose to rent or steal general aviation aircraft housed at small
airports with little or no security," the report said.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Fleischman" > wrote in message
rthlink.net...
> >
> > Sure, you want to call people names, but you don't like being called
names
> > in return. You commie scum. What a hypocrite.
> >
> >
> Hey, you asked a question, I gave you an answer. I never called you any
> names. You didn't like the answer and began the name calling.

No, Fleischman. You called people neocons. If you can't see how offensive
your political grandstanding is, then it is I who feels sorry for you, you
sick, twisted, foul-mouthed commie pond scum.

You see, my point is that my calling you a commie scum is about as accurate
as your labeling a whole group of people neo-cons.

My other point is that, unlike the people you deride, you have no sense of
humor.

However, I see that you are incapable of learning, another thing typical of
commie pond scum, so I have no more time to waste with you.

[C J Campbell]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Tom Fleischman" wrote)
> > Wake up, CJ. Find the hurt little boy inside yourself and get some
> > help. I'm sure it must be hell for you going through life with so much
> > hate and anger inside.
>
>
> He's Mormon and so probably still a little upset that his people never did
> get paid for digging that tunnel on the first transcontinental railroad.
>

WHAT?!? We never got paid? I want reparations right now!

[John T]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> You see, my point is that my calling you a commie scum is about as
> accurate as your labeling a whole group of people neo-cons.

Ah, but there *is* a whole group of formerly liberal-minded people who
realized the error of their ways. :)
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=neoconservative

Does that describe you?

It sometimes cracks me up when I hear people use that term as a slur -
especially ones I *know* have no idea what the term really means, but rather
have picked up the phrase from others and are simply trying to incite
people.

Too bad it actually works from time to time... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[C J Campbell]

"John T" > wrote in message
...
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > You see, my point is that my calling you a commie scum is about as
> > accurate as your labeling a whole group of people neo-cons.
>
> Ah, but there *is* a whole group of formerly liberal-minded people who
> realized the error of their ways. :)
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=neoconservative
>
> Does that describe you?
>

You can make up any dictionary entry that describes anyone you hate and then
apply an obnoxious term to them. So what? It is no different than when
slaveholders tried to define "human" so narrowly as to exclude blacks. The
same motivation, really.

[C J Campbell]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ("Tom Fleischman" wrote)
> > > Wake up, CJ. Find the hurt little boy inside yourself and get some
> > > help. I'm sure it must be hell for you going through life with so much
> > > hate and anger inside.
> >
> >
> > He's Mormon and so probably still a little upset that his people never
did
> > get paid for digging that tunnel on the first transcontinental railroad.
> >
>
> WHAT?!? We never got paid? I want reparations right now!

Now that I think on it, I want reparations for the nine homes my ancestors
were burned out of or were seized by mobs protected by the governments of
New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I want reparations for those tarred
and feathered in those places, for those who were whipped and beaten, and
for those who were killed at Hahn's Mill in Missouri. I want reparations for
those who died while fleeing, virtually naked, across the plains of Nebraska
and Iowa in the dead of winter while pursued by forces of the Federal
government and militia from Illinois and Missouri -- even while others were
being forced to fight for those same governments in their illegal war with
Mexico.

I want compensation for Fort Bridger and other supply centers burned to the
ground by the Federal government or which were destroyed when President
Johnston sent an army against my ancestors to quell a rebellion that did not
exist. I want reparations for homes and property seized by the Federal
government in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, including thousands of head of
cattle. I want reparations for those ancestors who were disenfranchised on
account of their religious beliefs, forbidden to vote because of what they
believed, not what they practiced. I want reparations for the gold stolen by
illegal squatters after my ancestors discovered it at Sutter's Mill and
other places in California, and reparations for the property that was stolen
by prospectors who just helped themselves to whatever they wanted on their
way to those gold fields, for the women they raped, and for the homes,
wagons, horses, and other property they destroyed.

I want reparations for the modern buildings that are still being vandalized
and destroyed by thugs, for the cost of defending our rights to build
churches and temples being obstructed by corrupt government officials, and
for the physical threats, violence, and harassment we put up with today. I
want reparations for the hate and lies published in vicious tracts and
pamphlets sold in so-called Christian bookstores to this very day.

