Thrown out of an FBO...

[Thomas Borchert]

Jay,

> But I try not to blast people for speaking up
> in this forum,
>

Oh? I beg to differ from personal experience. Check what you posted
during the last 24 hours or so. And while we're at it, learn to spell
my name.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[John Theune]

Jose wrote:
>> 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
I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please
cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US )

John

[Jose[_1_]]

> 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.

If I run a hotel that grants pilots a 20% room discount, r.a.p
participants an additional 10% discount, and married couples a 30%
discount plus a free airplane flight, I am fully within my rights to
charge a non-pilot, non-poster, sharaged couple the full price and deny
them an airplane flight, no matter what the US government says.

And I don't even know if "convincing the the government of the US that
'shariage' is the same-sex equivalent of 'marriage'" means anything.
The government can grant priviliages for itself, but not for me. It
can't force me to give a discount to boaters if I also give a discount
to pilots.

The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should
have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy,
same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children.
I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that
they actually had the "same rights and priviliages".

> It would have no impact on me at all, any more than changing the word
> for "breakfast" to "hotel" would.

Then why are you so worked up over it? Let them use the label, and move on.

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_]]

> I disagree. Medical Power of attorney is respected everywhere. Please cite a case where it has not been. ( Assumption is that your in the US )

I am not gay and have not run into this personally. However I have
friends who are, and have. I'll ask around.

I =have= had the experience where certain powers of attorney which I
held (non-medical) were not respected, because the paperwork got
misplaced (at least that was the excuse). In the power-of-attorney
cases with which I am familiar, it can get sticky, and that's the last
thing you need if faced with a bigoted administrator, a dying loved one,
and other logistical problems.

And in any case, this would only cover medical issues. There are a host
of other areas (such as real estate held between spouses).

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]

> The same could be said for mixed race marriages... maybe they should
> have been called "joinages", to distinguish them from normal, healthy,
> same race unions which will produce normal, healthy, same race children.
> I don't think those that engaged in "joinages" would have found that
> they actually had the "same rights and priviliages".

A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
*appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
*actions*.

It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against
someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong.

It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that
discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions is morally
wrong. That is a very slippery moral slope, indeed, and the two
instances are not on the same philosophical level.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jose[_1_]]

> A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
> *appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
> *actions*.

Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being
judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was
like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit!
Their appearance merely made it hard to hide that fact. And homosexual
couples are not being discrminiated on the basis of their actions, but
rather, on the basis of who they are. Sexual orientation is not a
choice. You didn't choose to like girls, you just did. It's built in
to you just like your race is.

> It is obvious to anyone (nowadays, anyway) that discriminating against
> someone on the basis of their appearance is morally wrong.

Exactly. "Nowadays, anyway". But back then it was an abomination, a
vile smear on the elegant institution of marriage.

> It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that...

That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me).
=Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we
will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we
accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you
really mean it to be as sweeping as all this?

> ...discriminating against someone on the basis of their actions...

.... which is not what it's about (see above).

Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on.
And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is
=loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world.
They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and
lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed
this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's
what marriage is about).

I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?

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...
> A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
> *appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
> *actions*.

No, in both cases the couple is judged by the same *combination* of their
actions (namely, the action of being a couple and having sex together) and
their physical characteristics (namely, whether their races or genders match
or not).

--Gary

[Don Tuite]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:48:09 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> 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.
>
You might want to throw common-law wedlock into the pot as well:
Marriage per se, without any jumping over broom-handles.

Don

[Don Tabor]

On 14 Nov 2006 07:20:26 -0800, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> > 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.
>--

There is a Libertarian solution to the problem.

That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to
marriage.

Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in
front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever
community will provide the emotional and social support for your
marriage.

Separation of marriage and state and all that.

Don

[Jose[_1_]]

> There is a Libertarian solution to the problem.
>
> That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
> provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
> to marriage.

That only works if all the other parties (that is, everyone who deals
differently with married couples) agree, every time.

So long as different words are used, it's still easy to discriminate.

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.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jose > posted:

>> A specious comparison. Mixed race couples were being judged on their
>> *appearance*, while same sex couples are being judged by their
>> *actions*.
>
> Not such a specious comparison. Mixed race couples were not being
> judged on their appearance, but rather, on =what= they were. It was
> like a man marrying a dog. They were a different =race= goddamit!
>
Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they
were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions
based on how people look.

