Thrown out of an FBO...

[Jessica Taylor]

Thank you for confirming that you are "progressive." Lol!

mike regish wrote:

> Yep.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> I'd say he's lost potentially many. I know I wouldn't waste my money
> >> there.
> >
> > Yeah I could tell by your comments that you are too intolerant of someone
> > who
> > has other views.
> >

[Newps]

> Peter Duniho wrote:

>>
>>No. To support a blanket generalization, one needs to survey the entire
>>population.



One needs to do no such thing. Not even remotely close. You can
accurately make a blanket generalization of 300 million people with a
sample of less than 1000.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Except he wasn't the one who said "all pilots" or "never" in the context
> of
> charter pilots or their pay. You were. Actually the words used by
> Jay/Mary
> included "some." Go back to sleep.

You might try waking up before you jump in. It's bad enough being a
latecomer to the party, but you ought to at least make an effort to
comprehend what the discussion is about first.

The word "some" was never used in either of the statements to which I'm
referring. I never said Jay used the words "all" or "never". What I said
is that his statement clearly implied that.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> If you had ever studied statistics, you would know that is not true. That
> is
> why sample sizes are less than population sizes, and how confidence levels
> are relevant.

I have studied statistics. Statistics are only relevant if you are trying
to make a statement about some proportion of a population. A blanket
generalization is necessarily about 100% of the population, and the only way
to actually *prove* something about 100% of the population is to survey the
entire population. Statistics has nothing to do with it.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> The reaction of "some" people might be the same. Others might be
> different.

What "might" be is irrelevant. Jay specifically wrote that he posted
because of the reactions he knew *would* happen. Not those that he thought
*might* happen.

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:
> Used to be, I could talk to anybody-even a republican.
>
> Since Bush Jr., as soon as sombody declares themselves a republican, the
> conversation's over. That's one thing I really thank Bush Jr. for. He's made
> it crystal clear what his party's about.

No, he's just made it easy to define the Republican party the way you
want it to appear and have a reason to rationalize doing so. George
Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party, all by
himself in the span of 6 years.

Are you really this naive in real life or do you just play being naive
on the internet? :-)

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Nice troll, Peter. Some of us enjoy Jay's stories more than your
> ad-hominen
> attacks about your self-proclaimed 'personality defects.'

Actually, if you'd been paying attention, you'd have noticed that it was Jay
who proclaimed that particular personality defect. It was self-admitted on
his part.

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> >> That would be inappropriate, for the same reason that it would be wrong
> >> to
> >> launch a referendum on whether interracial couples should be prohibited
> >> from
> >> marrying, or whether Jews should be required to wear yellow stars.
> >>
> >> Democracy is not the same as absolute tyranny of the majority. In a
> >> democracy, equality before the law enjoys constitutional protections that
> >> cannot be overridden by a majority vote.
> >>
> >> (In addition to being inappropriate, a referendum on the issue would not
> >> change the law: a solid majority of Massachusetts citizens and
> >> legislators
> >> support same-sex marriage rights.)
> >
> > Then why are they so afraid of following the constitutional process?
>
> Why do you assume the reason is fear, when I just articulated (and you did
> not rebut) an alternative reason?

First, the convention was conveniently scheduled AFTER an election, to mitigate
fear of voters.
Are you sure that the million dollars the gay lobby spent on the legislature has
nothing to do with them trampling the process? I'm sure not.

>
>
> > If this is truly a right, and not an activist court's proclamations, why
> > not make it
> > legimately so by the voice of the people?
>
> First, it is already a right in Massachusetts by a legitimate process,
> namely the judicial enforcement of constitutional (in this case, the state
> constitution) guarantees of equality. There is a reason that the judicial
> branch is part of the checks and balances of our system of government. It
> does not lose legitimacy just because you disagree with a particular
> decision.

It was a decision by a very politically motivated activist court. Do not forget
that Ms. Marshall offered the decision as a quid-pro-quo for getting nominated
to the Court. A quid pro quo is not "checks and balances" and I do not believe
it is "legitimate."

>
> Second, as I mentioned, democracy is distinct from tyranny of the majority.
> Democracy includes protection of equality before the law even if the
> majority would like to abridge that equality. Would you consider it
> appropriate to hold a referendum on whether to require Jews to wear yellow
> stars, if thousands of people signed a petition to amend the constitution
> accordingly?

No because, a petition alone does not change a constitution. It is just a part
of the process, and those who participate deserve to have the process followed,
not prevented.

Please understand that the legislature didn't act for gay marriage, their action
was only to prevent the constitutional due process.

> Would you object if legislators used lawful parliamentary
> maneuvering to prevent *that* amendment from being put to a popular vote?

I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed instead of
trampled on. I believe that the Constitution exists for the guidance of the
people and their government and is not just a doormat to be walked on all over.
If the legislators do not want an amdendment they can vote against it, instead
of disenfranchising people who participate in the Constitutional process.

So if another Court says that same sexes cannot marry, that would be true
democracy too, right?

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> I love it when the most irrational always claim to be the most rational.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Right. When you know that there is no *rational* explanation to
> > justifiy yourself, it's real simple to just call someone a bigot,
> > racist, -phobe, whatever.
> >

And of course the most irrational is the one who like to spew out the
bigotry/racist claims.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> I think he meant...
>
> Hmmm... where've I heard that before...
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
> > liberal
> > people.

Not sure, where have you heard that before?

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Huh?
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bigot! You never ___! You said ____! Bigot! You haven't spent time in
> > the
> > midwes to hear that it's full of bigots!"
> >

Sorry to confuse you, that should say 'midwest.'

[Matt Whiting]

Newps wrote:

>
>
>
>> Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> No. To support a blanket generalization, one needs to survey the entire
>>> population.
>
>
>
>
> One needs to do no such thing. Not even remotely close. You can
> accurately make a blanket generalization of 300 million people with a
> sample of less than 1000.

Depends on your definition of accurate. And it depends on what you are
generalizing about the population. If the characteristic you are
generalizing isn't normally distributed or doesn't fit some other known
distribution, then you sample tells you next to nothing.


Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"mike regish" > wrote:

> Said like a true latent homosexual...

feel the love people!

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

[Gary Drescher]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed
> instead of
> trampled on.

The constitution is being followed. Adjourning the constitutional convention
was lawfully accomplished by a vote of the legislature. Parliamentary
maneuvering has always been a routine part of the constitutional process.

Massachusetts' gay marriage is supported by the majority of the state's
population and all three branches of government (when the governor-elect
takes office). Elections have been held since same-sex marriage began, and
the number of legislators supporting equal marriage rights has increased,
not decreased. The democratic process is working just as it should here to
protect equal rights under the law.

> So if another Court says that same sexes cannot marry, that would be true
> democracy too, right?

No, just as the Dred Scott decision was not an example of true democracy.
Court decisions in a democracy are *supposed to* protect individual and
minority rights against tyranny of the majority, but they do not always do
so.

--Gary

[mike regish]

Ok. You win.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> That would be hard to do when there is nothing to google for. You made
> the
> statement, you cannot support it with facts, and your only defense is to
> tell
> someone else to try supporting your statement.
>

[mike regish]

Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> There's the key word...Evolve.
>>
>> You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him,
>> so
>> he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.
>
> How 'liberal' of you. Just spew out personal insults and ad-hominem
> attacks.
> Maybe then they could become true, you don't need any facts.
>
>

[mike regish]

Look in the mirror.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Used to be, I could talk to anybody-even a republican.
>>
>> Since Bush Jr., as soon as sombody declares themselves a republican, the
>> conversation's over. That's one thing I really thank Bush Jr. for. He's
>> made
>> it crystal clear what his party's about.
>
> Apparently what his party's about is getting you to show your true colors:
> such
> powerful narrow-minded intolerance for others that have other points of
> view
> that you cannot even communicate.
>

[mike regish]

I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just hid
it better.
mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party,
> all by himself in the span of 6 years.
>
> Matt

[mike regish]

Hope I didn't get any on you.

Or...do I?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> And of course the most irrational is the one who like to spew out the
> bigotry/racist claims.
>

[mike regish]

Again...huh?

mike
>
> Sorry to confuse you, that should say 'midwest.'
>
>

[mike regish]

No love here. You and your ilk, make me sick.

mike

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "mike regish" > wrote:
>
>> Said like a true latent homosexual...
>
> feel the love people!
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you had ever studied statistics, you would know that is not true. That
> > is
> > why sample sizes are less than population sizes, and how confidence levels
> > are relevant.
>
> I have studied statistics. Statistics are only relevant if you are trying
> to make a statement about some proportion of a population.

Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an entire
population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

> A blanket
> generalization is necessarily about 100% of the population, and the only way
> to actually *prove* something about 100% of the population is to survey the
> entire population.

Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population. We can prove that
chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their peers
who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of smokers
and non smokers.

> Statistics has nothing to do with it.

Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said 100%.

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Except he wasn't the one who said "all pilots" or "never" in the context
> > of
> > charter pilots or their pay. You were. Actually the words used by
> > Jay/Mary
> > included "some." Go back to sleep.
>
> You might try waking up before you jump in. It's bad enough being a
> latecomer to the party, but you ought to at least make an effort to
> comprehend what the discussion is about first.

Your premises are false here as well.

> The word "some" was never used in either of the statements to which I'm
> referring.

> I never said Jay used the words "all" or "never". What I said
> is that his statement clearly implied that.

You said, " charter pilots never fill the tank, and all charter pilots are
poorly paid.

He has no basis for making either claim."

I did read all of Jay's statements and did not find such a claim, expressly
written or implied.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Hope I didn't get any on you.
>
> Or...do I?
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And of course the most irrational is the one who like to spew out the
> > bigotry/racist claims.
> >

Care to explain what you might have been trying to say?

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The reaction of "some" people might be the same. Others might be
> > different.
>
> What "might" be is irrelevant. Jay specifically wrote that he posted
> because of the reactions he knew *would* happen. Not those that he thought
> *might* happen.

Actually he gave two reasons for this post. I believe the first reason was to
share the experience, which he thought was pretty unbelievable. The secondary
reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters who are
predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Again...huh?
>
> mike
> >
> > Sorry to confuse you, that should say 'midwest.'

To clarify for you, midwes was typed in error, the correct word was
midwest.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Duh.
>
> mike
>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Do you think slavery would
> >> have been abolished if the people got to vote on it?
> >
> > In the North? Hello? Read your history. It wouldn't have been close.

There was a lot of slavery in colonies/states such as Connecticut and
Massachusetts in early years. The tide turned and it was turning in the
South as well. The civil war happened in the middle of this, and was
partially a result thereof.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> No love here. You and your ilk, make me sick.

The intolerant only prefer to be amongst themselves and could certainly
not love anyone else.

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed
> > instead of
> > trampled on.
>
> The constitution is being followed. Adjourning the constitutional convention
> was lawfully accomplished by a vote of the legislature.

As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already
declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.

> Parliamentary
> maneuvering has always been a routine part of the constitutional process.

You are using bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.

>
>
> Massachusetts' gay marriage is supported by the majority of the state's
> population and all three branches of government (when the governor-elect
> takes office). Elections have been held since same-sex marriage began, and
> the number of legislators supporting equal marriage rights has increased,
> not decreased.

Which is not relevant when a constitutional petition is recessed ad-infiniteum.
If there is so much support, which you claim, why can the legislators

Apparently the gay lobby just got their million dollars worth of legislators.
The best state legislature that money can buy, and the same legislature who
passed spending bills while partially (or fully) drunk a few years ago and
ajourned this summer because they were too busy raising money (from the gay
lobby for example) then to vote for war veteran state college benefits.

> The democratic process is working just as it should here to
> protect equal rights under the law.

If that it is true, then there surely there is no harm in following the
constitutional process and allowing people who petition the government under the
proper means to have their voice heard. You say that the majority of the
state's population is in favor of "gay marriage." You also said that "democracy
is distinct from tyranny of the majority." So why shouldn't a group of people,
even a minority, be in able to exercise their voice instead of being quenched?

Even if you favor gay marriage, the rule of law and the ability of people to
vote should actually mean something.

>
>
> > So if another Court says that same sexes cannot marry, that would be true
> > democracy too, right?
>
> No, just as the Dred Scott decision was not an example of true democracy.
> Court decisions in a democracy are *supposed to* protect individual and
> minority rights against tyranny of the majority, but they do not always do
> so.

Clearly. You pointed out that minorities in Massachusetts are not entitled to
have their voices heard.
By the way courts in other states, and direct true democracy via referendums
have been opposed to gay marriage, so using your own logic, that is true
justice as well. The difference, in a true democracy, representative or not,
there is debate. The gay lobby in Massachusetts is opposed to having a debate.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> There's the key word...Evolve.
> >>
> >> You're using it on a person who is incapable of evolving. It scares him,
> >> so
> >> he'd rather keep things the same for as long as possible.
> >
> > How 'liberal' of you. Just spew out personal insults and ad-hominem
> > attacks.
> > Maybe then they could become true, you don't need any facts.
> >
> >

So what? You have displayed no shortage of personal insults.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Ok. You win.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That would be hard to do when there is nothing to google for. You made
> > the
> > statement, you cannot support it with facts, and your only defense is to
> > tell
> > someone else to try supporting your statement.
> >

Win what? I was just pointing out who absurd your claims are.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Look in the mirror.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> Used to be, I could talk to anybody-even a republican.
> >>
> >> Since Bush Jr., as soon as sombody declares themselves a republican, the
> >> conversation's over. That's one thing I really thank Bush Jr. for. He's
> >> made
> >> it crystal clear what his party's about.
> >
> > Apparently what his party's about is getting you to show your true colors:
> > such
> > powerful narrow-minded intolerance for others that have other points of
> > view
> > that you cannot even communicate.

Pot, kettle, black. You preach tolerance and then accuse others of bigotry.
You make unfounded accusations and then when you are called on it, you just duck
and say to go search something to prove what *you* claimed. You say that you
are "progressive" but then admit that you are so intolerant that you cannot even
talk to someone who has other views than your own narrow mindset.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just hid
> it better.
> mike
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party,
> > all by himself in the span of 6 years.

Exposed what? What are you talking about? "Been like 'that'" --what
stereotype are you trying to make?

[Judah]

Jessica Taylor > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>
>> (Ron Lee) wrote in news:45551f12.7993328
>> @news.pcisys.net:
>>
>> > Judah > wrote:
>> >
>> (Ron Lee) wrote in news:4554e3a0.648968
>> :
>> >>
>> >>> No, it just means that many liberals are hypocrites in addition to
>> >>> doing things (programs like welfare) that ruin lives and result in
>> >>> the deaths of innocent Americans.
>> >>>
>> >>> But liberals can't see what their failures have done.
>> >>
>> >>Have you sampled a thousand random liberals to come to this
>> >>conclusion?
>> >
>> > Nope. I judge them by what they have done and continue to do.
>>
>> You mean you have met ALL liberals?
>>
>> Wow, I don't remember meeting you.
>
> I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
> liberal people.

It doesn't matter what he meant.

He's all ****ed off at Jay for making a generalization about charter
pilots, and in the same breadth he does the same about liberals.

Doesn't that seem strangely ironic?

[Gary Drescher]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed
>> > instead of
>> > trampled on.
>>
>> The constitution is being followed. Adjourning the constitutional
>> convention
>> was lawfully accomplished by a vote of the legislature.
>
> As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already
> declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.

Would you care to explain what you're referring to?

>> Parliamentary
>> maneuvering has always been a routine part of the constitutional process.
>
> You are using bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.

You have not explained why such maneuvers are necessarily bad behavior. We
could abolish vote-suppressing maneuvers (such as filibusters) if we wanted
to; we could even have a government by plebiscite rather than by legislation
and judicial rulings if we wanted to. There are sound reasons not to want
to, and that's reflected in the structure of government that we, as a
people, have chosen to establish.

> If that it is true, then there surely there is no harm in following the
> constitutional process and allowing people who petition the government
> under the
> proper means to have their voice heard.

On the contrary, there is grave harm in holding the referendum, even if it
is defeated, as I have already explained. For similar reasons, it would be
gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear yellow
stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying. It is
gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.

> You pointed out that minorities in Massachusetts are not entitled to
> have their voices heard.

No, I did not.

> By the way courts in other states, and direct true democracy via
> referendums
> have been opposed to gay marriage, so using your own logic, that is true
> justice as well. The difference, in a true democracy, representative or
> not,
> there is debate. The gay lobby in Massachusetts is opposed to having a
> debate.

That's preposterous. There has been extensive debate for the past few years
in the legislature, in the print media, on the internet, in the streets, and
in all manner of public and private venues. Opponents of equal marriage
rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their opinion,
which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the majority
of the public here and by all three branches of state government.

Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not the
same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild and
desperate misrepresentation.

--Gary

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
> entire
> population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
impossible.

> Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
> without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
of the population.

> We can prove that
> chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
> peers
> who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
> smokers
> and non smokers.

The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
idea what statistics actually is.

>> Statistics has nothing to do with it.
>
> Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
> 100%.

Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.
That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

Pete

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just hid
> it better.
> mike
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>> George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party,
>>all by himself in the span of 6 years.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>

I'm sure some have always been that way just as some liberals have
always been like you. Thankfully, in both camps it is a minority
population.

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Actually he gave two reasons for this post. I believe the first reason
> was to
> share the experience, which he thought was pretty unbelievable. The
> secondary
> reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
> who are
> predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

Wow...having trouble with the English language too?

First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If trolling
was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome. Given that Jay's reasons (both of them) related to his
desire for a future outcome, it is simply *absurd* for you to claim that
"there was no 'would' involved" (even if that were a grammatically correct
phrase).

Pete

[Ron Lee]

Jessica Taylor > wrote:

>mike regish wrote:
>
>> I love it when the most irrational always claim to be the most rational.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Right. When you know that there is no *rational* explanation to
>> > justifiy yourself, it's real simple to just call someone a bigot,
>> > racist, -phobe, whatever.
>> >
>
>And of course the most irrational is the one who like to spew out the
>bigotry/racist claims.
>
I think I am in love. Yea Jessica.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"mike regish" > wrote:

>I think he meant...
>
>Hmmm... where've I heard that before...
>
>mike
>
>"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
>> liberal
>> people.

And yet she is correct.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Judah > wrote:

>Jessica Taylor > wrote in
:
>
>> Judah wrote:
>>
>>> (Ron Lee) wrote in news:45551f12.7993328
>>> @news.pcisys.net:
>>>
>>> > Judah > wrote:
>>> >
>>> (Ron Lee) wrote in news:4554e3a0.648968
>>> :
>>> >>
>>> >>> No, it just means that many liberals are hypocrites in addition to
>>> >>> doing things (programs like welfare) that ruin lives and result in
>>> >>> the deaths of innocent Americans.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But liberals can't see what their failures have done.
>>> >>
>>> >>Have you sampled a thousand random liberals to come to this
>>> >>conclusion?
>>> >
>>> > Nope. I judge them by what they have done and continue to do.
>>>
>>> You mean you have met ALL liberals?
>>>
>>> Wow, I don't remember meeting you.
>>
>> I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
>> liberal people.
>
>It doesn't matter what he meant.
>
>He's all ****ed off at Jay for making a generalization about charter
>pilots, and in the same breadth he does the same about liberals.
>
>Doesn't that seem strangely ironic?

Two different people making these comments. I said nothing about Jay
but did note the truth about liberals/progressives.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"mike regish" > wrote:

>I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just hid
>it better.
>mike
>
>"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
>> George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the party,
>> all by himself in the span of 6 years.
>>
>> Matt

W is somewhat liberal IMO. He is hardly a Reagan conservative but he
does stand by his convictions and is an honorable man. He has done a
fair job of fighting the muslim radicals who want to kill Americans
but he is wrong on the illegal worker (erroneously called immigration)
amnesty program, protecting our borders, Katrina relief, etc

Ron Lee

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
> > entire
> > population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.
>
> The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
> You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
> impossible.

Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.

>
>
> > Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
> > without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.
>
> You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
> of the population.

So what? That is what confidence intervals are for. But you already knew that,
right?

>
>
> > We can prove that
> > chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
> > peers
> > who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
> > smokers
> > and non smokers.
>
> The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
> population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
> use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
> actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
> 100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
> can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.

Of course you cannot prove something that is not true.

>
>
> Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
> idea what statistics actually is.
>
> >> Statistics has nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
> > 100%.
>
> Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.

Maybe.

>
> That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.

Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be different
because they "are from mass [sic]," right?


> I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
> Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!

I understand just fine, thank you.

[Jessica Taylor]

Judah wrote:

> Jessica Taylor > wrote in
> :
>
> > Judah wrote:
> >
> >> (Ron Lee) wrote in news:45551f12.7993328
> >> @news.pcisys.net:
> >>
> >> > Judah > wrote:
> >> >
> >> (Ron Lee) wrote in news:4554e3a0.648968
> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >>> No, it just means that many liberals are hypocrites in addition to
> >> >>> doing things (programs like welfare) that ruin lives and result in
> >> >>> the deaths of innocent Americans.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But liberals can't see what their failures have done.
> >> >>
> >> >>Have you sampled a thousand random liberals to come to this
> >> >>conclusion?
> >> >
> >> > Nope. I judge them by what they have done and continue to do.
> >>
> >> You mean you have met ALL liberals?
> >>
> >> Wow, I don't remember meeting you.
> >
> > I think he meant liberal policies and their effects, not meeting all
> > liberal people.
>
> It doesn't matter what he meant.
>
> He's all ****ed off at Jay for making a generalization about charter
> pilots, and in the same breadth he does the same about liberals.
>
> Doesn't that seem strangely ironic?

No because I think you're confused about who said what. However, nobody said
anything about "all" liberals, but there were comments about liberal
policies. It would be silly to assume anyone thinks that all self-proclaimed
liberal are resonsible for all liberal policies and their effects. HTH.

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually he gave two reasons for this post. I believe the first reason
> > was to
> > share the experience, which he thought was pretty unbelievable. The
> > secondary
> > reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
> > who are
> > predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

correction: should be no "would" involved.