On the other hand, I really don't want reparations for any of this stuff. It
is tainted money and I would not soil my hands with it. Maybe I get a little
sarcastic and sensitive when people start criticizing religious belief or
even, as some here have suggested, that maybe a little genocide will solve
all the world's problems. Maybe I have my reasons.

[John T]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> You can make up any dictionary entry that describes anyone you hate
> and then apply an obnoxious term to them. So what? It is no different
> than when slaveholders tried to define "human" so narrowly as to
> exclude blacks. The same motivation, really.

My point is really the silliness that liberals think it's some sort of slur
against conservatives to call them "neocon". Their motivation may be to get
insult you, but even if you are a former liberal now showing conservative
colors, why would it be an insult?

It's only effective as an insult when you let it offend you. :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:46:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote in
>::

>Now that I think on it, I want reparations for ...

You overlooked this:
http://frank.kirkman.com/MMM/reopeningamormonmurdemystery.htm

[C J Campbell]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:46:18 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >Now that I think on it, I want reparations for ...
>
> You overlooked this:
> http://frank.kirkman.com/MMM/reopeningamormonmurdemystery.htm

You're. I want reparations for the perpetuation of this slander, too.

The actual history of the Mountain Meadows massacre is that a bunch of
Missourians headed to the California gold fields tried to cross southern
Utah in the middle of a drought. Brigham Young had tried to persuade them to
take the safer northern route but they were in a hurry (odd behavior for a
man supposed to be trying to kill them, but conspiracy theorists were never
known for their logic). The Missourians, who bragged about their treatment
of the 'Mormons' in Missouri, quickly ran out of supplies and resorted to
stealing what they needed from local settlers and Indians, most of whom were
on the point of starvation themselves. They killed several Indians in cold
blood and stole their horses, enraging the local Utes and Paiutes. All the
while they bragged about their murders and how they were going to rape
women, etc.

The band was finally attacked by Indians who surrounded the wagon train.
Local settlers, not all of them Mormons, negotiated a cease-fire and then
treacherously slaughtered all the adult members of the group, despite pleas
from Church leaders, including Brigham Young, to let them go. While the
behavior of the local settlers was out and out murder, you have to wonder
just how much any group that was as isolated, persecuted, and hounded as
they were by these people is supposed to take. The perpetrators of the
massacre were tried and convicted and some of them were hanged, which is far
more justice than the mobbers in Missouri and Illinois ever got.

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:47:35 -0800, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

>You're. I want reparations for the perpetuation of this slander, too.
>
>The actual history of the Mountain Meadows massacre is that a bunch of
>Missourians headed to the California gold fields tried to cross southern
>Utah in the middle of a drought. Brigham Young had tried to persuade them to
>take the safer northern route but they were in a hurry (odd behavior for a
>man supposed to be trying to kill them, but conspiracy theorists were never
>known for their logic). The Missourians, who bragged about their treatment
>of the 'Mormons' in Missouri, quickly ran out of supplies and resorted to
>stealing what they needed from local settlers and Indians, most of whom were
>on the point of starvation themselves. They killed several Indians in cold
>blood and stole their horses, enraging the local Utes and Paiutes. All the
>while they bragged about their murders and how they were going to rape
>women, etc.
>
>The band was finally attacked by Indians who surrounded the wagon train.
>Local settlers, not all of them Mormons, negotiated a cease-fire and then
>treacherously slaughtered all the adult members of the group, despite pleas
>from Church leaders, including Brigham Young, to let them go. While the
>behavior of the local settlers was out and out murder, you have to wonder
>just how much any group that was as isolated, persecuted, and hounded as
>they were by these people is supposed to take. The perpetrators of the
>massacre were tried and convicted and some of them were hanged, which is far
>more justice than the mobbers in Missouri and Illinois ever got.

Hmmm, your version is distinctly at odds with this one found at
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadows3.htm

Brigham Young is not even mentioned as being present.

Corky Scott

[Bob Fry]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> Ultimately, no word is worth getting upset about.

If a 230lb hoodlum with a gun confronts you at night on a deserted
street, and says "give me your money or I'll kill you" most of us
would get upset. OK, it's more than a single word. The point is that
words are a form of communication; communication, an expression of
current or future intent and action that may have direct consequences
to us.