I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different
"races" within the human species. In short, I agree with Jay on the nature
of your comparison.

Neil

[Gary Drescher]

"Don Tabor" > wrote in message
...
> That is to allow civil unions for any consenting adult couple which
> provide those legal privileges and responsibilities currently attached
> to marriage. Other than that, government has no function relating to
> marriage.
>
> Get your civil union registered at the courthouse, get married in
> front of your church, family, friends, or bowling league, whatever
> community will provide the emotional and social support for your
> marriage.
>
> Separation of marriage and state and all that.

Yes, that would be a reasonable solution. Let the government provide civil
unions, and let churches or whatever sanctify marriages according to
whatever criteria they want to use. (To this day, there are still some
churches that refuse to sanctify interracial marriages. Although their
policy is morally reprehensible, it is unassailably protected as part of
their free-speech rights, and properly so, since a religious sanctification
constitutes nothing but an expression of belief.)

But as long as the government does presume to certify "marriages", they
should do so without regard to the race or gender of the participants.

--Gary

[gatt]

"LWG" > wrote in message
. ..

>> 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.

> 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?

If we apply that logic to Islam, do we also apply it to Christianity when we
are told that the punishment for not believing is ETERNAL torture and
damnation?

Is there some reason I would wish to kill a child in Jordan or Kuwait
because of a fundamentalist in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan?

There are radical muslims in Australia. Should we nuke Sydney, too?


-c

[gatt]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Gatt,
>
>> For what?
>>
> You're actually trying sensible discussion with this nutcase?

Nope. It ceased to be constructive.

-c

[gatt]

As such, your views have no value.


"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> Yep.
>

>> Yeah I could tell by your comments that you are too intolerant of someone
>> who has other views.

[Jose[_1_]]

> Then, it's incumbent on you to explain how you could tell "what they
> were". One certainly can't tell by looking, but one *can* make assumptions
> based on how people look.

I'm not even sure what this means. Mixed race couples would not be
accepted even if they dyed their skin. Same race couples would be
accepted, even if one of them had a deep sun tan.

> I won't even go into the lack of validity of the concept of different
> "races" within the human species.

It doesn't have to be valid - it merely has to be a way to discriminate,
which it is. And, btw, I am not supporting such bigotry as "They were a
different =race= goddamit!" by posting it, I'm merely pointing out that
at one time, not too long ago, that bigotry did exist.

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.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

>
> Why should a hospital decide who has "visitation rights" in the first place?

What if a celebrity is in the hospital?

[Don Tabor]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:49:26 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
>>
>> Why should a hospital decide who has "visitation rights" in the first place?
>
>What if a celebrity is in the hospital?

Shouldn't the person in the hospital decide who can visit?

Don

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Don Tabor wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:49:26 GMT, B A R R Y >
> wrote:
>
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>>> Why should a hospital decide who has "visitation rights" in the first place?
>> What if a celebrity is in the hospital?
>
> Shouldn't the person in the hospital decide who can visit?
>
> Don


I think so, but that may not be posssible.

What if they haven't been awake since admission?

Think of how many curious "friends" a celebrity or politician might have.

[Peter Duniho]

"Crash Lander" > wrote in message
...
> So homosexual people separate them selves from the rest of the population,
> in turn, feeding the discrimination and segregation they so fiercely
> protest!

I tend to separate myself from the non-flying population by hanging out at
airports. I do this BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE AIRPLANES ARE. Duh. Am I
feeding the discrimination against pilots just because I happen to have a
good understanding of how to most efficiently address my needs as a pilot?

>> 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!

It is not "fed" at all by homosexuals. That is strictly in your perception,
and cannot be blamed on them.

>> 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!

No, they wouldn't. They would waste a lot of time meeting people who are
straight. I have several gay friends who have described this very problem.
There just aren't enough homosexual people in the general problem for them
to be effective at meeting other gays in settings not specifically
identified as being for gays.

> Why have a separate one? You don't hear straight people crying
> discrimination when we aren't allowed in a 'gay' club.