>
>
> Wow...having trouble with the English language too?

Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another. I hope you don't make any typos!

>
>
> First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If trolling
> was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
> other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't need
any support other than you say so?
I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

> Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
> future outcome.

Among other definitions.

> Given that Jay's reasons (both of them) related to his
> desire for a future outcome, it is simply *absurd* for you to claim that
> "there was no 'would' involved" (even if that were a grammatically correct
> phrase).

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal ball
and knew that you *would* post.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.

You wish that were the case, obviously.

>> Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire
>> population.
>
> Maybe.

No maybe about it. By definition.

>> That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.
>
> Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be
> different
> because they "are from mass [sic]," right?

Yes, much like that. So?

> I understand just fine, thank you.

Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

Pete

[mike regish]

Wadda maroon...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
> entire
> population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.
>

[mike regish]

To you...?

Nope.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>
> Care to explain what you might have been trying to say?
>
>

[mike regish]

And yourself...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> The secondary
> reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
> who are
> predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
> you'd prefer another.

I doubt you'd do any better in some other language.

> [...]
> And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
> need
> any support other than you say so?

It's not a "law of trolling". It's a simple matter of intent. Part of
Jay's intent was to troll. That's trolling.

Suppose a person mugs another person, killing them in the process. Suppose
also that the mugger was looking to a) obtain some property from the other
person, and b) murder the other person.

Does the fact that they wanted property from the other person negate the
fact that their intent was also murder? Do we decide that the mugger was
not a murderer, even though they DID intent to murder, simply because they
also wanted to obtain property?

No, of course not. Your assertion that Jay's other motive somehow obscures
this motive to troll is, quite frankly, idiotic.

> I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
> that
> you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the fact
that one *is* trolling.

>> Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
>> future outcome.
>
> Among other definitions.

The other definitions, such as they are, are irrelevant. The "would" with
respect to the definition *I* was using is still appropriate, and very much
"there".

> I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal
> ball
> and knew that you *would* post.

No crystal ball is needed when predicting another person's reaction, based
on previous experience with that person. It's the reason that, as I said,
most of the regulars in this newsgroup are *very* predictable.

But in any case, Jay has in so many words admitted that he "knew I would
post". I find it remarkable that you would even consider debating that
point. Of all the points in this thread, it is the most directly provable,
since Jay has written an explicit statement to that effect.

Pete

[mike regish]

No! Really?!

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> To clarify for you, midwes was typed in error, the correct word was
> midwest.
>

[mike regish]

Ahhh...grasshopper.

Such wisdom...from one so young, yet.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> The intolerant only prefer to be amongst themselves and could certainly
> not love anyone else.
>

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> >
> >> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > I believe that the Constitutional process should actually be followed
> >> > instead of
> >> > trampled on.
> >>
> >> The constitution is being followed. Adjourning the constitutional
> >> convention
> >> was lawfully accomplished by a vote of the legislature.
> >
> > As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she already
> > declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.
>
> Would you care to explain what you're referring to?

A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker for a
Gay / Lesbian fundraiser.
The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not
participate in fundraisers. She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay
marriage. The code also states that judges must disqualify themselves from
hearing cases whenever they have an acknowledged bias in the issue. In her
later hearing and voting on the Goodridge case, Ms. Marshall broke both of these
simple requisites.
Unfortunately in Massachusetts it is ok to not bother following law, even for
judges and legislators.


>
>
> >> Parliamentary
> >> maneuvering has always been a routine part of the constitutional process.
> >
> > You are using bad behavior to justify more bad behavior.
>
> You have not explained why such maneuvers are necessarily bad behavior.

Because it is a slap in the face to the people who actually follow the
constitution.

> We
> could abolish vote-suppressing maneuvers (such as filibusters) if we wanted
> to; we could even have a government by plebiscite rather than by legislation
> and judicial rulings if we wanted to. There are sound reasons not to want
> to, and that's reflected in the structure of government that we, as a
> people, have chosen to establish.

Judges and justices exist to interpret laws. When did "we the people" establish
filibusters and destroying process?

If one more SJC member had voted against Goodridge, there would have been no gay
marriage enacted. So, if petitioners favoring gay marriage had been trampled in
the same way, would you support that too? I would not.

>
>
> > If that it is true, then there surely there is no harm in following the
> > constitutional process and allowing people who petition the government
> > under the
> > proper means to have their voice heard.
>
> On the contrary, there is grave harm in holding the referendum, even if it
> is defeated, as I have already explained.

I must have missed that explanation, all I saw were strange analogies to
referendums about Jews, etc.

> For similar reasons, it would be
> gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear yellow
> stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying.

No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life would go
on.

> It is
> gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
> rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
> opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
> means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.

I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do not
recognize said "right?" I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic, the
13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful to
make.

>
>
> > You pointed out that minorities in Massachusetts are not entitled to
> > have their voices heard.
>
> No, I did not.

If you consider having the petition trampled by legislators being "heard," fine.



>
>
> > By the way courts in other states, and direct true democracy via
> > referendums
> > have been opposed to gay marriage, so using your own logic, that is true
> > justice as well. The difference, in a true democracy, representative or
> > not,
> > there is debate. The gay lobby in Massachusetts is opposed to having a
> > debate.
>
> That's preposterous. There has been extensive debate for the past few years
> in the legislature, in the print media, on the internet, in the streets, and
> in all manner of public and private venues.

Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a debate
in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this purpose. If
there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create this
"right?"

Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted AGAINST
the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"

Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her
opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme court
would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.

> Opponents of equal marriage
> rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their opinion,
> which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the majority
> of the public here and by all three branches of state government.

I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive
branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative branch?
The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a
process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay marriage
in law).

>
>
> Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
> repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not the
> same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild and
> desperate misrepresentation.

No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened, and
twice. Finally you conveniently forget to note that the first time the
constitution convention was disbanded before it began was BEFORE the supreme
court delivered its OPINION. So there were no "rights" to repeal. When a
decision is found because a justice did not follow the judicial rules, there is
no justice.

[mike regish]

There's more where these came from...

At least I KNOW when I'm insulting somebody. And I usually do it
intentionally.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.
>>
>> mike
>
> So what? You have displayed no shortage of personal insults.
>

[mike regish]

Yep. Ok. You win.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>>> >
>
> Win what? I was just pointing out who absurd your claims are.
>
>

[mike regish]

Intolerance is about the only thing I can't tolerate.

Oh...yeah, there's religion, too.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pot, kettle, black. You preach tolerance and then accuse others of
> bigotry.
> You make unfounded accusations and then when you are called on it, you
> just duck
> and say to go search something to prove what *you* claimed. You say that
> you
> are "progressive" but then admit that you are so intolerant that you
> cannot even
> talk to someone who has other views than your own narrow mindset.
>
>

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Again, the only one who is tossing "100%" around is you.
>
> You wish that were the case, obviously.
>

I have no need to wish.

>
> >> Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire
> >> population.
> >
> > Maybe.
>
> No maybe about it. By definition.

Whose definition?

>
>
> >> That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.
> >
> > Sort of like somebody stating that they know their politics will be
> > different
> > because they "are from mass [sic]," right?
>
> Yes, much like that. So?

You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.

You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How so?

>
>
> > I understand just fine, thank you.
>
> Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.

"Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
talking about.

[mike regish]

If you can't figure it out by now, you never will.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just
>> hid
>> it better.
>> mike
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the
>> > party,
>> > all by himself in the span of 6 years.
>
> Exposed what? What are you talking about? "Been like 'that'" --what
> stereotype are you trying to make?
>

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Wadda maroon...
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
> > entire
> > population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.

??? Can you actually support any of your statements, or you just prefer to
make callow drive-by comments?

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> To you...?
>
> Nope.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >
> > Care to explain what you might have been trying to say?

To anyone, but it's clear that you don't know what you're trying to say
either.

[mike regish]

Don't care...

mike

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> And yet she is correct.
>
> Ron Lee

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Don't care...
>
> mike
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > And yet she is correct.
> >

Of course you do not. Why should you care about accuracy? You've
already proclaimed that you are "liberal." :-)

[mike regish]

Um...those "radical" muslims were in Afghanistan. It's not even spelled like
Iraq. Look...Iraq ends in a "Q". See it? Afghanistan ends in a "stan". "Q".
"STAN" I put them real close so maybe it would be easier for you to see the
difference.

mike

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>
> W is somewhat liberal IMO. He is hardly a Reagan conservative but he
> does stand by his convictions and is an honorable man. He has done a
> fair job of fighting the muslim radicals who want to kill Americans
> but he is wrong on the illegal worker (erroneously called immigration)
> amnesty program, protecting our borders, Katrina relief, etc
>
> Ron Lee
>

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
> > you'd prefer another.
>
> I doubt you'd do any better in some other language.

I do just fine.

>
>
> > [...]
> > And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
> > need
> > any support other than you say so?
>
> It's not a "law of trolling". It's a simple matter of intent. Part of
> Jay's intent was to troll. That's trolling.
>
> Suppose a person mugs another person, killing them in the process. Suppose
> also that the mugger was looking to a) obtain some property from the other
> person, and b) murder the other person.
>
> Does the fact that they wanted property from the other person negate the
> fact that their intent was also murder? Do we decide that the mugger was
> not a murderer, even though they DID intent to murder, simply because they
> also wanted to obtain property?
>
> No, of course not. Your assertion that Jay's other motive somehow obscures
> this motive to troll is, quite frankly, idiotic.
>
> > I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
> > that
> > you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?
>
> I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
> that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
> trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the fact
> that one *is* trolling.
>
> >> Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
> >> future outcome.
> >
> > Among other definitions.
>
> The other definitions, such as they are, are irrelevant. The "would" with
> respect to the definition *I* was using is still appropriate, and very much
> "there".
>
> > I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal
> > ball
> > and knew that you *would* post.
>
> No crystal ball is needed when predicting another person's reaction, based
> on previous experience with that person. It's the reason that, as I said,
> most of the regulars in this newsgroup are *very* predictable.
>
> But in any case, Jay has in so many words admitted that he "knew I would
> post". I find it remarkable that you would even consider debating that
> point. Of all the points in this thread, it is the most directly provable,
> since Jay has written an explicit statement to that effect.

The comparison of sharing one's experience with others in a public forum to
mugging, stealing, and murdering is quite impressive, if not eccentric. But you
like to toss around words like idiotic, so suit yourself.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> And yourself...
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > The secondary
> > reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
> > who are
> > predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.
> >

How so?

[mike regish]

I'll vote in favor of it.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Duniho wrote:
>> First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If
>> trolling
>> was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
>> other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.
>
> And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't
> need
> any support other than you say so?

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> No! Really?!
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > To clarify for you, midwes was typed in error, the correct word was
> > midwest.

I thought it was pretty easy to figure out, but I'm sorry that you had
trouble. HTH.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Ahhh...grasshopper.
>
> Such wisdom...from one so young, yet.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > The intolerant only prefer to be amongst themselves and could certainly
> > not love anyone else.
> >

Grasshopper? I'm curious how old "so young" is to you.

[mike regish]

I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
mouth from another angle.

mike

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message

>
>> I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
>> that
>> you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?
>
> I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
> that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
> trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the
> fact that one *is* trolling.
>

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> If you can't figure it out by now, you never will.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> I know. He just exposed them. They've always been like that. They just
> >> hid
> >> it better.
> >> mike
> >>
> >> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > George Bush didn't magically change all Republicans, or even the
> >> > party,
> >> > all by himself in the span of 6 years.
> >
> > Exposed what? What are you talking about? "Been like 'that'" --what
> > stereotype are you trying to make?
> >

That you are intolerant of others who don't talk and believe and think like
you? That wasn't hard to figure out, Mike.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Um...those "radical" muslims were in Afghanistan. It's not even spelled like
> Iraq. Look...Iraq ends in a "Q". See it? Afghanistan ends in a "stan". "Q".
> "STAN" I put them real close so maybe it would be easier for you to see the
> difference.
>
> mike
>
> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > W is somewhat liberal IMO. He is hardly a Reagan conservative but he
> > does stand by his convictions and is an honorable man. He has done a
> > fair job of fighting the muslim radicals who want to kill Americans
> > but he is wrong on the illegal worker (erroneously called immigration)
> > amnesty program, protecting our borders, Katrina relief, etc
> >
> > Ron Lee

Nice mature thought process you have there, but wrong. There are/were radical
muslims in numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, United
States, France, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and others that want to kill Americans.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
> mouth from another angle.
>
> mike
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >> I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew
> >> that
> >> you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?
> >
> > I did NOT think it was just a troll, until Jay admitted that it was. In
> > that respect, I admit he was quite successful. There's a true art to
> > trolling, as an effective troll can be accomplished only by hiding the
> > fact that one *is* trolling.
> >

Yeah, that's me. You are so smart, tell us some more funny stuff! LoL! You
can have another hit off your bong now.

[mike regish]

Cause they're still idiots

Someday, this whole gay marriage thing going on now, the fact that it's even
being debated, will be looked at with the same disgust most of us look at
the racial prejudice of 50 short years ago. And all of you, who think it is
your place to dictate how other people should live, will be clearly seen for
the ignorant, intolerant bigots you are.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do
> not
> recognize said "right?" I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how
> come
> it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic,
> the
> 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful
> to
> make.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> There's more where these came from...
>
> At least I KNOW when I'm insulting somebody. And I usually do it
> intentionally.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> Well, at least I didn't call a charter owner a cheap SOB employer.
> >>
> >> mike
> >
> > So what? You have displayed no shortage of personal insults.
> >

Very impressive skills, Mike. I guess insults are part of your
self-proclaimed "the only thing I am intolerant of is intolerance."
:-)

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Yep. Ok. You win.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> >
> >
> > Win what? I was just pointing out who absurd your claims are.
> >
> >

Win...what?

[mike regish]

In your case? It's the callow, drive-by thing...

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Wadda maroon...
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
>> > entire
>> > population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.
>
> ??? Can you actually support any of your statements, or you just prefer to
> make callow drive-by comments?
>

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> In your case? It's the callow, drive-by thing...
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> Wadda maroon...
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
> >> > entire
> >> > population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.
> >
> > ??? Can you actually support any of your statements, or you just prefer to
> > make callow drive-by comments?

You have a case just for me? Gee, thanks! See everyone can be good at
something. ;)

[mike regish]

Evidently it was...

I'll go slow just for you.

I'm not gay, yet I believe that gay people should be able to marry.

That's just one.

How does that fit your definition of me below, and how does it not fit you,
who cannot be content to just let gay couples live in a committed
relationship that will have absolutely no effect on your life.

Look in the mirror, J.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> That you are intolerant of others who don't talk and believe and think
> like
> you? That wasn't hard to figure out, Mike.
>
>

[mike regish]

Um...what about the 15 from Saudi Arabia? Now they're freakin' everywhere?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
> Nice mature thought process you have there, but wrong. There are/were
> radical
> muslims in numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
> United
> States, France, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and others that want to kill Americans.
>
>

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Cause they're still idiots
>
> Someday, this whole gay marriage thing going on now, the fact that it's even
> being debated, will be looked at with the same disgust most of us look at
> the racial prejudice of 50 short years ago. And all of you, who think it is
> your place to dictate how other people should live, will be clearly seen for
> the ignorant, intolerant bigots you are.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do
> > not
> > recognize said "right?" I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how
> > come
> > it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic,
> > the
> > 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful
> > to
> > make.

Well I support gay marriage (or actually don't really care about it, which is
the same thing) so I guess that is what makes me "intolerant" and a "bigot"
according to Mr. Regish. Or maybe it is the fact that I actually like to see
constitutional process followed instead of squelched that makes me a bigot. Or
perhaps that I can and do actually speak with people with all sorts of beliefs
without belittling them that makes me a bigot. Apparently the supreme court
of new jersey is just a pack of bigots too.

[mike regish]

Wadya want. A medal...or a chest to pin it on?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Yep. Ok. You win.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>> >
>> >
>> > Win what? I was just pointing out who absurd your claims are.
>> >
>> >
>
> Win...what?
>

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Evidently it was...
>
> I'll go slow just for you.
>
> I'm not gay, yet I believe that gay people should be able to marry.

Ok.

> That's just one.
>
> How does that fit your definition of me below,

That has nothing to do with what I wrote about. I was describing your seeming
inability to tolerate others without making your own prejudicied, rude,
insensitive comments.

> and how does it not fit you,

Because I don't go around proclaiming about how I cannot talk to people who
don't have the same view points as myself (which I actually do all the time)
and I don't try to label people as bigots to shut them up because I don't share
their opinions. I don't manufacture intolerant claims of others, and then when
called upon what I am basing my nonsense on just say that someone else should
research to support such false, intolerant, statements.

>
> who cannot be content to just let gay couples live in a committed
> relationship that will have absolutely no effect on your life.

Who said that? Your own prejudices are shining through. Again, I do not care
about gay marriage per se. Marry away, but make it legitimately legal. I do
care very much about when justices don't follow judicial rules and I care very
much when constitutional due process is abolished.

You are quick to exclaim bigot and intolerant and racist.

>
>
> Look in the mirror, J.

Sure.

>
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That you are intolerant of others who don't talk and believe and think
> > like
> > you? That wasn't hard to figure out, Mike.
> >
> >

[Ron Lee]

Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA. You are perhaps of the
mindset that you can talk reason with those who want to kill
Americans. Nope. The best thing is to identify and kill them. And
people like that will always be somewhere in the world just like there
will always be criminals. Accept that fact and be prepared to defend
our country (which means killing them first) and we will stay free.

Ron Lee




"mike regish" > wrote:

>Um...those "radical" muslims were in Afghanistan. It's not even spelled like
>Iraq. Look...Iraq ends in a "Q". See it? Afghanistan ends in a "stan". "Q".
>"STAN" I put them real close so maybe it would be easier for you to see the
>difference.
>
>mike
>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> W is somewhat liberal IMO. He is hardly a Reagan conservative but he
>> does stand by his convictions and is an honorable man. He has done a
>> fair job of fighting the muslim radicals who want to kill Americans
>> but he is wrong on the illegal worker (erroneously called immigration)
>> amnesty program, protecting our borders, Katrina relief, etc
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> I have no need to wish.

Lack of need is no indication of lack of doing.

>> No maybe about it. By definition.
>
> Whose definition?

By the definition of the words. "Generalization" has a specific meaning,
that is to generalize, or to infer a general conclusion. The word "blanket"
means to cover completely. *Completely*.

A "blanket generalization" is a generalization that applies the
generalization completely.

> You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.

Well, first of all, I'm under no obligation to respond to everything I
disagree with. Do not infer that I condone everything to which I don't
explicitly disagree.

Secondly, the question at hand is whether Jay should have had any reason to
expect the other person to respond negatively and whether Jay should have
thought twice before stating the generalization in the first place. Unlike
others, I am trying to stay focused on that question. Offensive
generalizations posted by others within this thread have nothing to do with
the actual topic at hand, and I see no reason to waste my time on them.

> You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
> so?

I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket generalization
is offensive (and in particular, insulting generalizations...I admit, most
people aren't offended when they are part of a group that someone claims has
some positive characteristic, but that's not what we're talking about here).

This is basic kindergarten stuff, IMHO. Anyone with a proper upbringing
should understand why it's not nice to say mean things about someone, and
especially about a large population generally.

If you can't comprehend this, then I believe it is hopeless to try to
explain the specifics of the situation to you. You don't even understand
the underlying concepts.

>> > I understand just fine, thank you.
>>
>> Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.
>
> "Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
> talking about.

Of course there is an indication. It's the reason I quoted your text.
Again, I find it amazing this needs to be explained to you, but since your
comprehension level is so low, here it is, spelled out:

"Clearly, you do not UNDERSTAND JUST FINE." (Note words taken directly from
the quoted text to which my text referred).

Pete

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Um...what about the 15 from Saudi Arabia? Now they're freakin' everywhere?
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> > Nice mature thought process you have there, but wrong. There are/were
> > radical
> > muslims in numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
> > United
> > States, France, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and others that want to kill Americans.
> >
> >

You mean, the terrorists from September 11th? They are dead, Mike. There is no
point and never has been any point since Sept 11 2001 to find them, nor has
their been any point to only go after terrorists from one country. If somebody
is trying to kill you, why would only want to find them in one country, to wit
Afghanistan? When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize that there
were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them, hastily.
And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends in
Italy, Albania, etc. first.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Intolerance is about the only thing I can't tolerate.
>
> Oh...yeah, there's religion, too.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Pot, kettle, black. You preach tolerance and then accuse others of
> > bigotry.
> > You make unfounded accusations and then when you are called on it, you
> > just duck
> > and say to go search something to prove what *you* claimed. You say that
> > you
> > are "progressive" but then admit that you are so intolerant that you
> > cannot even
> > talk to someone who has other views than your own narrow mindset.
>

So when you are intolerant, do you not tolerate yourself?

And why cannot you tolerate someone's religion?

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Wadya want. A medal...or a chest to pin it on?
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> Yep. Ok. You win.
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>> >
> >> >
> >> > Win what? I was just pointing out who absurd your claims are.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > Win...what?
> >

Thank you for the message of tolerance and acceptance, Mr. Regish.

[Jessica Taylor]

Ron Lee wrote:

> Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
> middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA. You are perhaps of the
> mindset that you can talk reason with those who want to kill
> Americans. Nope. The best thing is to identify and kill them. And
> people like that will always be somewhere in the world just like there
> will always be criminals. Accept that fact and be prepared to defend
> our country (which means killing them first) and we will stay free.

Unfortunately, Mr. Regish seems to only want to go after the terrorists who are
either already dead or only happen to have trained in the same country that the
dead hijackers trained in. If radicals want to kill you, why would you only want
to go after the radicals in one geographic location at the moment?

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have no need to wish.
>
> Lack of need is no indication of lack of doing.

Irrelevant.