Of course words can upset. They can also cause joy, and everything
else. The wonder is that we pretend they cannot cause a change in
emotion.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
>
> Ultimately, no word is worth getting upset about. After all, they are
> just words. They are only effective as an insult when you let them offend
> you. And yet, we do accept that there are insulting words in this world.
>
> Odd, why that should be, don't you think?
>
> Pete
>

Well said Pete. I've usually found that those who get upset over insulting
words want to get upset. The use of the word just gives them an excuse.

Gig

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> If a 230lb hoodlum with a gun confronts you at night on a deserted
> street, and says "give me your money or I'll kill you" most of us
> would get upset.

Try to stay on topic. We are obviously talking about insults here, not
concrete threats to one's life.

I realize this is Usenet, but I will continue my foolish behavior of
assuming that people reading what I write will consider the context and
comprehend how that context limits or otherwise defines what I write.

Pete

[C J Campbell]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmm, your version is distinctly at odds with this one found at
> http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadows3.htm
>
> Brigham Young is not even mentioned as being present.

Where did I say he was present?

[C J Campbell]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
> Hmmm, your version is distinctly at odds with this one found at
> http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/meadows3.htm
>
> Brigham Young is not even mentioned as being present.

I never said he was present. That book, by the way, is fairly typical of the
insane drivel printed by conspiracy theorists. It has about as much
credibility as the moon landing hoax theorists. It claims to know the exact
conversation of numerous participants of a supposedly secret conspiracy.
Yeah, right. Where are the author's sources? He offers nothing credible. The
author admits that the history of the massacre is distorted by embittered
apostates, but then he uses those apostates for his primary sources and
admits that he is one such himself. Note also that it completely omits the
numerous atrocities committed by the so-called emigrants. It contradicts
itself constantly. The page you point to, for example, says the emigrants
were unprepared for an attack, but then notes how Lee passed through the
fortifications. I have no idea where the book gets the idea that the Indians
were promised anything by the settlers -- it is made up of whole cloth. The
book also claims that the settlers had three years' food on hand --
completely untrue. The settlers were in fact starving and many died. It
talks about a non-existent 'Mormon Reformation,' offering no evidence
whatsoever that there ever was such a thing and without addressing just what
doctrines or practices might have been 'reformed.' The author asks us to
imagine the 'death march' up the valley. We have to imagine it, because the
massacre actually took place only a short distance from camp. This author
also likes to use bold face when he interjects his own wording to make it
seem that people are saying something other than what they did.

I would agree with the author that John D. Lee did not receive a fair trial
and that the some of the actual perpetrators of the massacre got away with
it. In fact, I think some of the descendents of those people, who
generations ago left the Church but who are still living in the area, are
equally dangerous. I would also agree with the author that the Indians who
launched the attack probably encountered considerably more resistance than
they expected. Nevertheless, I am considerably less sympathetic toward Lee
than the author is. Maybe Lee was not as culpable as prosecutors claimed,
but he did not do all he could to prevent the massacre, either.

The author claims a climate of lawlessness in the territory, despite the
basic articles of faith, Church scriptures, and endless speeches by Church
leaders on the importance of "honoring, obeying and sustaining the law." He
claims that Church members were taught to murder enemies of the Church,
calling it the doctrine of blood atonement. In fact, the doctrine of blood
atonement is nothing more nor less than the Church's stated support of
capital punishment for murderers. The truth is, any Church member who
engages in any act of civil disobedience to the law of the land is subject
to Church discipline, and this has been the case from the very beginning.
This is not the sort of religious atmosphere that would encourage wholesale
murder. I cannot imagine what desperate straits the settlers must have been
in that they would finally perpetrate such an act. Many other wagon trains
of emigrants passed through the territory during that same period, one even
including the former Governor Boggs of Missouri who had ordered the
extermination of all Church members in his state. All of these groups went
through without harassment and even considerable assistance from the Church.

The author claims that during this time the Church was preparing for war
with Johnston's army. He neglects to mention that these 'preparations' were
for an exodus to Mexico, not to fight a battle. He also neglects to mention
that this army met absolutely no resistance other than to find that the
'Mormons' were prepared to leave immediately and leave no trace of their
presence behind them, as well as no way for the army to re-supply itself. He
probably knows, but does not mention, that Church agents within the army
knew that the army commanders planned to loose their men on the helpless
inhabitants of Utah to plunder, rape, and pillage. He fails to mention that
despite this the meeting between President Brigham Young and the army
commander was cordial and that the army was permitted to camp on the
outskirts of Salt Lake City without any harassment, that the Church helped
the army replenish its supplies and that the new territorial governor was
installed without any resistance. He also fails to mention that the army
commander found that the story of a 'Mormon' rebellion that was concocted by
a group of professional gamblers and con-men, including a Federal judge who
was running the largest brothel in Salt Lake City, was completely unfounded.
(This judge was noted for allowing prostitutes to sit on the bench with him
while he lectured defendants about the evils of polygamy. This idiot's
memoirs are a favorite source material for people writing anti-Mormon
literature.)