It is a common response from the dominant majority to cry "why aren't our
ways good enough for them?" Suffice to say, such cries are irrelevant and
misguided. They only serve to demonstrate just how little empathy those
people in the dominant majority have for what it really means to be in a
minority group.

> Sexual 'hook-ups' are not the only reason one goes to a pub or club.

So what? That wasn't the question. The issue is what a gay person is to do
when the point *is* for meeting a sexual partner. Other uses for bars are
irrelevant.

>> 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.

So you agree with me. Why did you bring it up then?

> As I said before, that is not the only reason to be at a club or pub.

So what? The fact remains that meeting sexual partners IS a reason to be at
a bar, and inasmuch as this is true, having a bar where all the people there
are sexually like-minded is useful (and not at all related to the question
of "feeding discrimination").

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"John Theune" > wrote in message
news:Uol6h.891$672.696@trndny01...
> 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.

Some issues can be solved through legal contracts. Some cannot.

For example, none of the federal tax benefits that come from being a married
couple are applicable to same-sex couples. No amount of legal contract
writing can change this.

Jose's example was simply that...an example. It in no way implies that if
you solve that one problem (and as he points out, doing that is not
assured), you have addressed the general problem of government-sanctioned
and government-implemented discrimination against same-sex couples.

> By the way, the same problem occurs for hetro couple who are not married.
> They lose visitation privileges as well.

But heterosexual couples have a viable legal option to solve the problem.
They can get married. With a single act and a single piece of paper, they
are granted a huge swath of legal rights. Rights that can only partially,
and imperfectly, be emulated through thousands, if not tens of thousands, of
dollars worth of legal action.

Pete

[Don Tabor]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 19:09:16 GMT, B A R R Y >
wrote:

>I think so, but that may not be posssible.
>
>What if they haven't been awake since admission?


Then put those things in writing while you are healthy and entrust
several friends with copies.

Liberty requires accepting a certain amount of responsibility for
being proactive.


Don

[Peter Duniho]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> There just aren't enough homosexual people in the general problem [...]

"Problem", "population"...I didn't write the word I meant to, but in
hindsight it seems to apply equally. :)

[Jay Honeck]

> > It is not obvious to anyone (nowadays, or ever, AFAIK) that...
>
> That's a pretty sweeping statement. =Anyone=? (it's obvious to me).
> =Ever=? (I'd like to see your time machine - I think in the future we
> will have accepted gay couples as loving family units just like we
> accept mixed race couples the same way). Care to rephrase, or do you
> really mean it to be as sweeping as all this?

I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was
referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against
people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This
"discrimination" is called the "law."

Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point:

If you decide you're going to stick your finger in your nose in a fine
restaurant, and eat whatever you retrieve, you WILL be escorted from
that restaurant, guaranteed.

However, if you have blue eyes, you won't. One is an action, one is an
appearance. They are both harmless to all concerned, but are treated
quite differently.

Why? Because the vast majority of society is offended by people
eating their own snot, but are not offended by blue-colored eyes.

Mind you, I'm not delving into the reasons WHY society finds
nose-picking obnoxious. It doesn't really make much sense, when you
analyze it, and, quite frankly, I don't care. That's just the way it
is.

Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your
own home, or amongst like-minded nose-pickers who find that action to
be particularly exciting, all is well. Keep things private, and
consenting adults can do anything they want.

But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters
should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons in the
eyes of the state, or that loving nose-picking couples should be
granted the same social rights and legal status as blue-eyed married
couples, I suspect you're going to run into a brick wall.

This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face. It's
an uphill battle to surmount, to say the least. Why in the world the
gay community is wasting their hard-won political capital on such a
losing battle is a mystery. It's an unwinnable fight that -- after last
week's elections -- appears to be severely harming their long-term
cause.

> Yes, in general, actions are something we may discriminate based on.
> And the =important= actions here are that a loving gay couple is
> =loving= That's a Good Thing. It's what we need more of in this world.
> They are committed to each other. That is also a Good Thing (and
> lacking in many heterosexual married couples). They have proclaimed
> this committment for life in front of all. That's a Good Thing (that's
> what marriage is about).
>
> I see Good Things. What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?

Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[mike regish]

I don't practice any religion. I AM an athiest. Name one war that was fought
in in the name of athiesm. Not by athiests, but in the name of athiesm.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[mike regish]

Who was talking about? Don't see me mentioned anywhere here.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[mike regish]

I do. No higher power told me to invade Iraq but failed to tell me there
were no WMDs.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> 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

[mike regish]

Not what the pope says.

mike

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

[mike regish]

I bet you've read Ann Coulter's book "How to Talk to a Liberal If You Really
Have To."

mike
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
> It's called "civility", Gary, and it's something the Left has lost long
> ago.

[mike regish]

Why? What effect does it possibly have on you what it's called.

mike

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message >
> Unfortunately, the label they're trying to usurp has already been
> taken. Come up with a new one, and move on.

[mike regish]

"In Afghanistan under the Taliban, the official punishment for homosexuality
was execution, by the tasteful method of burial alive under a wall pushed
over on the victim. The 'crime' itself being a private act, performed by
consenting adults who were doing nobody else any harm, we again have here
the classic hallmark of religious absolutism."

Quoted from Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion". Pg 289

You're not far ahead of them. Some here are much closer.

mike



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > 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"
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:27:15 +0000, Crash Lander wrote:
> You support one football team, and I support another. I may not agree
> with your choice to support that particular team, for whatever reason.
> That doesn't mean I wouldn't be civil or even friendly with you. It just
> means I won't rush out to help you support that team.

In other words, some people like sheep, some like 'roos... And you're
flexible... <dirty-old-man-grin>

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
. ..
> 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?

You are twisting my words. I said I wanted to keep my way of life separate
to that of a homosexual. That is, the interests and hobbies that conflict.
We all have different morals. Why would I want to indulge or condone
someones morals that I don't agree with? That doesn't mean I'm going to bash
or ignore, or not be social or civil to that person.
You support one football team, and I support another. I may not agree with
your choice to support that particular team, for whatever reason. That
doesn't mean I wouldn't be civil or even friendly with you. It just means I
won't rush out to help you support that team.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

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

This is pretty much what I've been trying, (somewhat unsuccessfully it would
seem!), to portray. The last 7 words are worth emphasising though. It's the
same for straight people though! How often do you see a young, or even not
so young straight couple making out quite vigorously in a park, or whislt
waiting to cross a road? What's the first thing that pops into your mind?
"Get a room!" So see? All orientations should keep it behind closed doors.

> 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.

Unfortunately Jay, some people do want to harm them, and I feel just as
strongly against that.

> 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.

Again, my thoughts exactly. This was the root of my 'they bring it on
themselves' type comments. I think I expressed it less elloquently however.

> But enough of this! How in the heck we went from FBO courtesy to THIS
> is beyond me.

Here here! Did you ever hear anymore about the event, or did you ever
contact him again?

Oz/Crash Lander
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>
> For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
> hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.
>

This is an irrelevant point. Say for example, I'm in hospital from massive
injuries from a car accident or something. The hospital says I'm only
allowed immediate family to visit. My best mate of 30 years, whom I love
like a brother, isn't allowed to visit. This would irk him too, but he
doesn't cry discrimination or equal rights about it.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Judah]

"mike regish" > wrote in news:
:

> Budhism is non-theist.

It's still a religion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion - 2nd definition even
mentions it by name.

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> I don't practice any religion. I AM an athiest. Name one war that was fought
> in in the name of athiesm. Not by athiests, but in the name of athiesm.

Atheism is your religion. And a dangerous one it is.

Matt

[mike regish]

It's a poor example of one. Budhism is more a way of life. Religion claims
to be, but is not.

mike

"Judah" > wrote in message
.. .
> "mike regish" > wrote in news:
> :
>
>> Budhism is non-theist.
>
> It's still a religion.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion - 2nd definition even
> mentions it by name.

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>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.

They usurped "gay" so stealing marriage won't bother them either.

Matt

[Jay Beckman]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
> It's a poor example of one. Budhism is more a way of life. Religion claims
> to be, but is not.
>
> mike
>


As are all religions when practiced in their most strict orthodox manner.

Jay B

[george]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> > Damn, I won't be able to call you a pillock now :-)
>
> Heh heh. Don't worry, there plenty of other epithets you can sling at
> me...
>
> Once I told my 16 year old son this new word, that's all I've been
> hearing. I suspect by now it has swept through his high school like a
> wave, and will soon be chanted at the next home football game...
>
> Pil-LOCK! Pil-LOCK! Pil-LOCK!