>
>
> >> No maybe about it. By definition.
> >
> > Whose definition?
>
> By the definition of the words. "Generalization" has a specific meaning,
> that is to generalize, or to infer a general conclusion. The word "blanket"
> means to cover completely. *Completely*.
>
> A "blanket generalization" is a generalization that applies the
> generalization completely.

Yes, blanket, as in "generalizations are so offensive."

>
>
> > You stated no quarrel with that generalization in this same thread.
>
> Well, first of all, I'm under no obligation to respond to everything I
> disagree with. Do not infer that I condone everything to which I don't
> explicitly disagree.
>
> Secondly, the question at hand is whether Jay should have had any reason to
> expect the other person to respond negatively and whether Jay should have
> thought twice before stating the generalization in the first place. Unlike
> others, I am trying to stay focused on that question. Offensive
> generalizations posted by others within this thread have nothing to do with
> the actual topic at hand, and I see no reason to waste my time on them.
>
> > You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
> > so?
>
> I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket generalization
> is offensive (and in particular, insulting generalizations...I admit, most
> people aren't offended when they are part of a group that someone claims has
> some positive characteristic, but that's not what we're talking about here).

Actually, you made a blanket generalization that generalizations are offensive.

> This is basic kindergarten stuff, IMHO. Anyone with a proper upbringing
> should understand why it's not nice to say mean things about someone, and
> especially about a large population generally.

Now you are making another generalization about "anyone with a proper
upbringing."

> If you can't comprehend this, then I believe it is hopeless to try to
> explain the specifics of the situation to you.

That's not nice, Pete.

> You don't even understand
> the underlying concepts.

Incorrect.

>
>
> >> > I understand just fine, thank you.
> >>
> >> Clearly, you do not. You're welcome.
> >
> > "Do not...". There is not even any indication of what you think you are
> > talking about.
>
> Of course there is an indication. It's the reason I quoted your text.
> Again, I find it amazing this needs to be explained to you, but since your
> comprehension level is so low, here it is, spelled out:
>
> "Clearly, you do not UNDERSTAND JUST FINE." (Note words taken directly from
> the quoted text to which my text referred).

Clearly, I do, and I also note that you continue to make generalizations while
railing about generalizations.

[mike regish]

Well, there's about a billion of 'em. Better get started.

mike

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
> middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA. You are perhaps of the
> mindset that you can talk reason with those who want to kill
> Americans. Nope. The best thing is to identify and kill them. And
> people like that will always be somewhere in the world just like there
> will always be criminals. Accept that fact and be prepared to defend
> our country (which means killing them first) and we will stay free.
>
> Ron Lee
>

[mike regish]

That should be obvious.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> And why cannot you tolerate someone's religion?
>

[mike regish]

Wow.
..
..
..
Wow.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> Unfortunately, Mr. Regish seems to only want to go after the terrorists
> who are
> either already dead or only happen to have trained in the same country
> that the
> dead hijackers trained in. If radicals want to kill you, why would you
> only want
> to go after the radicals in one geographic location at the moment?
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, you made a blanket generalization that generalizations are
> offensive.

Are you kidding me? You are seriously thinking that debating the
philosophical merits of "never say never" is relevant here?

> Now you are making another generalization about "anyone with a proper
> upbringing."

Are you offended? If not, then so what? If so, then you have simply proved
my point. Either way, I fail to see how that helps your cause.

>> If you can't comprehend this, then I believe it is hopeless to try to
>> explain the specifics of the situation to you.
>
> That's not nice, Pete.

What's not nice? I made a simple, factual statement. It's impossible to
explain higher level concepts to someone who does not yet understand the
fundamentals. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone that doesn't
even understand basic arithmetic yet.

>> You don't even understand
>> the underlying concepts.
>
> Incorrect.

You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be incorrect?

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> The comparison of sharing one's experience with others in a public forum
> to
> mugging, stealing, and murdering is quite impressive, if not eccentric.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that using such a graphic analogy would be so
offensive to your tender sensibilities. Try this one instead:

Suppose a little girl wants to have a tea party. She has a desire to both
a) pour and consume imaginary tea from very tiny, doll-sized cups, and b)
engage in friendly, witty conversation with her doll friends.

Does the fact that she wants to drink imaginary tea negate the fact that
they also want to have a conversation with her dolls? Do we decide that she
is not a conversationalist, simply because she is also a drinker of
imaginary tea?

Why you fail to comprehend this, I can't say. But the fact remains, the
exact example is irrelevant. Whether I talk about a murderer or someone
attending a tea party, the point is that if a person has two motivations,
they are BOTH valid and open for criticism or comment. Having one
motivation in no way makes a second motivation irrelevant or nonexistent.

> But you like to toss around words like idiotic, so suit yourself.

Anyone here, even those who rarely agree with me, can attest to the fact
that I do *not* "like to toss around words like idiotic". I use them very
rarely, and only when they seem clearly applicable.

In other words, if the shoe fits...

Pete

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Actually, you made a blanket generalization that generalizations are
> > offensive.
>
> Are you kidding me? You are seriously thinking that debating the
> philosophical merits of "never say never" is relevant here?

I was pointing out what you said.

>
>
> > Now you are making another generalization about "anyone with a proper
> > upbringing."
>
> Are you offended? If not, then so what?

Just pointing out that you don't mind being offensive. (You described
generalizations as offensive, not me).

> If so, then you have simply proved
> my point. Either way, I fail to see how that helps your cause.
>
> >> If you can't comprehend this, then I believe it is hopeless to try to
> >> explain the specifics of the situation to you.
> >
> > That's not nice, Pete.
>
> What's not nice? I made a simple, factual statement. It's impossible to
> explain higher level concepts to someone who does not yet understand the
> fundamentals. It's like trying to teach calculus to someone that doesn't
> even understand basic arithmetic yet.

You can get off your condescending "I'm more educated than you" high horse. You
proclaim how generalizations are offensive and should be avoided while making
generalizations.

>
>
> >> You don't even understand
> >> the underlying concepts.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be incorrect?

Because your statement is false.

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:
<bunch of rambling analogies snipped to conserve bandwidth>

Don't worry, Pete, no offense taken, although your imaginary dolls and
murder/usenet posting analogies are quite humorous to read! I did appreciate
the chuckle, so thank you.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
>> >> You don't even understand
>> >> the underlying concepts.
>> >
>> > Incorrect.
>>
>> You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be
>> incorrect?
>
> Because your statement is false.

You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are offensive.
That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own admission.
If my statement is false, it is only because you lied.

Pete

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 22:41:33 -0500, mike regish wrote:

>Well, there's about a billion of 'em. Better get started.

you have nukes. Better use them. ... NOT.

>mike

#m

>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
>> middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA. You are perhaps of the
>> mindset that you can talk reason with those who want to kill
>> Americans. Nope. The best thing is to identify and kill them. And
>> people like that will always be somewhere in the world just like there
>> will always be criminals. Accept that fact and be prepared to defend
>> our country (which means killing them first) and we will stay free.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>>
>
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:40:02 +0100, Martin Hotze wrote:
> you have nukes. Better use them. ... NOT.

Use 'em or lose 'em... Works for me... Perhaps we can convince all the
camel ****in' Bedoins to go to Mecca at the same time and then give them a
couple of well placed nukes for company? Yeah, we'll have a bit of PR to
deal with, but with a bit of work, we should be able to spin it to our
advantage... The worst that can happen is that some countries will hate
us... Oh, wait a minute... That hate us *already*... Hmmmm... Once you
look at it that way, it doesn't seem like there really is *any* downside
to it...

[mike regish]

Yeah. I remember when they all actually LIKED us there for a while. That was
right up until about the time W made it obvious that he was going into Iraq
no matter what Sadaam did. Planned on it all along. That's when the world
started hating us. Hopefully they know that not all Americans are to blame.

mike

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...


>Oh, wait a minute... That hate us *already*... Hmmmm... Once you
> look at it that way, it doesn't seem like there really is *any* downside
> to it...

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:26:16 GMT, Grumman-581 wrote:

>> you have nukes. Better use them. ... NOT.
>
>Use 'em or lose 'em... Works for me...

I know ...

>Perhaps we can convince all the
>camel ****in' Bedoins to go to Mecca at the same time and then give them a

pffffffffffffffffffffffff.

>couple of well placed nukes for company?

one sees that you have no idea.

>Yeah, we'll have a bit of PR to
>deal with,

is read it as "lying to the people". but this is nothing new.

>but with a bit of work, we should be able to spin it to our
>advantage...

as you always did.

>The worst that can happen is that some countries will hate
>us...

are there countries left that actually love you?

>Oh, wait a minute... That hate us *already*... Hmmmm... Once you
>look at it that way, it doesn't seem like there really is *any* downside
>to it...

na. it fits to the picture just perfect. portraying 2 or 3 rednecks with a
dumb grin and writing idiotic wordings on the nuke - just before it is sent
on its way.

#m

f-up2poster
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Jay Honeck]

> > > Pot, kettle, black. You preach tolerance and then accuse others of
> > > bigotry.
> > > You make unfounded accusations and then when you are called on it, you
> > > just duck
> > > and say to go search something to prove what *you* claimed. You say that
> > > you
> > > are "progressive" but then admit that you are so intolerant that you
> > > cannot even
> > > talk to someone who has other views than your own narrow mindset.
>
> So when you are intolerant, do you not tolerate yourself?
>
> And why cannot you tolerate someone's religion?

A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> The Cessna 185 holds 92 gallons of gas. There are times that I like to take
> that much fuel, like on floats into the interior of British Columbia. But
> for just cruising around, I like to have FUN, and that means a light
> airplane for the $200 hamburger.

I know -- we've had this discussion.

Mary and I, however, decided long ago that we simply weren't ever going
to be caught short on fuel. Every year, a number of pilots kill
themselves by running out of gas, perhaps because they were enjoying
the added performance of a light plane -- and we figure that's one risk
we can easily eliminate simply by keeping the tanks full. Since our
plane can easily haul four 200-pounders, plus 84 gallons of fuel, we
always top off the tanks after every flight.

True, it diminishes performance slightly, but (unless we're on fire) we
feel you can't have too much fuel on board...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> so what has this to do with a website? some (hotels) are small enough to
> exist because of word of mouth, they don't need no friggin website.

I don't believe that's going to be true much longer. EVERYONE in the
US either books on-line, or searches on-line, nowadays.

Personally, I use the internet to find a hotel, and then I call them.
(Don't EVER stay at a hotel/motel that doesn't list their *local*
telephone number, by the way. Those national reservation call centers
are a clue that you are dealing with McSuites.)

You can always, always, ALWAYS drive a better price by talking to the
manager or owner, than you can get on-line, because he (like me) would
much rather give YOU the 15% that we have to pay the on-line booking
agencies.

And if they act like they don't know what you're talking about when you
call, they're lying, stupid, or both. (Or you're speaking with a
part-time clerk. Ask for the manager/owner.)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

Agreed.

Please stop.

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >

> A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
> --
> Jay Honeck

[Judah]

Jessica Taylor > wrote in
:

> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Um...what about the 15 from Saudi Arabia? Now they're freakin'
>> everywhere?
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > mike regish wrote:
>> >
>> > Nice mature thought process you have there, but wrong. There
>> > are/were radical
>> > muslims in numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
>> > United
>> > States, France, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and others that want to kill
>> > Americans.
>> >
>> >
>
> You mean, the terrorists from September 11th? They are dead, Mike.
> There is no point and never has been any point since Sept 11 2001 to
> find them, nor has their been any point to only go after terrorists
> from one country. If somebody is trying to kill you, why would only
> want to find them in one country, to wit Afghanistan? When Pearl Harbor
> was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and hunt them down and forget
> about anything else? No! We did realize that there were other threats
> out there, and we better start to deal with them, hastily. And actually
> the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends in Italy,
> Albania, etc. first.

Yeah, but there are some MAJOR differences between that and Iraq.

For one thing, after Pearl Harbor, the US didn't go attack Taiwan or Hong
Kong, just because the people there looked Japanese. Eventually, Japan took
both of those countries.

Iraq was focusing its energies on attacking its neighbors and killing
"dissidents" in its own country. The entire world was watching Iraq and
pressuring them, and might have eventually cooperatively taken action. But
unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, Iraq did was not a real threat at that time.
And unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, the US didn't come to the aid of its
Allies where were under attack. It unilaterally told the rest of the world
to **** off and focused all attention on an attack that really had very
little to do with destroying Al Queada - the aggressors at hand.

The result was that we lost credibility with the rest of the nations as
being hot-headed cowboys run by the Super Cowboy. We lost all credibility
with our own government and allies when it came out that there were no
WMDs. And we lost all credibility with terrorists because we never finished
the job of abolishing Al Queda and making them history.

And now they are back and looking for their next victory.

Terrorists will believe that they can attack the "All Powerful American
Heretic" and run and hide in the mountains, and we can do nothing about it
but stomp our feet and attack other Arab countries, perhaps countries that
they already despise, like Iraq. Or perhaps countries who will become their
Martyrs and help unify the Arab Nations against us.

The war in Iraq was driven by overconfidence on the part of our government,
and regardless of the fact that Saddam Hussein was personally removed and
embarrassed, we lost in a big way.

[Jay Honeck]

> I think Jessica is really Jay...in e-drag...trying to defend his careless
> mouth from another angle.

Dang, Mike, I don't know who Jessica is, either -- but I can guarantee
you that there is NO WAY I would spend so much time and effort refuting
your silly posts.

Actually, let me amend that statement. There is no way I COULD do such
a wonderful job refuting your silly posts. Her eloquence, logic, and
debate styles are clearly superior to mine, and (although I think she's
wasting her breath) I tip my hat to her for trying. She has exposed
you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

I think you 2 were made for each other.

J, she really, I mean really , really likes you.
I think you got a thing for her, too.
Better not let your wife find out.

mike
..
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Her eloquence, logic, and
> debate styles are clearly superior to mine, and (although I think she's
> wasting her breath) I tip my hat to her for trying. She has exposed
> you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[mike regish]

Likewise.

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message

> She has exposed
> you for what you are in ways that I could never have dreamt.
> --
> Jay Honeck

[Gary Drescher]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she
>> > already
>> > declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.
>>
>> Would you care to explain what you're referring to?
>
> A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker
> for a
> Gay / Lesbian fundraiser.
> The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not
> participate in fundraisers.

Marshall spoke at an annual dinner (for which there was an admission fee) of
the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Barr Association. Does that make it an
impermissible 'fundraiser' in the sense of the state Code of Judicial
Conduct? What is the relevant section of the Code, and what are the
precedents as to its application to giving speeches at bar association
meetings (or other civic gatherings)? As far as I'm aware, such speeches are
routine and proper.

> She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay marriage.

Really? What did she supposedly say? In the only quote I find, Marshall
merely stated generally (with no mention of marriage) that gays and lesbians
should enjoy equality before the law in accordance with the "civil liberties
of all people".

Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to
be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or
Jews) should be equal before the law?

>> For similar reasons, it would be
>> gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear
>> yellow
>> stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
>> It is
>> gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
>> rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
>> opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
>> means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.
>
> No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life
> would go
> on.

If you also believe a yellow-star referendum would be harmless (provided it
were defeated), then you are at least being consistent, and our disagreement
is indeed about a procedural question rather than about same-sex marriage pe
se.

To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying
there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and
pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in
fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious
assault).

> I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do
> not
> recognize said "right?"

How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples
to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized
the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s?

Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition
of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights.

> I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
> it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic,
> the
> 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful
> to
> make.

Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that
singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the
constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the
13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion?

> Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a
> debate
> in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this
> purpose.

As I pointed out, there has also been extensive debate in the state
legislature. Various amendments to abolish same-sex marriage were debated
and defeated. The matter has been settled.

> If
> there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
> favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create
> this
> "right?"

At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor
gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators
were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to
change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason
not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be
surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that
view.)

And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they
don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and
governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws
accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.)

Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting
interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or
should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage
(and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their
citizens were ready to respect equal rights?

> Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted
> AGAINST
> the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"

The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How
is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?)

> Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her
> opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme
> court
> would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.

Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in
Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an
extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US.

>> Opponents of equal marriage
>> rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their
>> opinion,
>> which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the
>> majority
>> of the public here and by all three branches of state government.
>
> I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive
> branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative
> branch?
> The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a
> process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay
> marriage
> in law).

The legislature voted to reject various anti-gay-marriage measures, and
voted to adjourn rather than ratify an anti-gay-marriage amendment
referendum. And the governor-elect has declared his support for gay marriage
rights as well. (If you need me to google it for you I can provide
citations.)

>> Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
>> repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not
>> the
>> same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild
>> and
>> desperate misrepresentation.
>
> No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened,

So everyone who would like to repeal others' civil rights, but does not get
to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced
(rather than just defeated)?

--Gary

[Martin Hotze]

On 12 Nov 2006 06:05:36 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:

>> so what has this to do with a website? some (hotels) are small enough to
>> exist because of word of mouth, they don't need no friggin website.
>
>I don't believe that's going to be true much longer.

IBTD.

>EVERYONE in the
>US either books on-line, or searches on-line, nowadays.

ah. another generalization.

>You can always, always, ALWAYS drive a better price by talking to the
>manager or owner, than you can get on-line, because he (like me) would
>much rather give YOU the 15% that we have to pay the on-line booking
>agencies.
>
>And if they act like they don't know what you're talking about when you
>call, they're lying, stupid, or both. (Or you're speaking with a
>part-time clerk. Ask for the manager/owner.)

nice. I'd like to not have to bother a manager or owner. Give the person
working this position the right to decide on that. And I like fair prices
and don't like to negotiate that much on any "deals". The price with the
deals deducted is the regular going rate. The listed price is the stupid.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Gary Drescher]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
> hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize that
> there
> were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them,
> hastily.
> And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends
> in
> Italy, Albania, etc. first.

But only after Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US immediately after
Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not declare war on the US after Sept. 11 (and Iraq
had no alliance with al Qaeda; in fact, they were mutual enemies). Being
attacked by one party does not automatically entitle you to wage war on
other parties of your choice.

--Gary

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> The best thing is to identify and kill them.
>

Ah, another perfect example of the ugly American raising his (it's
always his...) head. Only on this newsgroup...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> Hopefully they know that not all Americans are to blame.
>

They do, although places like this group sometimes make it hard. I
often wonder if it is typical of the US pilot population or just this
place. They (at least here in Germany) look at the election results
with great hope.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Lee]

"mike regish" > wrote:

>Cause they're still idiots
>
>Someday, this whole gay marriage thing going on now, the fact that it's even
>being debated, will be looked at with the same disgust most of us look at
>the racial prejudice of 50 short years ago. And all of you, who think it is
>your place to dictate how other people should live, will be clearly seen for
>the ignorant, intolerant bigots you are.
>
>mike

Mike, the correct term is "homosexual." "Gay" means happy and stuff.

Marriage is between a man and woman. get over it and tell your homo
friends to get back in the closet. I am tired of their "in your face"
tactics.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

"mike regish" > wrote:

>Well, there's about a billion of 'em. Better get started.
>
>mike
>
>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
>> middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA. You are perhaps of the
>> mindset that you can talk reason with those who want to kill
>> Americans. Nope. The best thing is to identify and kill them. And
>> people like that will always be somewhere in the world just like there
>> will always be criminals. Accept that fact and be prepared to defend
>> our country (which means killing them first) and we will stay free.
>>
>> Ron Lee
>

Geez Mike. Read what I wrote. I said "radical muslims." Not every
muslim.

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

>Ron,
>
>> The best thing is to identify and kill them.
>>
>
>Ah, another perfect example of the ugly American raising his (it's
>always his...) head. Only on this newsgroup...
>
>--
>Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Funny Thomas. I bet if a killer came into your house you would want
to discuss his "Issues." Not me. Bad people who want to kill you are
best dealt with with the best defense...which to me means any and all
action include death. I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
if it comes down to "me or them."

Ron Lee

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message > True, it diminishes
performance slightly, but (unless we're on fire) we
> feel you can't have too much fuel on board...
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

Jay,

Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of Dreams"
still there?) may be OK, but it will (and does)KILL you in some of the
mountain strips in the west. I forget the exact mathematical relationship
between weight and T/O performance, but weight makes a HUGE difference and
is the easiest to control. I am forever going into Idaho's strips with 1.5
hours of fuel because of density altitude. It just makes a few more fuel
stops necessary.

When you finally come out west you and Mary should stop here on the way.
Flight plan to land here with 1.5 hrs gas.
http://www.ruralnetwork.net/johnsoncreek/
Your 235 would be right at home here and the grass is kept like a golf
course. They even split wood for your campfire.

I know you don't see much difference in the handling of your Cherokee, but
that's because it's tactile flying qualities are low. My Cessna isn't much
better, but reducing weight significantly improves feel. A light airplane is
not only more fun to fly, but also safer. If you REALLY, TRULY were
concerned about fuel you'd install a fuel flow transducer and connect it to
the GPS. Once calibrated, these devices are uncannily accurate.

In the jets we are required to calculate the maximum allowable takeoff
weight for every takeoff and landing, so somebody besides me must think it's
important. We use this:
http://www.ultranav.com/

Carrying around too much fuel by rote is just replacing one hazard with
another.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> Marriage is between a man and woman. get over it and tell your homo
> friends to get back in the closet. I am tired of their "in your face"
> tactics.

Getting married is an "in your face" tactic to the same extent that sitting
in the front of a public bus was an "in your face" tactic. And as your post
nicely illustrates, it elicits slurs and hostility from the same sort of
person.

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> Hopefully they know that not all Americans are to blame.
>>
>
> They do, although places like this group sometimes make it hard. I
> often wonder if it is typical of the US pilot population or just this
> place. They (at least here in Germany) look at the election results
> with great hope.


Great hope for WHO? All the Muslim vermin you've let into your country?

Karl

[Gary Drescher]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Hopefully they know that not all Americans are to blame.
>>
>> They do, although places like this group sometimes make it hard. I
>> often wonder if it is typical of the US pilot population or just this
>> place. They (at least here in Germany) look at the election results
>> with great hope.
>
> Great hope for WHO? All the Muslim vermin you've let into your country?