This web site is word for word the same material found on other web sites
claiming to help 'Mormons' free themselves from a cult. They constantly use
offensive and provocative terminology to describe the Church, including
'cult,' 'the Mormon god,' 'non-Christian,' etc. In fact, these sites are
generally run by the real neo-cons -- conservative religious fundamentalists
who have little tolerance for anything that disagrees with their distorted
world view. They follow the Jerry Falwells and Pat Buchanans. They don't
like 'Mormons,' who tend to be better educated and more liberal politically
than they are, particularly on such issues as abortion and gay rights, nor
were they particularly happy that some 'Mormon' Senators voted against their
own political leadership in order to acquit President Clinton when he was
impeached (but then, a lot of 'Mormons' weren't particularly happy about
that, either). The people who write these tracts are the same sort of people
who support Al Qaeda or the Ku Klux Klan. They print the same material over
and over, using each other as sources, but never anything that can actually
be authenticated. These are the same people who write tracts like "The
Godmakers." That people could actually write stuff like this and expect it
to be credible makes my hair stand on end. I have had real neo-cons tell me
to my face that I have horns and a tail. I have seen them vandalize our
chapels, including smashing windows, stealing audio-visual equipment, and
smearing excrement on the walls. I have had them threaten me with firearms,
vandalize my car, and threaten to kill me. Yet you have the unmitigated gall
to ask me to accept their version of the Mountain Meadows massacre. Pardon
me, but I think I will pass on this wonderful opportunity.

[Demonick]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:19:47 -0600, Montblack wrote:

> BTW, I've got myself a skinny little kid inside me. He's all the time
> yelling I'm hungry, eat something, now!! Talk about demonic possession.
>
> Mmm, ice cream, newsgroups, and up past bedtime (...see what I mean)

Hey, don't drag me into this!

Demonick

[mike regish]

I want to reward them. But they didn't do a thorough enough job.

The Bible and Koran are the true weapons of mass destruction.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:DoSdncCLI8F7n6rfRVn->
> Now that I think on it, I want reparations for the nine homes my ancestors
> were burned out of or were seized by mobs protected by the governments of
> New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. I want reparations for those
> tarred
> and feathered in those places, for those who were whipped and beaten, and
> for those who were killed at Hahn's Mill in Missouri. I want reparations
> for
> those who died while fleeing, virtually naked, across the plains of
> Nebraska
> and Iowa in the dead of winter while pursued by forces of the Federal
> government and militia from Illinois and Missouri -- even while others
> were
> being forced to fight for those same governments in their illegal war with
> Mexico.
>
> I want compensation for Fort Bridger and other supply centers burned to
> the
> ground by the Federal government or which were destroyed when President
> Johnston sent an army against my ancestors to quell a rebellion that did
> not
> exist. I want reparations for homes and property seized by the Federal
> government in Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, including thousands of head of
> cattle. I want reparations for those ancestors who were disenfranchised on
> account of their religious beliefs, forbidden to vote because of what they
> believed, not what they practiced. I want reparations for the gold stolen
> by
> illegal squatters after my ancestors discovered it at Sutter's Mill and
> other places in California, and reparations for the property that was
> stolen
> by prospectors who just helped themselves to whatever they wanted on their
> way to those gold fields, for the women they raped, and for the homes,
> wagons, horses, and other property they destroyed.
>
> I want reparations for the modern buildings that are still being
> vandalized
> and destroyed by thugs, for the cost of defending our rights to build
> churches and temples being obstructed by corrupt government officials, and
> for the physical threats, violence, and harassment we put up with today. I
> want reparations for the hate and lies published in vicious tracts and
> pamphlets sold in so-called Christian bookstores to this very day.
>
> On the other hand, I really don't want reparations for any of this stuff.
> It
> is tainted money and I would not soil my hands with it. Maybe I get a
> little
> sarcastic and sensitive when people start criticizing religious belief or
> even, as some here have suggested, that maybe a little genocide will solve
> all the world's problems. Maybe I have my reasons.
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
>I want to reward them. But they didn't do a thorough enough job.
>
> The Bible and Koran are the true weapons of mass destruction.