Ah, the delights of knowing English is spoken there :-)

[Jose[_1_]]

> I wasn't referring specifically to the actions of gay couples -- I was
> referring to the fact that we can (as a society) "discriminate" against
> people's *actions* as opposed to their appearance. This
> "discrimination" is called the "law."

.... and there once were laws against the =action= of blacks sitting in
the front of the bus. Laws are made by people. They are mutable. Many
laws are Bad Laws, and should be changed.

Anyway, just what "actions of gay couples" are you referring to?

> Now, if you do your nose picking (and eating) in the privacy of your
> own home...

So far I'm with you, but you are about to use faith based reasoning
again. Having blue eyes and picking your nose in public are not
mutually exclusive.

Suppose.... blue eyed people pick their nose too but with their left
hand. Should they be denied entrance to the restaurant? Only if they
do it in public. Suppose brown eyed people pick their nose in private,
but with their right hand, should they be allowed into the restaurant?
Of course they should.

What is happening however is that people realized that blue eyed people
pick their nose with the left hand (that's ok) and brown eyed people
pick their nose with their right hand. So it is against the law for
brown eyed people to go to the restaurant.

> But when you announce to the non-nose-picking world that snot-eaters
> should be given equal rights with blue-eyed restaurant patrons...

> This is the wall of societal norms that homosexual couples face.

Actually, the wall that they face is the presumption in people's minds
that gays are trying to legalize public gay fornication. Your "silly
example" shows that this is your perception, but that just isn't the way
it is. They just want the same legal rights (and no more) as straight
people.

>>What are the Bad Things you are afraid of?
> Nothing. Where's the argument? Back to flying!

Then why do you so =strenuously= object to letting gay people get
married? If there is no harm, why not let them and move on?

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]

And all, with the exceptions of Budhism and Jainism, have some of the most
barbaric "ways of life" ever devised by any living creature. Especially in
their most strict orthodox manner.

mike



"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
> "mike regish" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It's a poor example of one. Budhism is more a way of life. Religion
>> claims to be, but is not.
>>
>> mike
>>
>
>
> As are all religions when practiced in their most strict orthodox manner.
>
> Jay B
>

[mike regish]

There are no athiests ramming jets into sky scrapers in the name of athiesm.
There are muslims.

There are no athiest missionaries preaching against condom use in
sub-Saharan Africa resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year.
There ARE Christian missionaries doing just that.

There are no athiests saying Katrina destroyed New Orleans because there was
a lesbian there. There ARE Christian evangelists who say that.

I don't "practice" anything. I have NO religion. And I see the damage done
by yours.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> I don't practice any religion. I AM an athiest. Name one war that was
>> fought in in the name of athiesm. Not by athiests, but in the name of
>> athiesm.
>
> Atheism is your religion. And a dangerous one it is.
>
> Matt

[Judah]

"mike regish" > wrote in news:hf-
:

> And all, with the exceptions of Budhism and Jainism, have some of the most
> barbaric "ways of life" ever devised by any living creature. Especially in
> their most strict orthodox manner.

Hmm...

Didn't the Japanese Samurai's subscribe to Buddhism?

I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...

[mike regish]

There were individual Samurai that practiced Budhism. They weren't part and
parcel of each other.

mike

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> "mike regish" > wrote in news:hf-
> :
>
>> And all, with the exceptions of Budhism and Jainism, have some of the
>> most
>> barbaric "ways of life" ever devised by any living creature. Especially
>> in
>> their most strict orthodox manner.
>
> Hmm...
>
> Didn't the Japanese Samurai's subscribe to Buddhism?
>
> I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...

[mike regish]

Exactly.

mike

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..

> I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...