With a trivial transposition, you'd be quoting Goebbels.

[Thomas Borchert]

Ron,

> I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
> if it comes down to "me or them."
>

Well, your president shares your view and started. Look how much he has
achieved...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Karl,

> Great hope for WHO?
>

The American people. I know - don't even try to understand.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Gary,

> Getting married is an "in your face" tactic to the same extent that sitting
> in the front of a public bus was an "in your face" tactic. And as your post
> nicely illustrates, it elicits slurs and hostility from the same sort of
> person.
>

I like your style.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ron Lee]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>> Marriage is between a man and woman. get over it and tell your homo
>> friends to get back in the closet. I am tired of their "in your face"
>> tactics.
>
>Getting married is an "in your face" tactic to the same extent that sitting
>in the front of a public bus was an "in your face" tactic. And as your post
>nicely illustrates, it elicits slurs and hostility from the same sort of
>person.

That analogy does not work for me. Frankly I am just tired of trying
to normalize deviancy. Next thing you will claim is normal is
bestiality and child molestation.

Ron Lee

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:17:01 GMT, Ron Lee wrote:

>Marriage is between a man and woman.

says who? and who says that it has to stay this way?

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:23:46 GMT, Ron Lee wrote:

>I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
>if it comes down to "me or them."

but up to now you have accepted a rather high percentage of "collateral
damage" ... including the loss of many rights within your own country.

#m
--
Enemy Combatant <http://itsnotallbad.com/>

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> >> >> You don't even understand
> >> >> the underlying concepts.
> >> >
> >> > Incorrect.
> >>
> >> You already admitted that you don't. How can my statement now be
> >> incorrect?
> >
> > Because your statement is false.
>
> You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are offensive.

Some can be, some aren't.
This is a generalization: "Oak trees hold on to their leaves than other
trees." How is that offensive, Peter?

>
> That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own admission.

False premise and false claim.

>
> If my statement is false, it is only because you lied.

False dichotomy fallacy.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> I think you 2 were made for each other.
>
> J, she really, I mean really , really likes you.

Hardly, guy.

>
> I think you got a thing for her, too.

Based on ... ?

>
> Better not let your wife find out.

About what?

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
>>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>> Marriage is between a man and woman. get over it and tell your homo
>>> friends to get back in the closet. I am tired of their "in your face"
>>> tactics.
>>
>>Getting married is an "in your face" tactic to the same extent that
>>sitting
>>in the front of a public bus was an "in your face" tactic. And as your
>>post
>>nicely illustrates, it elicits slurs and hostility from the same sort of
>>person.
>
> That analogy does not work for me. Frankly I am just tired of trying
> to normalize deviancy.

And I'm tired of bigots crying 'deviancy' whenever others don't "know their
place" as assigned by their race or (in this case) gender.

Yet despite our fatigue, here we both are. Isn't aviation a wonderful
melting pot? :)

--Gary

[mike regish]

No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.

mike

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote:
>
>>Well, there's about a billion of 'em. Better get started.
>>
>>mike
>>
>>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>> Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
>>> middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA. You are perhaps of the
>>> mindset that you can talk reason with those who want to kill
>>> Americans. Nope. The best thing is to identify and kill them. And
>>> people like that will always be somewhere in the world just like there
>>> will always be criminals. Accept that fact and be prepared to defend
>>> our country (which means killing them first) and we will stay free.
>>>
>>> Ron Lee
>>
>
> Geez Mike. Read what I wrote. I said "radical muslims." Not every
> muslim.
>
> Ron Lee
>
>

[mike regish]

You know....;-)

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> I think you 2 were made for each other.
>>
>> J, she really, I mean really , really likes you.
>
> Hardly, guy.
>
>>
>> I think you got a thing for her, too.
>
> Based on ... ?
>
>>
>> Better not let your wife find out.
>
> About what?
>
>

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> >> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > As lawful as putting a supreme court justice in the Court when she
> >> > already
> >> > declared what she would do as a quid-pro-quo.
> >>
> >> Would you care to explain what you're referring to?
> >
> > A justice is a judge. In 1999, Margaret Marshall was a Keynote speaker
> > for a
> > Gay / Lesbian fundraiser.
> > The Judicial Conduct code for Massachusetts states that judges may not
> > participate in fundraisers.
>
> Marshall spoke at an annual dinner (for which there was an admission fee) of
> the Mass. Lesbian and Gay Barr Association. Does that make it an
> impermissible 'fundraiser' in the sense of the state Code of Judicial
> Conduct?

Since the organization received income from the $60.00/plate event, yes. If
Dick Cheney speaks at a dinner to raise income, say also for $60.00 per plate,
would that not be a "fundraiser?" even if someone tries claiming otherwise
after the fact?

> What is the relevant section of the Code, and what are the
> precedents as to its application to giving speeches at bar association
> meetings (or other civic gatherings)?

SJC Court Rule 3:09 - Canon 4 (C)


> As far as I'm aware, such speeches are
> routine and proper.

Then I invite you to make yourself aware of the Massachusetts Code of Judicial
Conduct.

>
>
> > She also exclaimed her beliefs as being pro gay marriage.
>
> Really? What did she supposedly say? In the only quote I find, Marshall
> merely stated generally (with no mention of marriage) that gays and lesbians
> should enjoy equality before the law in accordance with the "civil liberties
> of all people".

In 1999, Ms Marshall had made direct remarks about praising legislation on an
issue and favoring "jurisprudence" on the issue. She later wrote an opinion on
the same issue.

>
>
> Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible to
> be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or
> Jews) should be equal before the law?

It is not proper for judges to hear cases on which they have announced personal
biases in the issue. Massachusetts codifies this in the judicial conduct rules,
but apparently there is no need to bother with such formalities.
Think about it like this, if a case was before a supreme court involving oil
drilling near the coast of California (or Florida, North Carolina, whatever),
would it be proper for a Justice to hear and deliver an opinion on the case
after previously expressing his desire to build more coastal oil drilling?

>
>
> >> For similar reasons, it would be
> >> gravely harmful to hold a referendum that would require Jews to wear
> >> yellow
> >> stars, or that would prohibit interracial couples from marrying.
> >> It is
> >> gravely harmful to expose people to the threat of such a repeal of basic
> >> rights, even if the threat can be defeated. Any such referendum should be
> >> opposed at *every procedural step* by lawful political and parliamentary
> >> means; the opposition should not wait for the final vote.
> >
> > No it would not be harmful. It would get laughed off the stage and life
> > would go
> > on.
>
> If you also believe a yellow-star referendum would be harmless (provided it
> were defeated), then you are at least being consistent, and our disagreement
> is indeed about a procedural question rather than about same-sex marriage pe
> se.

Of course it is, it always was.

>
>
> To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying
> there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face and
> pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded (in
> fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious
> assault).

A public debate is *NOT* an assault! It is not battery, it is not pointing a
weapon at anyone's face or body. Debates have always been absolutely essential
to the institution of democracy. If we squelch debates by claiming that they
are too harmful to have, then we start killing off democracy.



>
>
> > I'm curious...If it is such a basic right, then how come other states do
> > not
> > recognize said "right?"
>
> How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial couples
> to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized
> the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s?
>
> Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous nonrecognition
> of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights.

That's fine. If such a right does indeed exist, than there are appropriate
facilities to deal with that.

>
>
> > I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
> > it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your logic,
> > the
> > 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely harmful
> > to
> > make.
>
> Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass) that
> singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the
> constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that the
> 13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion?

Passing the 13th amendment followed the appropriate documented procedure to do
so. Passing a state constitution amendment would also follow the appropriate
procedure to do so.

>
>
> > Oh, so if there is a newspaper debate, then it is not necessary to have a
> > debate
> > in the forums of democracy that the constitution have laid for this
> > purpose.
>
> As I pointed out, there has also been extensive debate in the state
> legislature. Various amendments to abolish same-sex marriage were debated
> and defeated. The matter has been settled.

I don't recall anything being 'settled.'

>
>
> > If
> > there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
> > favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to create
> > this
> > "right?"
>
> At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not favor
> gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage legislators
> were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to
> change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason
> not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be
> surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of that
> view.)

If that's true, it's fine. But that doesn't justify shutting down a
constitutional process after people did everything necessary to have that
process followed.

>
>
> And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they
> don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent, and
> governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws
> accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was legal.)

Then by your definition, there is a "right" to marry same sex in every state in
the country, not just Massachusetts, and indeed any country in the world.

>
>
> Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting
> interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or
> should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage
> (and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their
> citizens were ready to respect equal rights?

Those laws were written out of prejudice, when blacks were not able to vote,
could not have certain jobs, could not use certain schools, certain facilities,
and indeed even certain restrooms. Those indeed were civil rights. And today
many blacks reject that latching on of their civil rights struggle.

Curiously, at least one high school in the country, in New York City, has
decided to be exclusively for gay students. Should straight high school
students not enjoy the same right to go there? By what measure do they
determine if someone is gay or straight? If a prospective employer does not
hire someone with that school on the résumé, is that a per-se violation of civil
rights?

Equal rights? People who describe themselves as gay have a higher than average
income and have a political power much greater than their their population
numbers, compared to other people.

>
>
> > Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted
> > AGAINST
> > the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"
>
> The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself. (How
> is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?)

When people who do not agree with Goodridge vs. Board-o-Health are ridiculed as
merely "bigots" and -phobes, it certainly is.

>
>
> > Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived her
> > opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts supreme
> > court
> > would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.
>
> Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in
> Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an
> extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US.

This occurred after the opinion was written. There are no mention of it in the
decision, of course.

>
>
> >> Opponents of equal marriage
> >> rights in Massachusetts have an unfettered right to express their
> >> opinion,
> >> which has in fact been widely heard, and has been rejected by the
> >> majority
> >> of the public here and by all three branches of state government.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but could you name a date when it was rejected by the executive
> > branch? Could you name a date when it was rejected by the legislative
> > branch?
> > The legislature did not vote to favor gay marriage, they voted to abort a
> > process (which as you say would have almost certainly legitimized gay
> > marriage
> > in law).
>
> The legislature voted to reject various anti-gay-marriage measures, and
> voted to adjourn rather than ratify an anti-gay-marriage amendment
> referendum. And the governor-elect has declared his support for gay marriage
> rights as well. (If you need me to google it for you I can provide
> citations.)

But halting a constitutional process is NOT support for gay marriage! There
would be ample time for each legislator to vote support/no support of gay
marriage if the process was followed.

>
>
> >> Getting to hold a binding referendum to amend the state constitution to
> >> repeal a crucial facet of legal equality for a specified minority is not
> >> the
> >> same as "having your voice heard". Your conflation of the two is a wild
> >> and
> >> desperate misrepresentation.
> >
> > No mis-representation at all, it is a depiction of what actually happened,
>
> So everyone who would like to repeal others' civil rights,

What "civil right" was trying to be being repealed in 2002 ?

> but does not get
> to hold a binding referendum on the question, has thereby been silenced
> (rather than just defeated)?

There is no defeat when there is no process.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> Please stop.
>
> mike
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
>
> > A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
> > --
> > Jay Honeck

I was merely responding to your eloquent posts, Mike, like "should be
obvious," "wadda marroon," inter alia.

[mike regish]

When you stop, please do it for at least 5 minutes.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> Please stop.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
>>
>> > A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
>> > --
>> > Jay Honeck
>
> I was merely responding to your eloquent posts, Mike, like "should be
> obvious," "wadda marroon," inter alia.
>
>
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>> You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are
>> offensive.
>
> Some can be, some aren't.
> This is a generalization: "Oak trees hold on to their leaves than other
> trees." How is that offensive, Peter?

Are you really that simple? I really need to qualify my statement to make
it clear that I am talking about a specific type of generalization?

That word "idiotic" is coming to mind again.

>> That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own
>> admission.
>
> False premise and false claim.

You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
archived it.

[Jessica Taylor]

Judah wrote:

> Jessica Taylor > wrote in
> :
>
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> Um...what about the 15 from Saudi Arabia? Now they're freakin'
> >> everywhere?
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > mike regish wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Nice mature thought process you have there, but wrong. There
> >> > are/were radical
> >> > muslims in numerous countries, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
> >> > United
> >> > States, France, Sudan, Iran, Yemen and others that want to kill
> >> > Americans.
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > You mean, the terrorists from September 11th? They are dead, Mike.
> > There is no point and never has been any point since Sept 11 2001 to
> > find them, nor has their been any point to only go after terrorists
> > from one country. If somebody is trying to kill you, why would only
> > want to find them in one country, to wit Afghanistan? When Pearl Harbor
> > was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and hunt them down and forget
> > about anything else? No! We did realize that there were other threats
> > out there, and we better start to deal with them, hastily. And actually
> > the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends in Italy,
> > Albania, etc. first.
>
> Yeah, but there are some MAJOR differences between that and Iraq.
>
> For one thing, after Pearl Harbor, the US didn't go attack Taiwan or Hong
> Kong, just because the people there looked Japanese. Eventually, Japan took
> both of those countries.

Huh? First you say "after Pearl Harbor," then you say "Eventually, Japan took
both of those countries [Taiwan and Hong Kong]."
Actually, Japan took Taiwan around 1895, which was well before Pearl Harbor.
That's a pretty interesting eventually.

"Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
Harbor's bombing.
History is important to know, or we will repeat it, such as when we overlook
totalitarians ignoring cease-fires.

>
>
> Iraq was focusing its energies on attacking its neighbors and killing
> "dissidents" in its own country. The entire world was watching Iraq and
> pressuring them, and might have eventually cooperatively taken action. But
> unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, Iraq did was not a real threat at that time.
> And unlike Nazi Germany in WWII, the US didn't come to the aid of its
> Allies where were under attack. It unilaterally told the rest of the world
> to **** off and focused all attention on an attack that really had very
> little to do with destroying Al Queada - the aggressors at hand.
>
> The result was that we lost credibility with the rest of the nations as
> being hot-headed cowboys run by the Super Cowboy. We lost all credibility
> with our own government and allies when it came out that there were no
> WMDs. And we lost all credibility with terrorists because we never finished
> the job of abolishing Al Queda and making them history.
>
> And now they are back and looking for their next victory.
>
> Terrorists will believe that they can attack the "All Powerful American
> Heretic" and run and hide in the mountains, and we can do nothing about it
> but stomp our feet and attack other Arab countries, perhaps countries that
> they already despise, like Iraq. Or perhaps countries who will become their
> Martyrs and help unify the Arab Nations against us.
>
> The war in Iraq was driven by overconfidence on the part of our government,
> and regardless of the fact that Saddam Hussein was personally removed and
> embarrassed, we lost in a big way.

No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of historical
reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their turf away from
North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of these same countries
that you claim we lost credibility with are also the same nations that did
NOTHING for years and years while their neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty
(...sounds familiar) and building up a military, arms, strategic
infrastructure, etc. That eventually uncontained neighbor than caused
unprecedented catastrophes and human suffering. Today, technology does not
require any such large military or arms to create such catastrophes and human
suffering. If the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would
?

We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from Russia,
France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq was on its way to
building such technology. Since then, we have found evidence of mass
destruction weapon construction in rivers (chemical byproducts detected),
weapons plans, and indeed even sensitive nuclear bomb construction. We even
found a squadron of MiGs buried in the sand. And that was just by a dumb luck
( a single tail was poking out of the sand and forces happened to be crossing
that area). Could there be much more hidden in a country the size of a Japan?

Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center bombing,
embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists learned in Somalia
that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces), they will run away.

Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with more
bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing but defiance
and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds familiar).

After rejections that Iraqi people were too stupid/uncivilized/whatever for
democracy, they overwhelmingly went to polls to vote. This is an important
step to everyone's future, including ours, as democracies generally do not
fight each other. However perhaps Iraq would be better off if it broke up to
its former components before British rule, similar to Czechoslovakia breaking
up into two countries.

To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may hail
from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back in power.
But I'm glad he's offline.

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
> > hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize that
> > there
> > were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them,
> > hastily.
> > And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their friends
> > in
> > Italy, Albania, etc. first.
>
> But only after Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US immediately after
> Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not declare war on the US after Sept. 11 (and Iraq
> had no alliance with al Qaeda; in fact, they were mutual enemies). Being
> attacked by one party does not automatically entitle you to wage war on
> other parties of your choice.

So you're saying that we only went to war with Germany b/c they declared war on
USA? So if they had NOT formerly declared war on USA we wouldn't have gone to
war with Germany or that we weren't "entitled?" Good luck advancing that story.

[Jessica Taylor]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Ron,
>
> > I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
> > if it comes down to "me or them."
> >
>
> Well, your president shares your view and started. Look how much he has
> achieved...

Much more than Philippe Pétain, for example.
Some people do appreciate the lack of terrorist murders as well.

[Jessica Taylor]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:23:46 GMT, Ron Lee wrote:
>
> >I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
> >if it comes down to "me or them."
>
> but up to now you have accepted a rather high percentage of "collateral
> damage" ... including the loss of many rights within your own country.

What rights have we lost? Do tell! Are we prohibited from talking?
Posting on usenet?
Gay marriage?

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> You are the one who could not understand how generalizations are
> >> offensive.
> >
> > Some can be, some aren't.
> > This is a generalization: "Oak trees hold on to their leaves than other
> > trees." How is that offensive, Peter?
>
> Are you really that simple? I really need to qualify my statement to make
> it clear that I am talking about a specific type of generalization?

You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations. You
merely said "generalizations are so offensive in the first place."

> That word "idiotic" is coming to mind again.

If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
generalizations are offensive."

>
>
> >> That's the underlying concept you don't understand, by your own
> >> admission.
> >
> > False premise and false claim.
>
> You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
> archived it.

I wrote what words, Pete?

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> You know....;-)
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> I think you 2 were made for each other.
> >>
> >> J, she really, I mean really , really likes you.
> >
> > Hardly, guy.
> >
> >>
> >> I think you got a thing for her, too.
> >
> > Based on ... ?
> >
> >>
> >> Better not let your wife find out.
> >
> > About what?
> >
> >

If you say so. Any other accusations that you would like to make from
your pulpit of "tolerance?" :-)

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
> >
> >>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Marriage is between a man and woman. get over it and tell your homo
> >>> friends to get back in the closet. I am tired of their "in your face"
> >>> tactics.
> >>
> >>Getting married is an "in your face" tactic to the same extent that
> >>sitting
> >>in the front of a public bus was an "in your face" tactic. And as your
> >>post
> >>nicely illustrates, it elicits slurs and hostility from the same sort of
> >>person.
> >
> > That analogy does not work for me. Frankly I am just tired of trying
> > to normalize deviancy.
>
> And I'm tired of bigots crying 'deviancy' whenever others don't "know their
> place" as assigned by their race or (in this case) gender.
>
> Yet despite our fatigue, here we both are. Isn't aviation a wonderful
> melting pot? :)

Some of use so-called bigots have quarrel with 'deviancy' or whatever but are
merely dismayed about a trampling of process and judicial codes. Apparently
procedure is maleable when inconvenient depending on the issue.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> When you stop, please do it for at least 5 minutes.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> Please stop.
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
> >>
> >> > A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
> >> > --
> >> > Jay Honeck
> >
> > I was merely responding to your eloquent posts, Mike, like "should be
> > obvious," "wadda marroon," inter alia.

Unlike yourself? You seem to hold yourself to much different standards. I
guess that is called 'tolerance.' ;)

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.

Nice generalization, Mike. But what would Pete say? :)

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 06:05:36 -0800, Jay Honeck wrote:
> I don't believe that's going to be true much longer. EVERYONE in the US
> either books on-line, or searches on-line, nowadays.
>
> Personally, I use the internet to find a hotel, and then I call them.
> (Don't EVER stay at a hotel/motel that doesn't list their *local*
> telephone number, by the way. Those national reservation call centers
> are a clue that you are dealing with McSuites.)
>
> You can always, always, ALWAYS drive a better price by talking to the
> manager or owner, than you can get on-line, because he (like me) would
> much rather give YOU the 15% that we have to pay the on-line booking
> agencies.

I went to Florida for a 2 week dive trip last year... I made no
reservations beforehand since I was planning on just winging it...
Wherever I happened to be that day, I would just find a hotel for the
night... I encountered hotels who would not give me the same rate that I
could get via booking their room via one of the online sites... So, I
drove around the neighborhood, found an open wireless internet connection
and booked it... In one case, the online site brought up a competitor that
was an even better deal, so the hotel actually lost my business... Maybe I
wasn't speaking to the owner or manager, but since they appeared to be
Indian, I at least had a good reason to assume that they were... <grin>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:23:46 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:
> I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will if it comes down to "me
> or them."

Or "my car radio or them"...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800, karl gruber wrote:
> When you finally come out west you and Mary should stop here on the way.
> Flight plan to land here with 1.5 hrs gas.
> http://www.ruralnetwork.net/johnsoncreek/

What's all that white **** on the ground?

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:26:33 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:
> Next thing you will claim is normal is bestiality

Go Aggies !!!!
http://www.aggieathletics.com/

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 14:18:30 -0500, mike regish wrote:
> No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.

The best you can hope for is a *dead* Muslim...

[Doug Spencer]

Yes, the Field of Dreams is still there. I got photos of it this past
summer and placed them at http://www.securitybulletins.com/fod/ . There
were players on the field and a game going on at the time I flew over.

Doug

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800
"karl gruber" > wrote:

> Jay,
>
> Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of Dreams"
> still there?) may be OK, but it will (and does)KILL you in some of the

--
For UNIX, Linux and security articles
visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Gary Drescher]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> In 1999, Ms Marshall had made direct remarks about praising legislation on
> an
> issue and favoring "jurisprudence" on the issue. She later wrote an
> opinion on
> the same issue.

Remarks about gay marriage? Do you have a citation, please?