Don't blame the books. Blame the people abusing the books.

[mike regish]

Actually, the books are not being abused at all.

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>>I want to reward them. But they didn't do a thorough enough job.
>>
>> The Bible and Koran are the true weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Don't blame the books. Blame the people abusing the books.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, the books are not being abused at all.

Actually, yes they are.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 16:25:15 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>
>> The Bible and Koran are the true weapons of mass destruction.
>
>Don't blame the books. Blame the people abusing the books.

The blame lies with the faithful who are willing to suspend rational
thought and be lead to irrational acts as puppets of those
disenfranchised despots terrified of their loss of power in a
globalized world. As long as there are ready supplies of illiterate,
hungry, desperate people, there will be those eager to exploit them as
tools to operate the weapons greedy dealers supply against humanity in
the vaine hope of gaining influence in their destaines.

Until the world's people truly embrace the principle of "turn the
other cheak", the destablizing policy of "an eye for an eye" will
inexorably tend toward escalation of hostility among men.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> The blame lies with the faithful who are willing to suspend rational
> thought and be lead to irrational acts as puppets

Those are the same people who are a problem everywhere, regardless of the
exact method of leading. We have plenty of non-religious people in the US
who share this same sort of blame.

> of those
> disenfranchised despots terrified of their loss of power in a
> globalized world.

Hate to say it, but abuse of religion is just as alive and well here in the
US as it is anywhere else. Though, perhaps your description is just as apt
here as well.

> As long as there are ready supplies of illiterate,
> hungry, desperate people, there will be those eager to exploit them as
> tools to operate the weapons greedy dealers supply against humanity in
> the vaine hope of gaining influence in their destaines.

In other words, "the people abusing the books". I'm pretty sure that's what
I wrote in the first place.

It is these exploiters who are the problem, not the books.

> Until the world's people truly embrace the principle of "turn the
> other cheak", the destablizing policy of "an eye for an eye" will
> inexorably tend toward escalation of hostility among men.

"An eye for an eye", while perhaps unenlightened, would not be as bad as the
situation that exists today.

Pete

[mike regish]

Actually, no they are not. The Koran leaves 3 options for dealing with
nonbelievers. Convert them, subjugate them or kill them.

The Bible demands death for any violation of the 10 commandments, along with
a host of other sins.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually, the books are not being abused at all.
>
> Actually, yes they are.
>

[Skywise]

"mike regish" > wrote in
:

<Snipola>
> The Bible demands death for any violation of the 10 commandments, along
> with a host of other sins.
<Snipola>

Chapter and verse, please?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, no they are not. The Koran leaves 3 options for dealing with
> nonbelievers. Convert them, subjugate them or kill them.

I doubt that.

> The Bible demands death for any violation of the 10 commandments, along
> with a host of other sins.

No, it doesn't.

[mike regish]

I'll look it up for you, but it will take a while. You might read The End of
Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris. He's done
the research and has extensive footnotes and supporting text.

mike
"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>> The Bible demands death for any violation of the 10 commandments, along
>> with a host of other sins.
> <Snipola>
>
> Chapter and verse, please?
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[mike regish]

Deuteronomy 13:7-11

I don't know if that's old testament or new and don't really care.


"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Actually, no they are not. The Koran leaves 3 options for dealing with
>> nonbelievers. Convert them, subjugate them or kill them.
>
> I doubt that.
>
>> The Bible demands death for any violation of the 10 commandments, along
>> with a host of other sins.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>

[mike regish]

Deuteronomy 13:7-11

There's one. I can find more.

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>> The Bible demands death for any violation of the 10 commandments, along
>> with a host of other sins.
> <Snipola>
>
> Chapter and verse, please?
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Montblack]

("mike regish" wrote)
> Deuteronomy 13:7-11
>
> I don't know if that's old testament or new and don't really care.


Old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuteronomy
[text from the link]
"Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible. It is part of Judaism's
Torah - the first segment of the Tanakh. It later became part of
Christianity's Old Testament. Its Hebrew name is Devarim [xxxx] ("words"),
which comes from the opening phrase "Eleh ha-devarim" ("These are the
words..."). The term can also stretch to mean "discourses" or "talks", as is
generally the case with the Greek word "logos"."

"Deuteronomy consists chiefly of three discourses said to have been
delivered by Moses a short time before his death, given to the Israelites,
in the plains of Moab, in the penultimate month of the final year of their
wanderings through the wilderness."


Montblack

[Skywise]

"mike regish" > wrote in
:

> Deuteronomy 13:7-11
>
> There's one. I can find more.

Yes, it can certainly be read as you describe. However, keep in
mind that Deuteronomy is one of the oldest books of the Bible
and was written thousands of years ago, when the world was far
different than it is today.

Do you think that all religions who hold the Bible sacred would
take such a statement as a literal command? Do you mean to imply
that, for instance, a Catholic or even a Jew (Deuteronomy is part
of the Torah, IIRC) should go on a murderous rampage based on this
passage? More to the point, do these religions suggest doing so
TODAY?

Having been raised a Catholic and having gone through Catholic
schooling, I do not ever recall being told that I should go and
stone someone because they want me to change beliefs.

I suppose I should have killed those two Jehovah Witness's that
used to visit me a few years ago? After all, it's in the Bible,
right? Therefore I was simply following what my Bible told me
to do, right? I should not be held accountable for my actions,
because I was practicing my religion, which is granted protection
under the Constitution of the United States, right? Heck, since
you seem opposed to "my God", I should hunt you down and kill you
too, right? After all, my Bible says to do so, right?

No, what you are referring to is fundamental extremism. Yes, a
group of people could take that passage in the most fundamental
and literal sense and act on it. But that does not make it right
and I would not support such action.

You are making the false sweeping generalization that just because
there are some phucked up in the head people who twist the Bible
(or other books) as an excuse to commit their misdeeds, that ALL
people who hold such Books sacred must be guilty of the same crime.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[mike regish]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
news:ihatessppaamm-

> Which leads to a question of mine as to whether or not the koran actually
> does give the option of killing nonbelievers...
>

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously
with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.

Koran 9:73

Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Know that God is
with the righteous.

Koran 9:23

The believers who stay at home-apart from those that suffer a grave
impediment-are not the equal of those who fight for the cause of God with
their goods and their persons. God has given those that fight with their
goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home. God has
promised all a good reward; but far richer is the recompense of those who
fight for Him...He that leaves his dwelling to fight for God and His apostle
and is then overtaken by death, shall be rewarded by God....The unbelievers
are your inveterate enemies.

Koran 4:95-101.

Just a small selection of quotes from Sam Harris' book. I'm looking for the
part about death being the mandatory punishment for violation of the
commandments.

It's nothing more than selectively ignoring certain parts of the "perfect
word" that we mange to maintain any type of civility. Eventually, we will
have to ignore it all if we ever want to truly evolve.

mike

> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

[mike regish]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in
> :
>
>> Deuteronomy 13:7-11
>>
>> There's one. I can find more.
>
> Yes, it can certainly be read as you describe. However, keep in
> mind that Deuteronomy is one of the oldest books of the Bible
> and was written thousands of years ago, when the world was far
> different than it is today.

And we're pretty much the same as we were 2000 years ago?
>
> Do you think that all religions who hold the Bible sacred would
> take such a statement as a literal command?

The bible also says that it is to be interpreted literally.

Do you mean to imply
> that, for instance, a Catholic or even a Jew (Deuteronomy is part
> of the Torah, IIRC) should go on a murderous rampage based on this
> passage?

If their book is the perfect word of god, yes.


More to the point, do these religions suggest doing so
> TODAY?

I don't think there were any time limits on the word of god. I'm pretty sure
there's no place in any religious text that says "Only follow these
instructions for 2000 years, then change."
>
> Having been raised a Catholic and having gone through Catholic
> schooling, I do not ever recall being told that I should go and
> stone someone because they want me to change beliefs.

Because that part of the religion doesn't fit any more...but it is still
there.
>
> I suppose I should have killed those two Jehovah Witness's that
> used to visit me a few years ago? After all, it's in the Bible,
> right? Therefore I was simply following what my Bible told me
> to do, right? I should not be held accountable for my actions,
> because I was practicing my religion, which is granted protection
> under the Constitution of the United States, right? Heck, since
> you seem opposed to "my God", I should hunt you down and kill you
> too, right? After all, my Bible says to do so, right?