>> Is *that* a disqualifying point of view for a judge? Is someone eligible
>> to
>> be a judge only if she *has no opinion* as to whether gays (or blacks or
>> Jews) should be equal before the law?
>
> It is not proper for judges to hear cases on which they have announced
> personal
> biases in the issue.

Does a simple public statement that gays (or blacks or Jews) should be
treated equally before the law automatically disqualify a judge from hearing
civil rights cases regarding the group in question, in your opinion?

>> How come most other states didn't recognize the right of interracial
>> couples
>> to marry a hundred years ago? How come no country in the world recognized
>> the right of women to vote until the latter 1800s?
>>
>> Ancient prejudices can persist for a long time, but previous
>> nonrecognition
>> of basic rights does not undermine moral entitlement to those rights.
>
> That's fine. If such a right does indeed exist, than there are appropriate
> facilities to deal with that.

There are indeed, including the judicial overturning of laws that
unconstitutionally trample individual rights.

>> > I'm also curious if it is such a basic right, how come
>> > it is more special than the constitutional process? Following your
>> > logic,
>> > the
>> > 13th amendment (and the first and all of them really) were gravely
>> > harmful
>> > to
>> > make.
>>
>> Huh? What I said was harmful is a referendum (even if it doesn't pass)
>> that
>> singles out a minority group for a repeal of a basic right under the
>> constitution. If you're "following my logic", how do you conclude that
>> the
>> 13th amendment or the Bill of Rights meets that criterion?
>
> Passing the 13th amendment followed the appropriate documented procedure
> to do
> so. Passing a state constitution amendment would also follow the
> appropriate
> procedure to do so.

You're exhibiting a most peculiar form of reasoning here. I said that event
A is harmful because it has property X. You're replying that if that were
true, then it would somehow follow that event B is also harmful (even though
B does not have property X) because A and B share some other property Y.

(A=anti-gay-marriage referendum; B=13th amendment; X=referendum to repeal
basic constitutional right of a minority group; Y=amendment enacted
according to prescribed procedure)

>> > If
>> > there was so much debate in the legislature, and the legislature was so
>> > favorable to gay marriage, then why on earth did it take a Court to
>> > create
>> > this
>> > "right?"
>>
>> At the time of the court ruling, a majority of the legislature did not
>> favor
>> gay marriage. It is now years later; several anti-gay-marriage
>> legislators
>> were ousted in subsequent elections, and others have been persuaded to
>> change their minds. (Since you youself acknowledge that there's no reason
>> not to have equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, you shouldn't be
>> surprised that more voters and legislators have come to be convinced of
>> that
>> view.)
>
> If that's true, it's fine. But that doesn't justify shutting down a
> constitutional process after people did everything necessary to have that
> process followed.

The "shutting down" was itself accomplished by a lawful, constitutional
process (namely, a majority vote of the legislature to adjourn).

>> And by the way, courts and legislatures *recognize* rights (or not); they
>> don't "create" rights, at least in the moral sense. Rights are inherent,
>> and
>> governments and citizens have a moral obligation to craft their laws
>> accordingly. (Hence, for example, slavery was wrong even when it was
>> legal.)
>
> Then by your definition, there is a "right" to marry same sex in every
> state in
> the country, not just Massachusetts, and indeed any country in the world.

In the moral sense, absolutely (just as there is a moral right for
interracial or interfaith couples to marry, or for women to vote or drive
cars, even if local laws abrogate those rights).

>> Do you also disagree with the state and federal court rulings supporting
>> interracial-marriage rights in Perez v. Sharp or Loving v. Virgina? Or
>> should the courts have permitted states to prohibit interracial marriage
>> (and sentence interracial couples to jail) until a majority of their
>> citizens were ready to respect equal rights?
>
> Those laws were written out of prejudice, when blacks were not able to
> vote,
> could not have certain jobs, could not use certain schools, certain
> facilities,
> and indeed even certain restrooms. Those indeed were civil rights.

So in the absence of those injustices, you would not have considered it
appropriate for the courts to overturn laws that prohibited (or imposed jail
sentences for) interracial marriages?

> Equal rights? People who describe themselves as gay have a higher than
> average
> income and have a political power much greater than their their population
> numbers, compared to other people.

Huh? Jews, on average, have higher than average income and education too.
Does that mean that a constitutional amendment to prevent Jews from marrying
(or otherwise curtailing Jews' civil rights) shouldn't be construed as a
serious violation of equal rights?

> Curiously, at least one high school in the country, in New York City, has
> decided to be exclusively for gay students. Should straight high school
> students not enjoy the same right to go there?

No, your representation is wildly false. The Harvey Milk School in NYC was
established to provide an environment that is safe for gay students
(shamefully, not all public schools have that property). But there is
absolutely no requirement to be gay in order to attend the school.

> By what measure do they determine if someone is gay or straight?

They have no such measure because they make no such determination because
they have no such requirement. You're just making that up (or passing along
someone else's fabrication).

>> > Margaret Marshall, an African-American even admitted that she derived
>> > her
>> > opinion on South African law. Silly me, I thought a Massachusetts
>> > supreme
>> > court
>> > would base its opinions on Massachusetts law, or even US law.
>>
>> Uh, what "admission" are you referring to? The majority decision in
>> Goodridge was explicitly grounded in the state constitution, and in an
>> extensive body of case law in Massachusetts and the US.
>
> This occurred after the opinion was written. There are no mention of it
> in the
> decision, of course.

Where is the alleged remark documented, please?

>> > Also, please explain why the Lesbian member of the supreme court voted
>> > AGAINST
>> > the gay marriage enactment, since you say this is a basic "right?"
>>
>> The dissenting opinions are clearly explained in the decision itself.
>> (How
>> is a dissenter's sexual orientation relevant?)
>
> When people who do not agree with Goodridge vs. Board-o-Health are
> ridiculed as
> merely "bigots" and -phobes, it certainly is.

Your question just above clearly asserts some connection between the
dissenter's sexual orientation and the legitimacy of the right that I
allege. But now you're backpedaling, claiming you were just rebutting
someone else's accusation of bigotry in some other conversation (even though
I myself made no such accusation about you).

> Since the organization received income from the $60.00/plate event, yes.
> If
> Dick Cheney speaks at a dinner to raise income, say also for $60.00 per
> plate,
> would that not be a "fundraiser?" even if someone tries claiming
> otherwise
> after the fact?

The question is whether an annual bar association dinner (that incidentally
charges an admission fee) counts as a "fundraiser" for purposes of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, according to previously established precedent.

>> To me, saying there's no harm caused by such a referendum is like saying
>> there's no harm caused by someone pointing a gun at a bystander's face
>> and
>> pulling the trigger, as long as it turns out that the gun wasn't loaded
>> (in
>> fact, the law recognizes that such an act still constitutes a serious
>> assault).
>
> A public debate is *NOT* an assault! It is not battery, it is not
> pointing a
> weapon at anyone's face or body. Debates have always been absolutely
> essential
> to the institution of democracy. If we squelch debates by claiming that
> they
> are too harmful to have, then we start killing off democracy.

First, we're talking about a binding referendum, not a debate. Nothing
prevents debate from continuing.

Second, you're misconstruing my analogy. Of course the referendum is not an
assault in the legal sense, and of course attempts to hold the referendum
should not be subject to any sort of legal penalty. My point is simply that
in both cases, an attempt to injure others (whether physically or by a
repeal of civil rights) can be harmful in and of itself (contrary to your
claim), even if the attempted injury is not accomplished.

> But halting a constitutional process is NOT support for gay marriage!
> There
> would be ample time for each legislator to vote support/no support of gay
> marriage if the process was followed.

In the absence of an adjournment, only 25% of the legislature would need to
vote for the referendum in order to put it on the ballot. The majority of
the legislature voted instead to adjourn. Whether or not you believe in the
legitimacy of that maneuver, the vote was clearly a proxy for the question
of gay marriage rights: there'd be no reason to vote for adjournment except
to protect those rights. So the vote clearly shows that a majority of the
legislature supports gay marriage rights.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> >>"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > Frankly I am just tired of trying to normalize deviancy.
>>
>> And I'm tired of bigots crying 'deviancy' whenever others don't "know
>> their
>> place" as assigned by their race or (in this case) gender.
>
> Some of [us] so-called bigots have [no] quarrel with 'deviancy' or
> whatever but are
> merely dismayed about a trampling of process and judicial codes.

Assuming I've correctly reconstructed your typo-mangled sentence above,
please note that my remark was clearly directed at Ron, not you. As much as
I disagree with many of your views, you have not resorted to bigoted slurs
or other personal insults in our conversation; you present contentful
arguments instead of ad hominem attacks.

Furthermore, I understand that there is a legitimate procedural concern
regarding the vote to adjourn. But I believe there is also a legitimate
principle that basic civil rights should be respected even in defiance of a
majority; and therefore a repeal of a basic right for a particular minority
group is not properly subject to a referendum. These two legitimate
principles conflict here. For me, the latter principle prevails, but I
understand how a reasonable person might disagree.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
>> > hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize
>> > that
>> > there
>> > were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them,
>> > hastily.
>> > And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their
>> > friends
>> > in
>> > Italy, Albania, etc. first.
>>
>> But only after Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US immediately
>> after
>> Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not declare war on the US after Sept. 11 (and Iraq
>> had no alliance with al Qaeda; in fact, they were mutual enemies). Being
>> attacked by one party does not automatically entitle you to wage war on
>> other parties of your choice.
>
> So you're saying that we only went to war with Germany b/c they declared
> war on
> USA? So if they had NOT formerly declared war on USA we wouldn't have
> gone to
> war with Germany or that we weren't "entitled?" Good luck advancing that
> story.

There extensive alliance with Japan might have sufficed. But there was no
alliance between al Qaeda and Iraq; if anything, they were enemies.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
>
> The best you can hope for is a *dead* Muslim...

You are beneath contempt.

[mike regish]

Not at the moment.

Though you might want to try snipping and top posting.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you say so. Any other accusations that you would like to make from
> your pulpit of "tolerance?" :-)
>
>

[The Visitor]

karl gruber wrote:

> Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of Dreams"
> still there?) may be OK, but it will (and does)KILL you in some of the
> mountain strips in the west.

What bites the pilots is not taking the T.O. or landing weight into
account when doing so. Not simply carrying it around.

John

[mike regish]

You do realize I'm talking about breathing?

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> When you stop, please do it for at least 5 minutes.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> >
>> > mike regish wrote:
>> >
>> >> Agreed.
>> >>
>> >> Please stop.
>> >>
>> >> mike
>> >>
>> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
>> >>
>> >> > A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
>> >> > --
>> >> > Jay Honeck

[mike regish]

No such thing as a non-radical in any religion AFAIC.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.
>
> Nice generalization, Mike. But what would Pete say? :)
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.

I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
post, for example:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/ebed72116dcbb99a

More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
used. There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
you.

> [...]
> If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
> But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
> generalizations are offensive."

I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

>> You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
>> archived it.
>
> I wrote what words, Pete?

From this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/8f6c40345ef84ce4

"You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
so?"

When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
yourself why it is true. And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

Pete

[karl gruber[_1_]]

Doug,

great shots...............Thanks,

Karl
I loved that movie!



"Doug Spencer" > wrote in message
news:20061112153100.4b350cd4.usenetmail@securitybu lletins.com...
> Yes, the Field of Dreams is still there. I got photos of it this past
> summer and placed them at http://www.securitybulletins.com/fod/ . There
> were players on the field and a game going on at the time I flew over.
>
> Doug
>
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800
> "karl gruber" > wrote:
>
>> Jay,
>>
>> Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of
>> Dreams"
>> still there?) may be OK, but it will (and does)KILL you in some of the
>
> --
> For UNIX, Linux and security articles
> visit http://SecurityBulletins.com/

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:37:20 -0500, Gary Drescher wrote:
> You are beneath contempt.

Thank you...

[Judah]

Jessica Taylor > wrote in
:

> "Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
> Harbor's bombing.
....
> No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of
> historical reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their
> turf away from North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of

The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on Iraq
was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind moving the
war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is. We should have flattened
Afghanistan, and dealt with Iraq separately, in cooperation with our
allies.

All Arabs are not the same.

> these same countries that you claim we lost credibility with are also
> the same nations that did NOTHING for years and years while their
> neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty (...sounds familiar) and
> building up a military, arms, strategic infrastructure, etc. That
> eventually uncontained neighbor than caused unprecedented catastrophes
> and human suffering. Today, technology does not require any such large
> military or arms to create such catastrophes and human suffering. If
> the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would ?

The UN WAS taking steps. GW just didn't think they were tough enough. When
he presented his case to the UN, they told him it wasn't time yet. He
didn't want to listen and did it anyway. Eventually, if Iraq really was to
become a threat, the UN reaction would have adjusted appropriately.

> We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from
> Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq
> was on its way to building such technology. Since then, we have found

Korea was closer to building such technology.

> Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center
> bombing, embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists
> learned in Somalia that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces),
> they will run away.

So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country. How
is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

> Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with
> more bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing
> but defiance and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds
> familiar).

And were the results in 2003 really all that much different? It just moved
the enemy back underground and made them harder to find.

> To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may
> hail from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back
> in power. But I'm glad he's offline.

Your racism is showing.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> You do realize I'm talking about breathing?
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> When you stop, please do it for at least 5 minutes.
> >>
> >> mike
> >>
> >> >
> >> > mike regish wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Agreed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Please stop.
> >> >>
> >> >> mike
> >> >>
> >> >> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
> >> >>
> >> >> > A valiant effort, Jessica, but you're truly wasting your breath...
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > Jay Honeck

Keep you sharing your version of so-called "tolerance," Mike, you are quite
the farcical one. And I'm the "bigot!" ;-)

[Jessica Taylor]

Judah wrote:

> Jessica Taylor > wrote in
> :
>
> > "Eventually" with respect to Hong Kong was just a few weeks after Pearl
> > Harbor's bombing.
> ...
> > No doubt about it, Iraq is a very tough situation, for a lot of
> > historical reasons. But by taking the fight of Al-Quaeda back to their
> > turf away from North America, a tide was turned. Remember that many of
>
> The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on Iraq
> was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind moving the
> war to Iraq put it on "their turf".

Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument cannot be
made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.

>
>
> Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.

Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was attacked (I
know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide bombers were funded by
Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.

>

> We should have flattened
> Afghanistan, and dealt with Iraq separately, in cooperation with our
> allies.
>
> All Arabs are not the same.

Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.

>
>
> > these same countries that you claim we lost credibility with are also
> > the same nations that did NOTHING for years and years while their
> > neighbor was spitting on a peace treaty (...sounds familiar) and
> > building up a military, arms, strategic infrastructure, etc. That
> > eventually uncontained neighbor than caused unprecedented catastrophes
> > and human suffering. Today, technology does not require any such large
> > military or arms to create such catastrophes and human suffering. If
> > the UN would not enforce the cease-fire with Baghdad, who would ?
>
> The UN WAS taking steps. GW just didn't think they were tough enough. When
> he presented his case to the UN, they told him it wasn't time yet. He
> didn't want to listen and did it anyway. Eventually, if Iraq really was to
> become a threat, the UN reaction would have adjusted appropriately.
>
> > We also had intelligence, not only from our own agencies, but from
> > Russia, France, Germany, United Kingdom etc. that suggested that Iraq
> > was on its way to building such technology. Since then, we have found
>
> Korea was closer to building such technology.

I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to see a
war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges above.

>
>
> > Keep in mind, during the 1990s, we had a New York World Trade Center
> > bombing, embassies attacked/bombed, ships attacked. etc. Terrorists
> > learned in Somalia that by attacking US forces (even under UN forces),
> > they will run away.
>
> So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country. How
> is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.

Laughing to the grave.

>
>
> > Do not forget that Baghdad was bombed severely by the USA in 1998 (with
> > more bombs than the entire 1991 gulf war) and this accomplished nothing
> > but defiance and more spitting on the 1991 peace treaty (..sounds
> > familiar).
>
> And were the results in 2003 really all that much different? It just moved
> the enemy back underground and made them harder to find.

If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why wasn't the
enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?

>
>
> > To me the only good terrorist is a good one, I don't care where they may
> > hail from. Perhaps it would be better to have a murdering dictator back
> > in power. But I'm glad he's offline.
>
> Your racism is showing.

In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal murdering
dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population control-- not
being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a Nazi and a sexist
too! :)

[Jessica Taylor]

Gary Drescher wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Gary Drescher wrote:
> >
> >> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did the USA just find Japan, and
> >> > hunt them down and forget about anything else? No! We did realize
> >> > that
> >> > there
> >> > were other threats out there, and we better start to deal with them,
> >> > hastily.
> >> > And actually the USA defended Europe from Nazi Germany and their
> >> > friends
> >> > in
> >> > Italy, Albania, etc. first.
> >>
> >> But only after Japan's ally Germany declared war on the US immediately
> >> after
> >> Pearl Harbor. Iraq did not declare war on the US after Sept. 11 (and Iraq
> >> had no alliance with al Qaeda; in fact, they were mutual enemies). Being
> >> attacked by one party does not automatically entitle you to wage war on
> >> other parties of your choice.
> >
> > So you're saying that we only went to war with Germany b/c they declared
> > war on
> > USA? So if they had NOT formerly declared war on USA we wouldn't have
> > gone to
> > war with Germany or that we weren't "entitled?" Good luck advancing that
> > story.
>
> There extensive alliance with Japan might have sufficed. But there was no
> alliance between al Qaeda and Iraq; if anything, they were enemies.

So we should only go after our enemies if they have alliances first? By the
way, Iraq was in violation of its cease-fire agreement from 1991 many times
over. So they ended the cease-fire, not anyone else.

I'm sure you were just as outraged about the bombings of Iraq by USA in 1996 and
1998, right?

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> No such thing as a non-radical in any religion AFAIC.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > mike regish wrote:
> >
> >> No such thing as a non-radical Muslim.
> >
> > Nice generalization, Mike. But what would Pete say? :)
> >

Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
Laden?

[mike regish]

I don't believe the Dalai believes in an old guy in the clouds who watches
everything we do.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>
> Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
> Laden?
>

[mike regish]

Farcical...I like that.

mike

[Jessica Taylor]

Peter Duniho wrote:

> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You certainly didn't identify any certain types of generalizations.
>
> I absolutely did so. You just didn't bother to read it. Here is one such
> post, for example:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.piloting/msg/ebed72116dcbb99a

Peter: "blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place."
Peter: "I find it amazing that I should have to explain why a blanket
generalization is offensive"

So here is a blanket generalization: Spring flowers are pretty.
Can you actually support your statement that blanket generalizations (which you
carefully identified as a separate type of generalization) is offensive without
"finding it amazing" that you might actually be asked to explain your reasoning?

>
>
> More generally, it has been plainly clear throughout this thread that the
> kinds of generalizations at question here are the insulting sort that Jay
> used.

Perhaps, but you said "generalizations are so offensive." Perhaps you meant to
say that "insulting ___ are offensive?" If that's the case, then the offensive
item is the insult, not the generalization as you stated above.


> There is no reason to discuss any other kind of generalization, nor
> should it be necessary for a person to qualify the kind of generalization
> each and every time a generalization is mentioned.

It would certainly help you from making more of your false generalizations about
generalizations.

>
>
> I can think of only two reasons for you to fail to understand this. Either
> you are simply intellectually incapable of understanding it, or you are
> intentionally being obtuse just for the sake of your own argument. In
> either case, there's really not much point in wasting time explaining it to
> you.

You keep falsely accusing me of not understanding something, yet you have been
unable to justify what you said. You said that generalizations are offensive.
You said blanket generalizations are so offensive. When I provide evidence to
the contrary, your response is to create another fallacy.
You are good at providing examples of fallacies though such as calling me
idiotic (Poisoning the Well fallacy), complex questions, begging the question,
and now the false dichotomy above.

>
>
> > [...]
> > If it makes you happy, you can have whatever in your mind that you please.
> > But you did claim that "you are the one who could not understand how
> > generalizations are offensive."
>
> I did not "claim" that. I simply reiterated your own post.

I don't believe something is offensive just because it is a generalization. You
stated that generalizations are "so offensive." Again, that statement is not
always true.

>
>
> >> You wrote the words. You can try to deny it now, but Google has already
> >> archived it.
> >
> > I wrote what words, Pete?
>
> From this post:
>

There are lots of words in the post, which ones are you discussing? If you take
the time to read what you cite, you will learn that I stated no such thing that
you claim, to wit that I "admitted" not understanding some concept....



>
>
> "You were claiming that blanket generalizations are "so offensive." How
> so?"
>
> When you ask why something is true, you are admitting that you do not know
> yourself why it is true.

Absolutely not true, and another false dichotomy fallacy. I was admitting no
such thing, additionally your premise is false. I was asking you to explain
yourself. Instead of doing so, you prefer to claim I am "admitting" some of
your nonsense.

> And as I said, if you do not comprehend this
> fundamental aspect of common social respect, you are incapable of
> understanding the more specific applications of the question. It would be
> like trying to explain calculus to someone that doesn't know how to add.

I comprehend just fine, Peter. I am not the one who thinks blanket
generalizations need be offensive. Furthermore, I don't resort to just blindly
claiming that somebody said something which they clearly did not say or
manufacturer fallacies. .

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> Not at the moment.
>
> Though you might want to try snipping and top posting.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > If you say so. Any other accusations that you would like to make from
> > your pulpit of "tolerance?" :-)
> >
> >

I believe top posting is poor form for Usenet posts.

[Jessica Taylor]

mike regish wrote:

> I don't believe the Dalai believes in an old guy in the clouds who watches
> everything we do.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >
> > Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
> > Laden?
> >

How is that relevant? You said "No such thing as a non-radical in any
religion AFAIC," and didn't bring up any old guys, or young guys for that
matter (until now.)

[Ron Lee]

Jessica Taylor > wrote:

>mike regish wrote:
>
>> I don't believe the Dalai believes in an old guy in the clouds who watches
>> everything we do.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >
>> >
>> > Define "radical" then. The Dalai Lama is in your same category as bin
>> > Laden?
>> >
>
>How is that relevant? You said "No such thing as a non-radical in any
>religion AFAIC," and didn't bring up any old guys, or young guys for that
>matter (until now.)
>
Apparently Mike thinks that anyone who has a religion is a radical.
Seems somewhat "intolerant" or "bigoted" to me (according to Mike's
way of thinking).

Ron Lee

[Ron Lee]

>Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument cannot be
>made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.

Anyone objective person can look at the words of liberals in the USA
and note that they are the true racists (along with many black folks
who spew venom and hatred). Plus liberals enact policies that
promote disfunctional black families that then leads to poverty,
crime, etc. People can improve their lives if they stay in committed
man/woman relationships, only raise kids that they can afford, take on
the responsibility to ensure that the kids are ejumakated and teach
them right from wrong.

Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.

Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
events?

Ron Lee

[Judah]

Jessica Taylor > wrote in
:

> Judah wrote:
>> The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on
>> Iraq was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind
>> moving the war to Iraq put it on "their turf".
>
> Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument
> cannot be made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.

Oh please is right. Your immediate dismissal of my argument is based on the
fact that you have absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in Iraq who
was directly responsible for terrorism in the US.

>> Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.
>
> Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was
> attacked (I know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide
> bombers were funded by Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.

Al Queda is in Iraq? Where? In Hussein's palace? In the streets of Baghdad?
Cause that's pretty much all we got.

The Suicide Bombers families who were awarded monies by Iraq were for Suicide
Bombers in Israel.

Afghanistan was attacked because that was where the enemy was hiding and
organizing. Instead of focusing our resources on the war there, though, GW
attempted to divert attention and win popularity with "a quick and easy win"
in Iraq. His superego let him think that he could walk in and finish the job
in a week and move on back to Afghanistan, and everyone would think he was a
hero for it.

>> All Arabs are not the same.
>
> Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is
testament to your belief, regardless of what you actually said.

> I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to
> see a war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges
> above.

My point is that Iraq was not an immediate threat, and we had many more
immediate threats that we should have dealt with first, including North
Korea.

>> So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country.
>> How is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.
>
> Laughing to the grave.

Sure, because the US has an exemplary record for finding and killing
terrorists who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, don't they.

> If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why
> wasn't the enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?

Because this country, including the Bush administration, didn't take them
seriously until 9/11.

> In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal
> murdering dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population
> control-- not being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a
> Nazi and a sexist too! :)

I don't know you well enough to call you names.

I personally don't favor brutal murdering dictators. But I don't believe it
is in this country's best interests to focus our limited military resources
on distractions that are being managed by our allies when we have more
important and immediate business to resolve.

Do you believe we should send troops to Cuba to get Castro now that he's
down? After all, he's a brutal murdering dictator, too. I hear there are lots
of brutal murdering dictators in African countries too, like Rwanda. Maybe
you believe we should send troops to the outer boundaries of the planet to
police all the brutal murdering dictators out there? Perhaps you should
enlist so you can go out and take care of this ASAP.

I believe we have limited military resources, and we better start using them
wisely. IMHO Iraq was not a demonstration of prudent use of military
resources. I'm not disappointed with some of the results, certainly. But
because of poor planning and poor use of resources by this administration,
we've got unfinished jobs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially North
Korea as well. We would have been better off letting the UN Inspectors play
cat and mouse with Hussein for a few more years until we demolished Al Queda
in Afghanistan, and put the face of fear back into the terrorists for f^*%ing
with the USA, whose concentrated powers are impregnable.

IMHO, the President of the most powerful country in the world shouldn't do
things half-assed. It weakens the country.

[Jessica Taylor]

Judah wrote:

> Jessica Taylor > wrote in
> :
>
> > Judah wrote:
> >> The point is that regardless of the justification used, the attack on
> >> Iraq was about racism and vengence. You have it, because in your mind
> >> moving the war to Iraq put it on "their turf".
> >
> > Oh please. There's the R word again. Whenever a legitimate argument
> > cannot be made, I've noticed that "racism" charges seep out.
>
> Oh please is right. Your immediate dismissal of my argument is based on the
> fact that you have absolutely no evidence that there was anyone in Iraq who
> was directly responsible for terrorism in the US.

You didn't put forth an argument, other than make an unsubstantiated claim that
"Iraq was about racism."

>
>
> >> Iraq is not Al-Queda's turf. Afghanistan is.
> >
> > Even if that was singularily true, you missed that Afghanistan was
> > attacked (I know, how "racist"), Al queada is in Iraq, and suicide
> > bombers were funded by Iraq, and terrorists did in fact exist in Iraq.
>
> Al Queda is in Iraq? Where? In Hussein's palace? In the streets of Baghdad?
> Cause that's pretty much all we got.

Apparently you never had heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

>
>
> The Suicide Bombers families who were awarded monies by Iraq were for Suicide
> Bombers in Israel.

I believe Israel is an ally of the United States.

>
>
> Afghanistan was attacked because that was where the enemy was hiding and
> organizing. Instead of focusing our resources on the war there, though, GW
> attempted to divert attention and win popularity with "a quick and easy win"
> in Iraq. His superego let him think that he could walk in and finish the job
> in a week and move on back to Afghanistan, and everyone would think he was a
> hero for it

And Iraq was attacked for numerous reasons. Depending on far distances and
oceans to protect America from threatening regimes, no matter what their name,
was no longer seen as an option. Iraq had been breaking numerous UN resolutions
and also a cease-fire. Numerous intelligence agencies, American and from around
the globe were pointing to Iraq as building mass weapons. Iraq (and not anyone
else) ended the war cease-fire.


>

>
>
> >> All Arabs are not the same.
> >
> > Sure, but I never said otherwise. Nice strawman.
>
> The fact that you can't tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan is
> testament to your belief, regardless of what you actually said.

I certainly "tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan" and never said
otherwise. Your remark is a strawman.

>
>
> > I suspect you mean North Korea. So, what is your point, you wanted to
> > see a war against Korea first? Would that absolve your "racist" charges
> > above.
>
> My point is that Iraq was not an immediate threat, and we had many more
> immediate threats that we should have dealt with first, including North
> Korea.

Noboydy said it was an immediate threat, least of all me. How would you have
dealt with North Korea? Hopefully not in a "racist" way!

>
>
> >> So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's country.
> >> How is that any better. If I'm the terrorist, I'm laughing even harder.
> >
> > Laughing to the grave.
>
> Sure, because the US has an exemplary record for finding and killing
> terrorists who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, don't they.

Ask Zarqawi and Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah

>
>
> > If the enemy was so above ground and easy to find before 2003, why
> > wasn't the enemy found/destroyed in 1993? In 1996? In 1998? In 2000?
>
> Because this country, including the Bush administration, didn't take them
> seriously until 9/11.

Perhaps, but the Bush administration was just getting started in 2001, and
cabinet appointees had been stalled earlier in the year as well.

>
>
> > In other words you have no legitimate argument. Yes, favoring brutal
> > murdering dictators --who use rape rooms and ear lobbing for population
> > control-- not being in power is "racist." I'll bet I'm a xenophobe and a
> > Nazi and a sexist too! :)
>
> I don't know you well enough to call you names.

Didn't stop you from using the "racism" card!

>
>
> I personally don't favor brutal murdering dictators. But I don't believe it
> is in this country's best interests to focus our limited military resources
> on distractions that are being managed by our allies when we have more
> important and immediate business to resolve.

Hmm., I didn't see you complain about the previous administration bombing Baghdad
in 1998 with more bombs than the 1991 gulf war! Perhaps I just missed that. Did
you object to Israel's aerial bombing of Iraq circa 1981? Imagine what the
results would be today if military action had not been taken.

>
>
> Do you believe we should send troops to Cuba to get Castro now that he's
> down? After all, he's a brutal murdering dictator, too. I hear there are lots
> of brutal murdering dictators in African countries too, like Rwanda. Maybe
> you believe we should send troops to the outer boundaries of the planet to
> police all the brutal murdering dictators out there? Perhaps you should
> enlist so you can go out and take care of this ASAP.

I believe that John Kennedy did send ships around Cuba. Nowadays, he hasn't
broken any major UN agreements or cease-fires, that I'm aware of. S. Hussein's
Iraq did. If you want to go into Rwanda, perhaps we can put that on the to-do
list.

>
>
> I believe we have limited military resources, and we better start using them
> wisely. IMHO Iraq was not a demonstration of prudent use of military
> resources. I'm not disappointed with some of the results, certainly. But
> because of poor planning and poor use of resources by this administration,
> we've got unfinished jobs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now potentially North
> Korea as well. We would have been better off letting the UN Inspectors play
> cat and mouse with Hussein for a few more years

Can't do that if they are kicked out of country.

> until we demolished Al Queda
> in Afghanistan, and put the face of fear back into the terrorists for f^*%ing
> with the USA, whose concentrated powers are impregnable.
>
> IMHO, the President of the most powerful country in the world shouldn't do
> things half-assed. It weakens the country.

Again, what would you had done to prevent "unfinished jobs" in N Korea? The
previous administration had attempted to make deals with a dictator there, which
we've learned from experience doesn't work. So the "peaceful" nuclear
engineering soon became another war machine, predicatable to many but not the
then President. So now we have to deal with that.

[Jay Honeck]

> Carrying around 300 pounds of extra weight in Iowa (is the "Field of Dreams"
> still there?)

Yep, it's still in Dyersville, about a 2 hour motorcycle ride from
here. Each year when I take my kids cycle camping, we always try to
stop there. Each time we have, there's been a pick-up baseball game in
progress. It's a cool place. (Dyersville is also home of ERTL,
makers of metal die-cast airplanes, tractors and cars. There are a
couple of die-cast toy outlet stores in town that are a lot of fun to
visit.)

> When you finally come out west you and Mary should stop here on the way.
> Flight plan to land here with 1.5 hrs gas.
> http://www.ruralnetwork.net/johnsoncreek/
> Your 235 would be right at home here and the grass is kept like a golf
> course. They even split wood for your campfire.

Sounds wonderful! Some day...

> I know you don't see much difference in the handling of your Cherokee, but
> that's because it's tactile flying qualities are low. My Cessna isn't much
> better, but reducing weight significantly improves feel. A light airplane is
> not only more fun to fly, but also safer. If you REALLY, TRULY were
> concerned about fuel you'd install a fuel flow transducer and connect it to
> the GPS. Once calibrated, these devices are uncannily accurate.

I believe you. (And we do have the JPI FS450 fuel-flow meter in the
plane. It's a nice gauge...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 16:37:20 -0500, Gary Drescher wrote:
>> You are beneath contempt.
>
> Thank you...

Female superior?

[Jay Honeck]

> Wherever I happened to be that day, I would just find a hotel for the
> night... I encountered hotels who would not give me the same rate that I
> could get via booking their room via one of the online sites... So, I
> drove around the neighborhood, found an open wireless internet connection
> and booked it... In one case, the online site brought up a competitor that
> was an even better deal, so the hotel actually lost my business... Maybe I
> wasn't speaking to the owner or manager, but since they appeared to be
> Indian, I at least had a good reason to assume that they were... <grin>

This is a sign of dealing with an econobox chain McMotel. The chains
will often offer cheaper rates on line than the local "manager" (really
just a clerk) can offer. Whenever this is the case, run.

Real, owner-run hotels will always offer you a better deal -- because
they *can*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Judah]

Jessica Taylor > wrote in
:

> You didn't put forth an argument, other than make an unsubstantiated
> claim that "Iraq was about racism."

No, I said that the attack on Iraq was about racism and vengence.

> Apparently you never had heard of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Heard of him. He wasn't Al Qaeda until 2004, though...

>> The Suicide Bombers families who were awarded monies by Iraq were for
>> Suicide Bombers in Israel.
>
> I believe Israel is an ally of the United States.

Indeed. But suicide bombings started in Israel with the Intifada in 1989.
And Israel does a perfectly fine job of arresting and assassinating
terrorist leaders. Are you saying that the war in Iraq was an event that
had been planned since 1989 to assist our ally Israel?

> And Iraq was attacked for numerous reasons. Depending on far distances
> and oceans to protect America from threatening regimes, no matter what
> their name, was no longer seen as an option. Iraq had been breaking
> numerous UN resolutions and also a cease-fire. Numerous intelligence
> agencies, American and from around the globe were pointing to Iraq as
> building mass weapons. Iraq (and not anyone else) ended the war
> cease-fire.

Iraq had been breaking UN Resolutions for some time. But the fact is that
the period just prior to the attack was a period during which Iraq showed
the most diplomacy with the UN and specifically UNMOVIC since 1991. Sure it
wasn't perfect, but certainly it wasn't leading to an imminent attack by
Iraq on the US.

The proof of this lies in the lack of WMDs.

> I certainly "tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan" and never
> said otherwise. Your remark is a strawman.

You seem to think they are both the turf of Al Qaeda just because they are
both Arab countries that harbor terrorism.

> Noboydy said it was an immediate threat, least of all me. How would you
> have dealt with North Korea? Hopefully not in a "racist" way!

I'm not sure what you mean by a "racist" way. That doesn't make sense.

We are going to have to deal with North Korea as a threat, since they are
testing nuclear weapons. Certainly threats from our weakened military
haven't worked, and we're just lucky that they didn't get it right the
first time.

>> >> So now instead of running away, we demolished their neighbor's
>> Sure, because the US has an exemplary record for finding and killing
>> terrorists who are hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, don't they.
>
> Ask Zarqawi and Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah

Zarqawi wasn't killed in Afghanistan. And Atwah wasn't either, but it
should be noted that Atwah was killed by Pakistani, not American forces.

> Perhaps, but the Bush administration was just getting started in 2001,
> and cabinet appointees had been stalled earlier in the year as well.

Talk about your lame excuses.

> Didn't stop you from using the "racism" card!

I don't believe I called you a racist. I just said that the attack was
motivated by racism, among other things. I separately indicated that you
made comments that seemed racist.

> Hmm., I didn't see you complain about the previous administration
> bombing Baghdad in 1998 with more bombs than the 1991 gulf war! Perhaps
> I just missed that. Did you object to Israel's aerial bombing of Iraq
> circa 1981? Imagine what the results would be today if military action
> had not been taken.

The Israel attack in 1981 was on a Nuclear Power Plant believed to be
designed to build Nuclear Weapons. It was a single attack on a strategic
target. It was not designed to convert the entire country to a Democracy.

The 1991 gulf war had a very specific purpose of pushing Iraq out of
Kuwait. The 42 day war involved strategic attacks on military and
infastructural targets. It was not an attempt to convert the entire country
to a Democracy.

The 1998 attacks were specifically to force Iraq to allow inspectors in,
which they did. It was not an attempt to convert the entire country to a
Democracy.

Those attacks were successful! They were strategic, targetted attacks that
resulted in compliance and fear by the enemy. None of them were designed to
overthrow a government or force a government to convert to democracy.

The attack in 2003 was essentially an American Jihad on Iraq. An attempt by
the United States and Britian to convert Iraq to a democracy by the
sword... It almost worked - they have a democratically elected government
and a constitution. But not everyone there wants it, and the government
that we installed isn't actually more powerful than the insurgents.

> I believe that John Kennedy did send ships around Cuba. Nowadays, he
> hasn't broken any major UN agreements or cease-fires, that I'm aware of.
> S. Hussein's Iraq did. If you want to go into Rwanda, perhaps we can
> put that on the to-do list.

Nope. Not me. I don't see Rwanda as a threat. But I also don't believe it
is our job to convert every non-democratic nation to be like us, in the way
that Christians did in the Crusades, or Islamic Militants do in a Jihad.

> Can't do that if they are kicked out of country.

They were let back in following UN Security Council Resolution 1441 in
November 2002. On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix issued a report indicating that
Iraq was essentially cooperating.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/

> Again, what would you had done to prevent "unfinished jobs" in N Korea?
> The previous administration had attempted to make deals with a dictator
> there, which we've learned from experience doesn't work. So the
> "peaceful" nuclear engineering soon became another war machine,
> predicatable to many but not the then President. So now we have to deal
> with that.

Yes. We have to deal with that. But not by converting North Korea into a
democratic country. Instead by attacking the strategic targets appropriate
to disarm their nuclear program. Unfortunately, so much of our military and
intelligence has been stuck in Iraq that we may as well have had our heads
up the Koreans' asses.


Look. This argument is pointless. You said it yourself - you "believe the
only good terrorist is a [sic] good terrorist." (Although I think you meant
dead terrorist.)

You seem to believe that it is OK for a nation to be vigilantes in the name
of Democracy.

I believe that Due Process is one of the significant differences between us
and the terrorists.

You seem to believe as a country, we are better off after 2003 than we were
before 2003 because of our position in Iraq.

I believe we are not better off, and in short order it will become very
obvious. Partly because we are weakened by the situation in Iraq in terms
of military strength. But more importantly because other countries (both
friends and enemies) no longer respect us as a nation of power and reason,
but fear us as a nation of cowboys and hotheads, and one day may decide
that we are the terrorists.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:58:31 +0000, Judah wrote:
> IMHO, the President of the most powerful country in the world shouldn't
> do things half-assed. It weakens the country.

Yeah, but if we had done it *right* (i.e. just nuked the whole ****in'
Mid-East), ya'll would be bitchin' about *that* too...

[Greg B]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 09:42:52 -0800, karl gruber wrote:
>> When you finally come out west you and Mary should stop here on the way.
>> Flight plan to land here with 1.5 hrs gas.
>> http://www.ruralnetwork.net/johnsoncreek/
>
> What's all that white **** on the ground?

It looks all black to me...

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:17:01 GMT, (Ron Lee)
wrote in >:

>Marriage is between a man and woman.

The religious right would deny the child adopted by a same-sex couple
the legitimacy of having (step) parents who are legally married, thus
encouraging out-of-wedlock parenting. :=)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:27:51 -0800, "karl gruber"
> wrote:

>
>"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>>> Jay filled the courtesy car because he's too cheap to fill his airplane.
>>
>> Which brings up an interesting point. Would the average FBO rather
>> have his courtesy car's tank filled, or would he rather pump 8 gallons
>> of Avgas into a plane that doesn't need gas?
>>
>> I had 76 gallons on board when I landed, Karl. Making the line guy
>> bring the truck over didn't make much sense.
>
>
>He'd MUCH rather sell you fuel. That's his business.

Maybe. OTOH if the overhead is more than the gas he loses money.

>Would you rather a customer just spend one night in your hotel, or fill up
>your courtesy car?
>
>And a charter pilot might be a cheap ******* by your accounts, but he'd
>NEVER go on a one hour flight in a Cherokee with 500 pounds of gas.

500#? I fill the tanks if I'm going to fly to the neighboring airport
to fill the tanks. Around here you never know whether you are going to
make your destination or find yourself landing three states over due
to unexpected weather. I've seen too many run short. One guy did it
three times in two weeks. Don't know if he used the same bean field
each time or not. First two times were fine. He borrowed 5 gallons of
tractor gas and flew it home. Third time he trashed the plane. (He
didn't get hurt)

>
>The Cessna 185 holds 92 gallons of gas. There are times that I like to take
>that much fuel, like on floats into the interior of British Columbia. But
>for just cruising around, I like to have FUN, and that means a light
>airplane for the $200 hamburger.

Awh come on now<:-)) A heavier airplane has a higher maneuvering
speed. Load 'er up and you can let it all hang out.

I have tip tanks on mine so I can carry an extra 30 gallons (180#).

>
>Karl
>"Curator" N185KG
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:02:54 -0500, Jessica Taylor
> wrote:

>Peter Duniho wrote:
>
>> "The Visitor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> He has nowhere near enough data points to justify a comment describing
>> >> "all" charter pilots.
>> >
>> > Do you not need more data points to dispute it?
>>
>> No. To support a blanket generalization, one needs to survey the entire
>> population. To refute a blanket generalization, one need only survey a
>> single member of the population, so long as that member is a
>> counter-example.
>
>If you had ever studied statistics, you would know that is not true. That is
>why sample sizes are less than population sizes, and how confidence levels
>are relevant.
>
There probably aren't enough charter pilots to get a meaningful
distribution.

I do know that those flying comutters for the airlines almost need to
have a second job.


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

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:12:34 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>> Not true. The very foundation of Statistics is infering facts about an
>> entire
>> population through the use of a much smaller representative sample.
>
>The "facts" that one infers describe a known *portion* of the population.
>You cannot prove anything about 100% of a population with statistics. It is
>impossible.
>
>> Not true. We can prove that a medicine is effective at treating a malady
>> without testing its effectiveness on 100% of its population.

Isn't that "We can show within a specific margin of error
(probability) what we can expect from the general population?"

>
>You cannot use statistics to prove that a medicine will be effective on 100%
>of the population.

The two of you are using different definitions of proof.
Stastical proof and absolute proof.

When it comes to stastics there are usually exceptions to a proof.
It's sorta like side effects from medication. Even when less than the
placeibo they still have to be listed which generally means those side
effects were probably "all in their head" or elsewhere.


>
>> We can prove that
>> chronic smokers have a higher risk of bladder and lung cancers than their
>> peers
>> who have never smoked without needing to find the entire populations of
>> smokers
>> and non smokers.
>
>The very term "risk" precludes an absolute statement about 100% of the
>population. That's why statistics can be used to describe risk. You can
>use statistics to prove "risk", but you cannot use statistics to prove
>actual outcomes. In this example, you cannot use statistics to prove that
>100% of chronic smokers WILL have bladder and lung cancers. The best you
>can do is prove that it is likely a certain percentage of them will.
>
>Those are two different things. If you fail to comprehend that, you have no
>idea what statistics actually is.
>
>>> Statistics has nothing to do with it.
>>
>> Not true but then again, I don't believe that the original poster said
>> 100%.
>
>Any blanket generalization is necessarily applied to the entire population.
>That's why blanket generalizations are so offensive in the first place.
>
>I'm not surprised you're having trouble understanding this. You're a woman.
>Those people are the least mathematically inclined around!
>
>Pete
>
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[mike regish]

I don't care.

mike

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>
> I believe top posting is poor form for Usenet posts.
>

[mike regish]

Budhism is non-theist.

mike
Old guy: i.e. god, allah, etc.

"Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
...
>> >
>
> How is that relevant? You said "No such thing as a non-radical in any
> religion AFAIC," and didn't bring up any old guys, or young guys for that
> matter (until now.)
>

[mike regish]

Well, if you believe there's some supernatural guy watching out for you or
that there's a heaven or hell, you're out of touch enough with reality to be
considered mentally ill. When you base your actions in life on that mental
illness, you could be considered radical, though that's probalby not the
best word.

mike

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Apparently Mike thinks that anyone who has a religion is a radical.
> Seems somewhat "intolerant" or "bigoted" to me (according to Mike's
> way of thinking).
>
> Ron Lee

[gatt]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..

>> Also, Jay filled the tank. He didn't have to.
>
> As the Fbo owner told him. Maybe his way of paying it forward for the
> times he couldn't. And then J just walked up and slapped him in the
> face...twice.

Jay didn't slap anybody in the face. What's with the hyperbole?

> Someday he'll have to deal with some guy just like him,

Well, he's dealing with comments like yours, isn't he?

> and hopefully he'll

....deal with it like an adult rather than a spoiled, reactionary teenager.

A big boy with a cool head--the type who might be worthy of being entrusted
with the lives of passengers--might have said "I'm sorry. That comment
offends me because..."

Do you imagine that Jay hasn't had his share of customers with opinions?

-c

[gatt]

Notice, though, that Jay hasn't extended him that courtesy. It's up to Jay
whether or not he indulges a request for such information. The ball remains
in his court and the loudmouth might only hope that he tells you so that you
might "look him up." -c

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> And I might look him up to say hi.even though he sounds like a republican.

> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> He got what he wanted. If I'm ever gonna go to that area, I might ask
>> Jay "Hey, who's that hotheaded jackass with the FBO that I should avoid?"

[gatt]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.13.05.23.29.779331@DIE-\

> Yeah, but if we had done it *right* (i.e. just nuked the whole ****in'
> Mid-East),

For what?


-c

[gatt]

I'm sure he's lost sleep over that unfortunate news.


"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'd say he's lost potentially many. I know I wouldn't waste my money
> there.

>> Yes, but, the difference between Jay and the particular person is, Jay
>> didn't lose a customer.

[gatt]

"karl gruber" > wrote in message
...
>
>> I had 76 gallons on board when I landed, Karl. Making the line guy
>> bring the truck over didn't make much sense.
> He'd MUCH rather sell you fuel. That's his business.

Maybe he would have sold Jay fuel, but he threw Jay out.

-c

[gatt]

Do you have bruises on your tits from beating your chest?


"mike regish" > wrote in message
...

>I could do it without getting unruly, either.
" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>> I bet I could do it without even getting impolite.
>>
>> I believe you are correct.
>>
>> Actually, I've escorted a few unruly guests off the property --
>
>

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> Well, if you believe there's some supernatural guy watching out for you or
> that there's a heaven or hell, you're out of touch enough with reality to be
> considered mentally ill. When you base your actions in life on that mental
> illness, you could be considered radical, though that's probalby not the
> best word.

If you believe that all that you see around you somehow spontaneously
evolved from random chemicals, then you are sufficiently irrational and
deluded to be considered mentally ill.


Matt

[mike regish]

See www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Well, if you believe there's some supernatural guy watching out for you
>> or that there's a heaven or hell, you're out of touch enough with reality
>> to be considered mentally ill. When you base your actions in life on that
>> mental illness, you could be considered radical, though that's probalby
>> not the best word.
>
> If you believe that all that you see around you somehow spontaneously
> evolved from random chemicals, then you are sufficiently irrational and
> deluded to be considered mentally ill.
>
>
> Matt

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:29:11 -0800, gatt wrote:
> For what?

For allowing the rise of the Islamofascism... If they can't take care of
their own house, we wipe them off the face of the planet... They brought
the war to us, it's our duty to ensure that this can never happen again...
As long as any of them are left alive, there is a chance that it will
though... Of course, the eco-freaks will say that by killing all of them,
we would mess up the ecological balance over there... Yeah, they're
probably right since that wouldn't leave anyone alive to **** the
camels... Bummer...

[gatt]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
news:pan.2006.11.13.23.29.40.944531@DIE-


> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:29:11 -0800, gatt wrote:
>> For what?
>
> For allowing the rise of the Islamofascism... If they can't take care of
> their own house, we wipe them off the face of the planet...

And they might use the same logic against America for allowing the rise of
Whateverism. How about Christofascism? We better start wiping these
fundies out before somebody suitcase-nukes our cities and tries to wipe us
off the planet.

> They brought the war to us,

Iraq brought the war to us? Yemen brought the war to us? Egypt? Kuwait?
How many of "them" do you suggest we "wipe off the face of the planet"?

>Of course, the eco-freaks will say that by killing all of them, we would
>mess up the ecological balance over there..

The "eco-freaks" have never said anything remotely close to that.

>. Yeah, they're probably right since that wouldn't leave anyone alive to
>**** the camels... Bummer...

I'm not sure YOU have any idea what sex with camels has to do with
ecological balance.

Sorry. Welcome to my killfile. I don't have patience for this sort of
knee-jerk redneck ignorance and you're not demonstrating the intellectual
maturity that would make me trust anything you said with regard to aviation.

*plonk*

-c

[Jay Honeck]

> > I have no desire to ever kill anyone but I will
> > if it comes down to "me or them."
>
> Well, your president shares your view and started. Look how much he has
> achieved...

Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.

Of course, that can change in the blink of an eye, at any moment.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Do you imagine that Jay hasn't had his share of customers with opinions?

Hee hee! We cater to pilots. Getting pilots to agree on ANYTHING is
like herding cats.

'Nuff said...?

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

[Jose[_1_]]

> Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
> more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
> Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.

That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.
>
> Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
> events?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........mmmm...wha...HUH ? Oh, right. THIS
thread....

:-)

Actually, Ron, although we are far afield from my original post, I DO
find it fascinating and refreshing to note that there are people out
there (like you, and Jessica, etc.) who are still willing to logically,
point-by-point refute the nonsense and hatred spewed by the "liberal"
(GOD, what a horrible *******ization of a once-wonderful word!)
Hotze/Borchardt/Drescher/Regish clan. I, for one, ran out of energy to
argue with their block-headed stubborness long ago.

I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
would guarantee the end of the human race.

I hold out little hope for changing anyone that can bend their minds
around such illogic.

Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
my children need to be exposed to it.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why the homosexual lobby is wasting
all of their political credibility on the same-sex marriage issue. If
they had any sense at all, they would spend their political capital on
obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions -- call them whatever you
want, except "marriage" -- and drop the politically suicidal tactic of
trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
called "marriage". No mainstream national politician can support such
a stance, and -- one state a time -- homosexuals are going to find that
their current rights have been stripped away, either through referendum
or by amendment. It's already happening.

Quite frankly, I don't think that most people care if two guys want to
claim ever-lasting love, nor would they care if they were granted all
of the rights that married couples have by law. What they DO care about
is the specious claims that these couples are somehow "married" or
"normal". It's an insult to our intelligence, and the homosexual
lobby is doing far more self-harm than good by pressing this issue to
the breaking point.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
> > more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
> > Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.
>
> That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

True. But in the absence of any other explanation, it'll have to do --
for now.

And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
false.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> See www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

Always nice to see people who are against something, but don't propose a
more viable alternative. Sort of like the Democrates.

If we evolved from random combination of elements, why haven't we
evolved to grow back amputated limbs? Any process that can create
intelligent life from basic elements randomly scattered throughout the
universe due to a big bang should be able to grow replacement limbs
without even breaking a sweat. Right?


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
>> more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
>> Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.
>
>
> That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.

True, however, enough correlation over time certainly can make one
wonder about a causal relationship. Look how many terrorist attacks
occurred under Clinton or were planned under Clinton and how many
occurred under Bush's watch. We obviously won't know the effectiveness
of the Bush approach for another decade or so probably. However, if we
consider than a large attack takes probably 1-3 years to plan and
execute, if the Democrats dramatically change the approach to dealing
with terrorists and we see a return of attacks after a 1-3 year lag
time, I'll certainly be willing to believe there is a connection.


Matt

[LWG]

Bingo. You got it! They *are* using the same logic against the western
world. We are infidels, and there are only two options: conversion or
death. Which one do you want?

>> For allowing the rise of the Islamofascism... If they can't take care of
>> their own house, we wipe them off the face of the planet...
>
> And they might use the same logic against America for allowing the rise of
> Whateverism. How about Christofascism? We better start wiping these
> fundies out before somebody suitcase-nukes our cities and tries to wipe us
> off the planet.
>

[Philip S.]

in article . com, Jay Honeck
at wrote on 11/13/06 6:36 PM:


>
> Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
> I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
> do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
> But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
> my children need to be exposed to it.

How amusing to read these thoughts in a forum devoted to FLYING. God forbid
people should devote themselves to any pursuit not strictly sanctioned by
nature, eh?

I hate to break it to some folks, but human endeavor in its ENTIRETY has
been about defying nature at every turn. It's the only reason we live the
way we do.

And don't worry about the population, Jay. Even if 90% of us permanently
stopped breeding, there would still be plenty of people.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
> most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
> logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
> wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
> would guarantee the end of the human race.
>
> drop the politically suicidal tactic of
> trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
> called "marriage".

You seem to be trying to argue that if it would end the human race for
*everyone* to have a particular status (for example, being in a gay instead
of straight relationship), then it follows that there's something
undesirable or "abonormal" about that status.

If that were true, then it would follow that it's undesirable and abnormal
to be (for example) a full-time innkeeper--because if *everyone* (or even
almost everyone) were a full-time innkeeper, there'd be no farmers, doctors,
scientists, etc., and the human race would end.

Contrary to your argument, a moment's reflection shows that the desirability
or normalcy of a particular status has *nothing to do* with the desirability
of *everyone* having that status. You're making a spectacularly naive and
silly attempt to invoke the categorical-imperative principle.

A secondary (but still fatal) inconsistency in your position is that in
fact, many gay couples do reproduce (albeit not with one another) and raise
children; yet you still call such a relationship "abnormal", and refuse to
call it a marriage; and conversely, many straight people voluntarily refrain
from ever reproducing (even having surgery to render themselves infertile),
yet you do not call them "abnormal" nor refuse to call their unions
"marriages".

--Gary

[Jose[_1_]]

> I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
> most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
> logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
> wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
> would guarantee the end of the human race.

That sentence makes no sense. By "by themselves" do you mean "if the
only kind of sex were gay sex, there's be no reproduction"?, or do you
mean "in and of themselves", as in the simple act of engaging in gay sex
will guarantee the end of the human race? If the latter, there is much
evidence to the contrary (gay sex has been around since the beginning of
history, and probably since the beginning of evolution). If the
former, then the same could be said for eating chocolate. (If the only
thing people ate was chocolate, the human race wouldn't last long
either). And eating is just as important as sex.

Therefore, I don't find your statement above to be convincing. It has a
serious error in logic. And to argue that "there's no comparison
between gay sex and eating chocolate" is to say that you really are
reaching your conclusion through reasoning other than what you just
presented.

> If they had any sense at all,
> they would spend their political capital on
> obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions
> -- call them whatever youwant, except "marriage"

You seem to be trying to give the impression that you are ok with same
sex unions (let's call them "ssunions") having the same rights as
married heterosexual couples. However, this is an illusion. So long as
private contracts (of which there are millions) have the opportunity to
use the word "marriage" to mean one thing, and ssunion to mean the other
thing (which is the whole point), then those private contracts can
easily deny benefits to ssunions that they grant to marriages, thus
defeating the impression you seem to want to give. Further, the
millions of contracts already written (such as health care contracts and
hospital visitation rights) will retain all the discrimination that
"equal ssunions" is designed to make us believe it eliminates.

Therefore, I believe you are giving lip service to one idea while
actually supporting another. Whether deliberate or not I cannot say.
But this is the reason why "Separate but equal" flies as well with gay
couples as it does for blacks.

> No mainstream national politician
> can support such a stance...

Perhaps not in the present atmosphere. In that case, just like in the
sixties, the aim is to change the atmosphere.

> ... the specious claims that these couples
> are somehow "married" or "normal".

Whether they are "married" or not is a simple matter of definition.
That can be changed at the stroke of a pen.

Whether or not it is "normal" begs the question of what "normal" means.
If two percent of the population has green toes, is it normal to have
green toes? No. However, it =is= normal for two percent of the
population to have green toes.

It is also quite possible that, while green toes puts an individual at
an evolutionary disadvantage (easier to be seen by predators), having a
population where some people have green toes is an advantage to the
population (by attracting predators they also attract food), and having
a strong population is itself an advantage to all individuals
(protection from predators).

So, your reasoning above is flawed, making use of the emotional baggage
carried by the word "normal" while being very loose in its actual meaning.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Philip S." > wrote in message
...
> in article . com, Jay
> Honeck
> at wrote on 11/13/06 6:36 PM:
> How amusing to read these thoughts in a forum devoted to FLYING. God
> forbid
> people should devote themselves to any pursuit not strictly sanctioned by
> nature, eh?
>
> I hate to break it to some folks, but human endeavor in its ENTIRETY has
> been about defying nature at every turn. It's the only reason we live the
> way we do.

True to a point, however, using an 'exit' as an 'entrance' is not sinply
(note intentional mis-spelling) defying nature. It's defying God (pick
one!), nature, and the way of our ancestors. This country, and I'm sure
yours, didn't get where it is today by spinning around our fellow man and
giving him a good old rogering!
But we digress.
Jay! I think the guy that threw you out was went overboard, even if he was
offended by the comments, which to me, should have been taken in the
joking/ribbing way intended. If he was a blonde woman, would he have reacted
as badly to a blonde joke? Most blonde women I know certainly would have
just laughed along with it!
Oz/Crash Lander


>
> And don't worry about the population, Jay. Even if 90% of us permanently
> stopped breeding, there would still be plenty of people.
>

[Philip S.]

in article , Crash Lander at
wrote on 11/13/06 7:53 PM:

> "Philip S." > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article . com, Jay
>> Honeck
>> at wrote on 11/13/06 6:36 PM:
>> How amusing to read these thoughts in a forum devoted to FLYING. God
>> forbid
>> people should devote themselves to any pursuit not strictly sanctioned by
>> nature, eh?
>>
>> I hate to break it to some folks, but human endeavor in its ENTIRETY has
>> been about defying nature at every turn. It's the only reason we live the
>> way we do.
>
> True to a point, however, using an 'exit' as an 'entrance' is not sinply
> (note intentional mis-spelling) defying nature. It's defying God (pick
> one!), nature, and the way of our ancestors. This country, and I'm sure
> yours, didn't get where it is today by spinning around our fellow man and
> giving him a good old rogering!

To which ancestors are you referring? The Greeks, perhaps?

And as to what "God" dictates, at least one fairly influential Holy Book
declares three-score-and-ten to be the "normal" human life span (that's "70"
to you). I fully intend to live beyond that landmark, and I don't give a
**** what God has to say about it. So there.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.
> True. But in the absence of any other explanation, it'll have to do --
> for now.

That is dangerously flawed reasoning. Instead of filing an IFR flight
plan, I eat Wheaties before any IFR flight. This gives me the ability
to avoid granite and aluminum while cavorting in the clouds.

I'm still here. QED.

I'm not advocating any particular point of view here. It may be that
the conclusion statement ("Bush stopped the attacks") is true. It may
instead be true that there wouldn't have been any attacks in either
case. To choose between these using faulty reasoning amounts to
throwing darts. And to choose based on what you already believe to be
true, and then apply false reasoning to support that act of faith, is
even worse than throwing darts.

> And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
> Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
> terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
> false.

No. It is merely evidence that Muslim terrorists may have a longer time
frame than the next quarter, or that successful acts of terrorism are
harder than we imagine.

Again, I'm not supporting any POV w/r/t terrorism and such. I'm merely
rejecting faulty reasoning and faith based logic.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jose[_1_]]

> If we evolved from random combination of elements, why haven't we evolved to grow back amputated limbs?

We have. We lost that ability. Why is an interesting question, and I
think the answer is that it "costs" too much. As life gets more
complex, the repair systems need to be more sophisticated, and the
overhead involved in carrying around such a repair system makes those
individuals less likely to survive and reproduce. Ironic, isn't it.

Darwin cares not a whit for the individual.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> True to a point, however, using an 'exit' as an 'entrance' is not sinply
> (note intentional mis-spelling) defying nature. It's defying God (pick
> one!), nature, and the way of our ancestors.

You're simply projecting your personal squeamishness onto nature and God.
(How can anyone seriously believe that a Creator of the Universe would run
around fretting about where homo sapiens rub their genitals?)

Yes, our ancestors made the same mistake you're making, but that's no reason
to perpetuate it. Women's suffrage, when first introduced, was likewise a
defiance of what our ancestors had believed for thousands of years. And like
you, the opponents of that step forward felt certain that the change was
contrary to nature and God.

[Jose[_1_]]

>> That X happens is not evidence that Y caused X.
> True, however, enough correlation over time certainly can make one wonder about a causal relationship.

One can wonder. However, that's only the first step, and the experiment
lacks a control. One could just as easily say that the growth of the
Internet did it.

For a less emotional equivalent, consider how antibacterial soaps have
improved hospital outcomes. Some theorize that we are just creating
breeding grounds for superbugs. Indeed, there is some evidence of that.
But for now it looks like antibacterial soaps have prevented many
diseases in hospitals.

The problem is, if the "breeding superbugs" theory is correct, by the
time we learn this, it will be far too late.

I may hold an opinion, but I am not (here) advocating one. Only that it
is important not to use faith based logic.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[mike regish]

LOL.

Good one.

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
> Assuming that this president's prime directive was to assure that no
> more attacks on America could be carried out successfully, President
> Bush has achieved his goal with 100% effectiveness.
>
> Of course, that can change in the blink of an eye, at any moment.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[mike regish]

WOW.

I had a girlfriend once who believed pro wrestling was real. Even after they
"came out" as entertainment only. I thought she was the stupidest person
alive for that.

I was wrong.

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.
>>
>> Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
>> events?
>
> Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........mmmm...wha...HUH ? Oh, right. THIS
> thread....
>
> :-)
>
> Actually, Ron, although we are far afield from my original post, I DO
> find it fascinating and refreshing to note that there are people out
> there (like you, and Jessica, etc.) who are still willing to logically,
> point-by-point refute the nonsense and hatred spewed by the "liberal"
> (GOD, what a horrible *******ization of a once-wonderful word!)
> Hotze/Borchardt/Drescher/Regish clan. I, for one, ran out of energy to
> argue with their block-headed stubborness long ago.
>
> I've come to the sad conclusion that it is impossible to impart what
> most of us see as common sense into people who claim to understand the
> logic behind the theory of evolution, yet profess to seeing nothing
> wrong -- or even unusual -- about sexual practices that by themselves
> would guarantee the end of the human race.
>
> I hold out little hope for changing anyone that can bend their minds
> around such illogic.
>
> Which, by the way, isn't to say I have anything against homosexuality.
> I personally don't care if you want to screw pumpkins all night, if you
> do it in the privacy of your own home and far, far away from my kids.
> But don't even THINK about telling anyone that it's "normal", or that
> my children need to be exposed to it.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't understand why the homosexual lobby is wasting
> all of their political credibility on the same-sex marriage issue. If
> they had any sense at all, they would spend their political capital on
> obtaining equal rights for same-sex unions -- call them whatever you
> want, except "marriage" -- and drop the politically suicidal tactic of
> trying to claim that their relationships are "normal" and should be
> called "marriage". No mainstream national politician can support such
> a stance, and -- one state a time -- homosexuals are going to find that
> their current rights have been stripped away, either through referendum
> or by amendment. It's already happening.
>
> Quite frankly, I don't think that most people care if two guys want to
> claim ever-lasting love, nor would they care if they were granted all
> of the rights that married couples have by law. What they DO care about
> is the specious claims that these couples are somehow "married" or
> "normal". It's an insult to our intelligence, and the homosexual
> lobby is doing far more self-harm than good by pressing this issue to
> the breaking point.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Ron Lee]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

>> Unfortunately, with liberals around that won't happen.
>>
>> Jay, if you are still reading these how do you like the turn of
>> events?
>
>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........mmmm...wha...HUH ? Oh, right. THIS
>thread....
>
>:-)
>
>Actually, Ron, although we are far afield from my original post, I DO
>find it fascinating and refreshing to note that there are people out
>there (like you, and Jessica, etc.) who are still willing to logically,
>point-by-point refute the nonsense and hatred spewed by the "liberal"
>(GOD, what a horrible *******ization of a once-wonderful word!)
>Hotze/Borchardt/Drescher/Regish clan. I, for one, ran out of energy to
>argue with their block-headed stubborness long ago.

Jessica is the one who can logically run rings around them. I am just
a bubba who understands that when you reward bad behavior, you get
more of it and that kids need two parents (a man and woman) who teach
them right from wrong and kick their butts when they do wrong things.

Ron Lee

[mike regish]

It'd be funny if it wasn't so profoundly wrong.

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
>
> And, given that the Left has been ceaselessly saying that "invading
> Iraq (Y) has done nothing but create a breeding ground for more
> terrorists (Z)", we can at least conclude that "X" proves that "Z" is
> false.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[mike regish]

How about rational thought?
How about not using the false promise of an afterlife with 72 virgins to
convince otherwise good men to murder innocents?

So Matt, why does god hate amputees?

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> See www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com
>
> Always nice to see people who are against something, but don't propose a
> more viable alternative. Sort of like the Democrates.
>
> If we evolved from random combination of elements, why haven't we evolved
> to grow back amputated limbs? Any process that can create intelligent
> life from basic elements randomly scattered throughout the universe due to
> a big bang should be able to grow replacement limbs without even breaking
> a sweat. Right?
>
>
> Matt

[mike regish]

Which is the exact kind of thinking that makes religion, all religion, a
truly dangerous thing.

mike


> "Crash Lander" > wrote in message
> ...