Right...on all counts. Do you believe in God or don't you? Did he write a
piece of crap or the true word? Are you a believer or a hypocrite?
>
> No, what you are referring to is fundamental extremism.

No. What I'm referring to is religious hypocrisy.

>Yes, a
> group of people could take that passage in the most fundamental
> and literal sense and act on it. But that does not make it right
> and I would not support such action.

You want a list of crap in the bible that's not right? And that you wouldn't
support? Read the freakin' thing.

Show me something that says the bible is not to be taken literally. It
should say "Fiction" on the binder, but it doesn't.

>
> You are making the false sweeping generalization that just because
> there are some phucked up in the head people who twist the Bible
> (or other books) as an excuse to commit their misdeeds, that ALL
> people who hold such Books sacred must be guilty of the same crime.

Nothing needs to be twisted. It's all right there in black and white.

mike

[Peter Duniho]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> Deuteronomy 13:7-11
>
> I don't know if that's old testament or new and don't really care.

How ironic that the person who is blaming the book is one of the people
abusing it.

[Skywise]

"mike regish" > wrote in
:

<Snipola>

Ok...so in order for me to not be a hypocrite anymore, can
you give me your address so I can come over and blow your
head off with a .44 magnum? Oh, wait...it says "stoned".
Ok...I'll just beat your head in with rocks then.

:)

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-01, Skywise > wrote:
> Do you think that all religions who hold the Bible sacred would
> take such a statement as a literal command? Do you mean to imply
> that, for instance, a Catholic or even a Jew (Deuteronomy is part
> of the Torah, IIRC) should go on a murderous rampage based on this
> passage? More to the point, do these religions suggest doing so
> TODAY?

I doubt it's based just on this passage, but there's been enough
sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland
based solely on the minute differences between beliefs that it wouldn't
surprise me if there was still violence predicated on passages like
this.

Then the Catholic priests who won't condemn the violence either, just
dismissing it with 'it's complicated'

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-01, mike regish > wrote:
> It's nothing more than selectively ignoring certain parts of the "perfect
> word" that we mange to maintain any type of civility. Eventually, we will
> have to ignore it all if we ever want to truly evolve.

Not merely ignore it, but reject it.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[mike regish]

How so?

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Deuteronomy 13:7-11
>>
>> I don't know if that's old testament or new and don't really care.
>
> How ironic that the person who is blaming the book is one of the people
> abusing it.
>

[mike regish]

It IS your duty.

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>
> Ok...so in order for me to not be a hypocrite anymore, can
> you give me your address so I can come over and blow your
> head off with a .44 magnum? Oh, wait...it says "stoned".
> Ok...I'll just beat your head in with rocks then.
>
> :)
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[mike regish]

Agreed.

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not merely ignore it, but reject it.
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[mike regish]

That would do. But he quotes some much more undeniable text, too.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> mike regish wrote:
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> news:ihatessppaamm-
>>
>> > Which leads to a question of mine as to whether or not the koran
>> > actually
>> > does give the option of killing nonbelievers...
>> >
>>
>> Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal
>> rigorously
>> with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.
>
> Hinges on the meaning of 'war'. Lyndon Johnson did not advocate
> killing
> poor people as part of his war on poverty.
>
> Indeed, if the word in the text would be more accurately translated as
> 'jihad', then it could be interpreted as readily to mean to resist the
> influence of unbelievers or to convert them. 'Jihad' may be translated
> as 'struggle' war is but one variety of 'jihad'.
>
>> ...
>>
>> Just a small selection of quotes from Sam Harris' book. I'm looking for
>> the
>> part about death being the mandatory punishment for violation of the
>> commandments.
>
> You mean something equivalent to "The wages of sin are death."????
>
> --
>
> FF
>

[mike regish]

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C.

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in
> :
>
> <Snipola>
>
> Ok...so in order for me to not be a hypocrite anymore, can
> you give me your address so I can come over and blow your
> head off with a .44 magnum? Oh, wait...it says "stoned".
> Ok...I'll just beat your head in with rocks then.
>
> :)
>
> Brian
> --
> http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
> Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
> Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
> Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Skywise]

"mike regish" > wrote in
:

> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
> Washington, D.C.

I interpret this as you realizing the absurdity of your own argument?