> It's defying God (pick
>> one!), nature, and the way of our ancestors.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Philip S." > wrote in message
...
> in article , Crash Lander
> at
> wrote on 11/13/06 7:53 PM:
> To which ancestors are you referring? The Greeks, perhaps?
>
> And as to what "God" dictates, at least one fairly influential Holy Book
> declares three-score-and-ten to be the "normal" human life span (that's
> "70"
> to you).

No **** Sherlock. You forget. _I'm_ the one who can tell an entrance from an
exit!

>I fully intend to live beyond that landmark, and I don't give a
> **** what God has to say about it. So there.

You sure you don't want to add a 'ner ni ner ni ner nah' to the end of that
post? Poke your tongue out at me perhaps?

Good luck to you. Just be careful what and who you're doing when you're
doing all that rogering, or you won't get anywhere near 70. I may be wrong,
but I'd seriously doubt the percentage of homosexuals over 70 is anywhere
near the percentage of homosexuals under 50.

Now, perhaps you can help me with an anatomy question that's been bugging me
for years! Where exactly are the vocal chords located? At school, I was
taught they were in the throat, however, listening to the way homosexual men
speak, I'd swear they must be located elsewhere! All jokes and debates aside
though, why is it that homosexual men (stereotypically or not) speak in the
manner they do? You know what I mean?

Look, I don't really care what you do in your bedroom, and whether I agree
with that way of life or not is of no consequence to anything, but what
really annoys me is that the homosexual community feels the need to parade
their activities in public by way of Gay Madi Gras and the like. How
ridiculous would it be to have a 'Heterosexual Madi Gras'. TV shows like
"The Amazing Race" and "Survivor" etc, all have to have the 'token gay'
person. Why? Were they more eligible or qualified to be on the show than
anyone who wasn't gay? Probably not. Why not a 'token person with
depression'? I'd suggest the percentage of people with depression in the
world would be larger than the percentage of gay people in the world.

Why do homosexual men feel compelled to 'do' each other in public toilets
along popular walking tracks? It's just not 'normal' behaviour! Apart from
being against the law! (for gay OR straight people!).
Anyway. too much bandwidth for this never ending debate. You'll continue to
live your way, and I'll continue to live my way. I'll just do my best to
keep your way and my way separate.
At least we can still share our love of flying though. Proof that there is a
God. Believe it or not.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Peter Duniho]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Contrary to your argument, a moment's reflection shows that the
> desirability or normalcy of a particular status has *nothing to do* with
> the desirability of *everyone* having that status. You're making a
> spectacularly naive and silly attempt to invoke the categorical-imperative
> principle. [...]

Yet another gap in his "reasoning" is the failure to recognize that
evolution has given us a number of seemingly counter-productive attributes
that, when viewed in a broader context, turn out to indeed have a net
positive gain as far as survival of the species goes.

A well-known example is the gene that causes sickle-cell anemia. The reason
this gene has done so well under the process of evolution is that the
majority of people with the same gene wind up having a certain level of
defense against malaria. The net effect to the species is one that enhances
survival, even if in some individuals it hinders reproduction.

I think it's entirely likely something similar may be found with respect to
homosexuality. Not that failure to find such a thing would change my views
on it, but to argue that homosexuality is somehow contrary to evolution is
overly simplistic thinking at its worst. The mere fact that it exists, and
in such relative prevalence (as genetic "defects" go, it's pretty
common...and I do use that word "defect" very loosely), strongly suggests
that in the greater scheme of things, homosexuality is important for the
greater good in some way.

Nevertheless, it's my opinion that you are wasting your time trying to point
any of this out, especially here. Jay in particular has NEVER admitted to
an error, never mind has he ever changed his mind on anything important.
This is the wrong forum for this kind of debate anyway, but it's especially
pointless in the context of people who have minds so closed, they can't even
get a word in edge-wise when no one's talking.

That said, every time someone like Jay or Ron go around spouting strong
words against homosexuality, I just remember the recent study that looked at
sexual arousal (measured by penis engorgement) in human males when shown
homosexual images. The men who voiced the strongest opinions against
homosexuality showed the greatest degree of arousal. Clearly, "methinks he
doth protest too much" applies here. :)

Pete

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
> Which is the exact kind of thinking that makes religion, all religion, a
> truly dangerous thing.
>
> mike
Like it or not, religion runs the world. How many wars were NOT religion
based?
Homosexual people cry discrimination all the time. I can't understand this.
We have bars, and clubs where you go and have a drink with friends. Gay
people feel the need to have 'gay bars, and gay clubs'. What's wrong with
the bars and clubs that are already there, and what has a bar or club got to
do with your sexual preference?
If I'm in a bar having a beer, I'll still drink with you. I don't expect
your sexual preference to be a required part of the conversation!
Oz/Crash Lander

[Peter Duniho]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> Like it or not, religion runs the world. How many wars were NOT religion
> based?

Lots.

> Homosexual people cry discrimination all the time. I can't understand
> this.

Then it's probably safe to say you're not a homosexual. Or at least, if you
are, you're still in the closet.

> We have bars, and clubs where you go and have a drink with friends. Gay
> people feel the need to have 'gay bars, and gay clubs'. What's wrong with
> the bars and clubs that are already there, and what has a bar or club got
> to do with your sexual preference?

well, for one...there aren't actually that many homosexuals out there.
Given that for straights or gays both, the bar scene is American culture's
primary meeting ground for sexual partners, it's useful to have a bar where
a homosexual can go and not waste time hitting on heterosexuals.

There are other reasons, including the fact that discrimination still exists
and so having a relative safe place to go is also useful. I think it's
silly to criticize homosexuals for seeking out specific places for
themselves. There are lots of good reasons, and many of those reasons have
to do with people being critical of homosexuals.

> If I'm in a bar having a beer, I'll still drink with you. I don't expect
> your sexual preference to be a required part of the conversation!

If you're at a bar to meet up with a sexual partner, I think that one's
sexual preference probably *would* be a required part of the conversation at
some point.

Pete

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>> Like it or not, religion runs the world. How many wars were NOT religion
>> based?
>
> Lots.

Perhaps, but I'd suggest more were religion based than were not.


> Then it's probably safe to say you're not a homosexual.

No, I'm not.

> well, for one...there aren't actually that many homosexuals out there.
> Given that for straights or gays both, the bar scene is American culture's
> primary meeting ground for sexual partners, it's useful to have a bar
> where a homosexual can go and not waste time hitting on heterosexuals.

So homosexual people separate them selves from the rest of the population,
in turn, feeding the discrimination and segregation they so fiercely
protest!

> There are other reasons, including the fact that discrimination >still
> exists

And, as I've said, is fed (in a lot of cases, but not all, I grant you)by
homosexual people themselves!

> and so having a relative safe place to go is also useful. I think it's
> silly to criticize homosexuals for seeking out specific places for
> themselves.

If all homosexual people went to the 'straight' clubs and pubs, they'd still
meet each other there! Why have a separate one? You don't hear straight
people crying discrimination when we aren't allowed in a 'gay' club. Sexual
'hook-ups' are not the only reason one goes to a pub or club.

> If you're at a bar to meet up with a sexual partner, I think that one's
> sexual preference probably *would* be a required part of the conversation
> at some point.

*If* I were at the bar or club to find a sexual partner. As I said before,
that is not the only reason to be at a club or pub.

Crash Lander

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:38:15 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:
> I am just a bubba who understands that when you reward bad behavior, you
> get more of it and that kids need two parents (a man and woman) who
> teach them right from wrong and kick their butts when they do wrong
> things.

So, if you have a SSU consisting of two guys and they are raising a kid,
does one of them say to the kid, "Wait until your *other* father gets
home" ???

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:34:12 -0800, gatt wrote:
> Sorry. Welcome to my killfile. I don't have patience for this sort of
> knee-jerk redneck ignorance and you're not demonstrating the intellectual
> maturity that would make me trust anything you said with regard to aviation.

Awh, gee...That just breaks my ****in' heart... Sorry if I don't subscribe
to the PC bull**** of us needing to *understand* the camel ****in' Bedoins
so that we know *why* they want to kill us... I'm satisfied that they do
want to kill us and it is our job to kill them before they kill us... Any
'innocent' camel ****in' Bedoins that we happen to kill in the process is
just acceptable collateral damages...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:20:58 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:
> Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
> middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA.

Well, I've got a truck and a chain... Just need to find a road with
Mohammed's name on it...

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> Which is the exact kind of thinking that makes religion, all religion, a
> truly dangerous thing.

I think your religion of atheism or naturalism or whatever you practice
is the most dangerous of all.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Crash Lander wrote:

> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>Which is the exact kind of thinking that makes religion, all religion, a
>>truly dangerous thing.
>>
>>mike
>
> Like it or not, religion runs the world. How many wars were NOT religion
> based?

All of the wars that were based on economics and greed ... which is most
of them. Religion is often blamed, but seldom the root cause.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Crash Lander wrote:

> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Like it or not, religion runs the world. How many wars were NOT religion
>>>based?
>>
>>Lots.
>
>
> Perhaps, but I'd suggest more were religion based than were not.

But you'd be incorrect.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>> If we evolved from random combination of elements, why haven't we
>> evolved to grow back amputated limbs?
>
>
> We have. We lost that ability. Why is an interesting question, and I
> think the answer is that it "costs" too much. As life gets more
> complex, the repair systems need to be more sophisticated, and the
> overhead involved in carrying around such a repair system makes those
> individuals less likely to survive and reproduce. Ironic, isn't it.

I think we just found someone less intelligent that the former
girlfriend you were talking about.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> How about rational thought?
> How about not using the false promise of an afterlife with 72 virgins to
> convince otherwise good men to murder innocents?
>
> So Matt, why does god hate amputees?

So, Mike, why can't you think rationally?

Matt

[Jay Honeck]

> I think it's entirely likely something similar may be found with respect to
> homosexuality. Not that failure to find such a thing would change my views
> on it, but to argue that homosexuality is somehow contrary to evolution is
> overly simplistic thinking at its worst. The mere fact that it exists, and
> in such relative prevalence (as genetic "defects" go, it's pretty
> common...and I do use that word "defect" very loosely), strongly suggests
> that in the greater scheme of things, homosexuality is important for the
> greater good in some way.

That's an interesting theory, and it's one that I've considered.
Homosexuality seems to exist throughout nature, in varying numbers, in
almost every species, so it appears to have some sort of evolutionary
advantage. Logically, there must be a reason, or it would cease to
exist, right?

Maybe not. There are evolutionary processes going on around us all the
time. There are also evolutionary processes that we, as humans, have
done our best to counter. Poor eye sight, for example, has been pretty
well eliminated as a reason to die -- therefore, more and more humans
are being born that need glasses.

(I, for one, have benefitted greatly from this turn of events. 5000
years ago, I would have died before my 20th birthday, long before I had
the opportunity to reproduce, simply because I've needed eye glasses
since 5th grade.)

IMHO, homosexuality is probably more akin to poor eyesight than it is
to any evolutionary *advantage*. We have simply learned to exist with
it, for no apparent evolutionary reason.

Which, again, is not to say I've got anything AGAINST homosexuality.
You continue to make this into a gay-bashing thing, Pete, and it's not.
I don't think any God is going to send homosexuals to any "hell", and
I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against because
of their orientation. I simply don't CARE. Homosexuality is an
evolutionary dead end, an accident of nature, no different than any
problem or trait any of us may inherit or face, and gay folks should be
left to do whatever they want, unhindered, in the privacy of their own
homes.

In discussions with friends about this issue, this "live and let live"
attitude towards gays seems to prevail, at least amongst my fellow
baby-boomers. No one hates gays, no one wants to harm them in any way.


Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals? There seems
to be a deep-seated (seemingly self-destructive) urge for gays to
vocalize the "marriage" issue on the political stage, and I truly
believe that they would be advancing their agenda more effectively if
they concentrated on equal rights, not equal labels.

But enough of this! How in the heck we went from FBO courtesy to THIS
is beyond me.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Thomas Borchert]

Gatt,

> For what?
>

You're actually trying sensible discussion with this nutcase?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> Homosexual people cry discrimination all the time. I can't understand
> this. We have bars, and clubs where you go and have a drink with friends.
> Gay people feel the need to have 'gay bars, and gay clubs'. What's wrong
> with the bars and clubs that are already there, and what has a bar or club
> got to do with your sexual preference?

Gay bars do not exclude straight customers, just as (for example) sports
bars do not exclude non-sports-fans. In contrast, however, a gay couple
holding hands or kissing (just doing what many straight couples around them
are doing) would, in many straight bars, be kicked out, or even subject to
violent attacks. Yet you summarize that state of affairs by saying that most
of the intolerance comes from the gay side. You aren't even making a token
effort to connect your conclusion to reality!

If you seriously believe what you claim to believe, then I propose the
following experiment. Visit a liberal US city, go to a gay bar with a female
friend, and hold hands with her. See if anyone even notices or comments.
Next, visit a "traditional values" town and go to a straight bar with a male
friend. Quietly hold hands with him, and report back to us about what
happens next.

> If I'm in a bar having a beer, I'll still drink with you. I don't expect
> your sexual preference to be a required part of the conversation!

A few minutes ago, after you recited a litany of Amos 'n' Andy-like
stereotypes about gay people, you expressed your desire to keep "separate".
But now you want to go out for drinks?

Sexual orientation almost always comes up in casual conversation. You
display your sexual orientation every time you mention your wife or
girlfriend, or hold hands with her in public. There's no reason for it to be
otherwise for gay people.

[Gary Drescher]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 03:20:58 +0000, Ron Lee wrote:
>> Er, um, Mike. Radical muslims are everywhere. Many countries in the
>> middle east, Europe, and yes even in the USA.
>
> Well, I've got a truck and a chain... Just need to find a road with
> Mohammed's name on it..

Earlier, you were merely advocating genocide. But now you've escalated to
posting an actual death threat. Are you aware that the latter is a serious
crime?

It's astonishing that some right wingers in this conversation have bemoaned
"liberal hatred", but cannot bring themselves to object when someone
repeatedly calls for the extermination of a billion Muslims, or threatens to
lynch some.

George Orwell is being outdone here: genocide is peace; marriage is hatred;
lynching is democracy.

[Jay Honeck]

> No. It is merely evidence that Muslim terrorists may have a longer time
> frame than the next quarter, or that successful acts of terrorism are
> harder than we imagine.

I doubt it. I think it's more likely that our president has access to
and control of an immense arsenal of anti-terrorism weaponry, and has
used them effectively to prevent further attacks.

Of course, wrapped up with all that is the theory that 9/11 so
seriously knotted up the American public that further attacks were
unnecessary. Americans are known the world over for short attention
spans, and the inability to effectively fight a long war.

In short, all the terrorists had to do was wait, and win. Witness our
last election.

> Again, I'm not supporting any POV w/r/t terrorism and such. I'm merely
> rejecting faulty reasoning and faith based logic.

It's only one possibility -- but IMHO it is the most likely and logical
one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> > Well, I've got a truck and a chain... Just need to find a road with
> > Mohammed's name on it..
>
> Earlier, you were merely advocating genocide. But now you've escalated to
> posting an actual death threat. Are you aware that the latter is a serious
> crime?
>
> It's astonishing that some right wingers in this conversation have bemoaned
> "liberal hatred", but cannot bring themselves to object when someone
> repeatedly calls for the extermination of a billion Muslims, or threatens to
> lynch some.

It's called "civility", Gary, and it's something the Left has lost long
ago.

If it makes you feel any better, I find Grumman's comments
counter-productive at best, disgusting at worst -- and I'm sure many
people feel the same. But I try not to blast people for speaking up
in this forum, unlike so many of our Left Wing brethren who seem to
revel in the opportunity to bash simply for the sake of bashing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> In short, all the terrorists had to do was wait, and win.

What do you think would happen if, simultaneously at 3:52 pm, at one
hundred large airports, somebody dressed in arab garb flung off his
clothing and ran naked the wrong way through security shouting in
Arabic? No weapons, no threats, no bombs... It would be utterly trivial
to do.

Every passenger would bet rescreened, cellphones and watches would be
banned (because they could be used to coordinate such an "attack"), and
we'd come close to paralysis.

They have already won.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> "Grumman-581" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Well, I've got a truck and a chain... Just need to find a road with
>> > Mohammed's name on it..
>>
>> Earlier, you were merely advocating genocide. But now you've escalated to
>> posting an actual death threat. Are you aware that the latter is a
>> serious
>> crime?
>>
>> It's astonishing that some right wingers in this conversation have
>> bemoaned
>> "liberal hatred", but cannot bring themselves to object when someone
>> repeatedly calls for the extermination of a billion Muslims, or threatens
>> to
>> lynch some.
>
> It's called "civility", Gary, and it's something the Left has lost long
> ago.

No, Jay. Standing silently while someone urges the extermination of a
minority group may be called many things, but it is not called "civility".

> If it makes you feel any better, I find Grumman's comments
> counter-productive at best, disgusting at worst --

Well, better late than never.

--Gary

[Jose[_1_]]

> Maybe not. There are evolutionary processes going on around us all the
> time. There are also evolutionary processes that we, as humans, have
> done our best to counter. Poor eye sight, for example, has been pretty
> well eliminated as a reason to die -- therefore, more and more humans
> are being born that need glasses.

Evolution is a fairly long time frame process. Eyeglasses have been
available for only a handful of generations. This is not enough to make
a significant impact on the gene pool.

> IMHO, homosexuality is probably more akin to poor eyesight than it is
> to any evolutionary *advantage*.

What do you base this HO on?

> Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?

For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

> concentrated on equal rights, not equal labels.

But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?
>
> For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
> hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.

Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
give them the rights of family members, and move on.

> But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.

Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ron Lee]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

>Crash Lander wrote:
>
>> "mike regish" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>
>>>Which is the exact kind of thinking that makes religion, all religion, a
>>>truly dangerous thing.
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>> Like it or not, religion runs the world. How many wars were NOT religion
>> based?
>
>All of the wars that were based on economics and greed ... which is most
>of them. Religion is often blamed, but seldom the root cause.
>
>Matt

How about WW II

[Jose[_1_]]

> Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
> family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
> give them the rights of family members, and move on.

That would have to be done hospital by hospital, and would require board
meetings, bylaws changes, and this very kind of acrimonious discussion
would occur in a hundred little fiefdoms. It would be stalled in
committee, half the hospitals won't do it, and meanwhile, many people's
loved ones would die alone. And that is just for this one issue. There
are many like that, including real estate purchase and rental, travel
arrangements, represntation, everything for which family members are
already treated differently.

>>But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.
> Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
> taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.

It is the =fact= that is has "already been taken" that confers the
rights. The label is =already= used in contracts and law all over the
country. By allowing the use of this label, ssunions will be
=automatically= recognized as a family unit. This is not possible when
inventing a new label.

That's the whole point.

Now, I ask you... what are you so afraid of? What calamity would befall
you, or civilization, if we expanded the label "marriage" to include
ssunions? Would you and Mary get divorced? Would your children all of
a sudden "turn gay"? Would people start hugging each other instead of
rightously killing each other?

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[John Theune]

Jose wrote:
>> Maybe not. There are evolutionary processes going on around us all the
>> time. There are also evolutionary processes that we, as humans, have
>> done our best to counter. Poor eye sight, for example, has been pretty
>> well eliminated as a reason to die -- therefore, more and more humans
>> are being born that need glasses.
>
> Evolution is a fairly long time frame process. Eyeglasses have been
> available for only a handful of generations. This is not enough to make
> a significant impact on the gene pool.
>
>> IMHO, homosexuality is probably more akin to poor eyesight than it is
>> to any evolutionary *advantage*.
>
> What do you base this HO on?
>
>> Why, then, has this become such a problem for homosexuals?
>
> For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
> hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.
>
>> concentrated on equal rights, not equal labels.
>
> But labels confer rights, or remove them. Thus, labels are important.
>
> Jose
Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your
medical power of attorney. Yes, it more work then for married
heterosexual couples who only need to show ID to prove they should be
there but it's doable. By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro
couple who are not married. They lose visitation privileges as well.

[Jay Honeck]

> > Then that's a problem that needs to be addressed. Come up with a new
> > family term to describe their relationship (I kinda like "shariage"),
> > give them the rights of family members, and move on.
>
> That would have to be done hospital by hospital, and would require board
> meetings, bylaws changes, and this very kind of acrimonious discussion
> would occur in a hundred little fiefdoms.

So do it at the federal level -- problem solved. All you have to do is
convince the government of the US that "shariage" is the same-sex
equivalent of "marriage", with all the same legal rights and
privileges.

While this would be an arduous task, no doubt, in the long run it has
more chance of success than convincing the people, courts and
legislatures that same-sex couples are "married". As the results of
our recent election proved -- an election in which the Left was
overwhelmingly supported, yet same sex marriage proposals were defeated
across the country -- that dog don't hunt.

> Now, I ask you... what are you so afraid of? What calamity would befall
> you, or civilization, if we expanded the label "marriage" to include
> ssunions? Would you and Mary get divorced? Would your children all of
> a sudden "turn gay"? Would people start hugging each other instead of
> rightously killing each other?

It would have no impact on me at all, any more than changing the word
for "breakfast" to "hotel" would.

One thing you apparently haven't realized: I'm not saying that I
personally care about this issue -- I'm saying it doesn't make any
sense.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> Actually that can be entirely avoided by simply making your partner your medical power of attorney.

In some cases yes, in others no. Each hospital or clinic is different.

> By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.

But hetero couples can get married and become a family. That's part of
what it's all about. Marriage is the declaration and committment made
by the couple, in front of the world, that they are now a family. A
couple who has that ability, but chooses not to (the aforementioned
hetero couple) is not a family. I have no problem with that. But a
couple who does =not= have that ability can't choose.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.