I have nothing more to say on the matter. You have your opinion, I
have mine. *I* can agree to disagree.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[[email protected]]

mike regish wrote:
> That would do. But he quotes some much more undeniable text, too.
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > mike regish wrote:
> >> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> >> news:ihatessppaamm-
> >>
> >> > Which leads to a question of mine as to whether or not the koran
> >> > actually
> >> > does give the option of killing nonbelievers...
> >> >
> >>
> >> Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal
> >> rigorously
> >> with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.
> >
> > Hinges on the meaning of 'war'. Lyndon Johnson did not advocate
> > killing
> > poor people as part of his war on poverty.
> >
> > Indeed, if the word in the text would be more accurately translated as
> > 'jihad', then it could be interpreted as readily to mean to resist the
> > influence of unbelievers or to convert them. 'Jihad' may be translated
> > as 'struggle' war is but one variety of 'jihad'.
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Just a small selection of quotes from Sam Harris' book. I'm looking for
> >> the
> >> part about death being the mandatory punishment for violation of the
> >> commandments.
> >
> > You mean something equivalent to "The wages of sin are death."????
> >

'Jihad', meaning struggle works for the quotes posted in this thread.

Obviously, I cannot comment on quotes I have not read.

--

FF

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in
> :
>
>> 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
>> Washington, D.C.
>
> I interpret this as you realizing the absurdity of your own argument?
>
> I have nothing more to say on the matter. You have your opinion, I
> have mine. *I* can agree to disagree.
>
Except one's opinion can be based on facts, the other person's opinion on
hearsay, emotions, and fantasy.

So which side is the one that bases their positions on "emotions"?

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6LENf.18$w4.3818
@news.uswest.net:

> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...

<Snipola>

Highlighting my statement.

*****************************
-----------------------------
>> *I* can agree to disagree.
-----------------------------
*****************************

>>
> Except one's opinion can be based on facts, the other person's opinion on
> hearsay, emotions, and fantasy.
>
> So which side is the one that bases their positions on "emotions"?

And apparently you can't.

To be honest, I don't care what you think. I think you are wrong.
I am willing to consider both our sides opinions. Opinions are
never right or wrong. They are opinions.

I did this as a gracefully way of avoiding a religious flame war
in this aviation group.

Please take the hint.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

[Matt Barrow]

"Skywise" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6LENf.18$w4.3818
> @news.uswest.net:
>>
>> So which side is the one that bases their positions on "emotions"?
>
> And apparently you can't.

Seems you go into the latter category.
>
> To be honest, I don't care what you think. I think you are wrong.
> I am willing to consider both our sides opinions. Opinions are
> never right or wrong. They are opinions.

My opinion is that all people over 55 and under 25 should be euthanized --
so that wouldn't be wrong, huh?

Post-modern prattwaddle.

Okay, now that that issue is understood -- over and out!!

[Skywise]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in
:

>
> "Skywise" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in news:6LENf.18$w4.3818
>> @news.uswest.net:
>>>
>>> So which side is the one that bases their positions on "emotions"?
>>
>> And apparently you can't.
>
> Seems you go into the latter category.
>>
>> To be honest, I don't care what you think. I think you are wrong.
>> I am willing to consider both our sides opinions. Opinions are
>> never right or wrong. They are opinions.
>
> My opinion is that all people over 55 and under 25 should be euthanized
> -- so that wouldn't be wrong, huh?
>
> Post-modern prattwaddle.
>
> Okay, now that that issue is understood -- over and out!!

Ok...I've been trying to be nice about this. So fine...since I need
to be an asshole, so be it.

<asshole mode>

Go take your 'opinion' and shove it up your ass, ok?

I have no interest in getting into a ****ing debate over it, ok?

What part of this do you NOT ****ING UNDERSTAND?

Do I need to make a big issue of PLONKING you?

</asshole mode>

OK? Is that better? :)

It's really simple. I could forsee the discussion getting really
heated and I just didn't want to mess with that, ok? I hate getting
drawn into flame wars. I see both your's and my sides as opinions,
and those can make for really hot flame wars, especially considering
the subject being a religious one. I'm simply trying to avoid what is
obviously turning into a big debacle over a simple misunderstanding.

I'm simply suggesting we both quit now because getting into a big
argument over it isn't going to accomplish a damned thing except
cause a lot of hard feelings.

Again, I can agree to disagree. I feel you are as entitled to your
position as I am to mine. Let's just leave it at that, OK?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?