[Jay Somerset]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:42:16 GMT, "Crash Lander" > wrote:

> "Jose" > wrote in message
> t...
> >
> > For one thing, gay partners are not allowed certain visitation rights in
> > hospitals, as they are not family. This kind of irks them.
> >
>
> This is an irrelevant point. Say for example, I'm in hospital from massive
> injuries from a car accident or something. The hospital says I'm only
> allowed immediate family to visit. My best mate of 30 years, whom I love
> like a brother, isn't allowed to visit. This would irk him too, but he
> doesn't cry discrimination or equal rights about it.
> Oz/Crash Lander
>

Whenever I see see a read with repeated dialog between less than a half
dozen people, I really wish the participants would try using Instant
messenger, rather than watsing usenet bnswidth ona local dialog.

The thread leading into this message is a case in point!

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:
> There are no athiests ramming jets into sky scrapers in the name of athiesm.
> There are muslims.
>
> There are no athiest missionaries preaching against condom use in
> sub-Saharan Africa resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year.
> There ARE Christian missionaries doing just that.
>
> There are no athiests saying Katrina destroyed New Orleans because there was
> a lesbian there. There ARE Christian evangelists who say that.
>
> I don't "practice" anything. I have NO religion. And I see the damage done
> by yours.

If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything
you mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from
your religion.

Matt

[mike regish]

Psycho.

Do you REALLY believe that crap? And if you do, and I think you do, then you
know what a powerful tool it is with which to control men and convince them
that the vilest most cruel acts are justified.

Check this crap out and tell me you would even want to be associated with a
god who would encourage this.
http://www.dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm

Maybe W went here for some tips.

You are truly sick.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>> There are no athiests ramming jets into sky scrapers in the name of
>> athiesm. There are muslims.
>>
>> There are no athiest missionaries preaching against condom use in
>> sub-Saharan Africa resulting in millions of preventable deaths each year.
>> There ARE Christian missionaries doing just that.
>>
>> There are no athiests saying Katrina destroyed New Orleans because there
>> was a lesbian there. There ARE Christian evangelists who say that.
>>
>> I don't "practice" anything. I have NO religion. And I see the damage
>> done by yours.
>
> If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
> Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything you
> mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from your
> religion.
>
> Matt

[Philip S.]

in article , Crash Lander at
wrote on 11/13/06 8:46 PM:

> "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?

>Lot's of gay obsession snipped<

Why do you conclude that I'm a homosexual? Just curious.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:34:53 +0000, Judah wrote:
> I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...

Yep... Some say System V, some say BSD... And then there is that really
strange fringe element, Ultrix... I'm flexible -- I figure any of them is
better than Windoze...

[[email protected][_1_]]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:14:06 -0500, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>No, Jay. Standing silently while someone urges the extermination of a
>minority group may be called many things, but it is not called "civility".

I can agree with that, sometimes it is even called "presidency".

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9803/25/rwanda.clinton/

snip

>Well, better late than never.

I can agree with that too.

TC

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:13:09 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
> If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
> Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything
> you mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from
> your religion.

Sorry Matt, but you have no truly objective proof of that... It seems that
every religious sect (i.e. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Mormon, Jew,
Camel ****er, etc) thinks that the other sects are going to get the
basement level in the afterlife whereas only they are the "true believers"
and will be afforded the penthouse view... Odds are, most (if not all) of
them are wrong...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:04:21 -0500, wrote:
> Whenever I see see a read with repeated dialog between less than a half
> dozen people, I really wish the participants would try using Instant
> messenger, rather than watsing usenet bnswidth ona local dialog.

**** Instant Messanger... Learn how to use the "ignore thread" feature on
your newsreader...

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Philip S." > wrote in message
...
>
> Why do you conclude that I'm a homosexual? Just curious.
>

I never said you were. Your defence of the orientation suggested to me that
you may be. If you are, great. Good for you. If you're not, great. Good for
you. Makes no difference to me, as long as it's kept behind closed doors,
and not jumped up and down the street in front of me and my kids.
I've worked with gay guys, ****, I even have an Uncle that's gay. Doesn't
mean I have to like his way of life. Also doesn't mean he's not a nice
person.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:
> Psycho.
>
> Do you REALLY believe that crap? And if you do, and I think you do, then you
> know what a powerful tool it is with which to control men and convince them
> that the vilest most cruel acts are justified.

Sure beats your crap.


> Check this crap out and tell me you would even want to be associated with a
> god who would encourage this.
> http://www.dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm

God doesn't encourage that. Evil men do.


> Maybe W went here for some tips.
>
> You are truly sick.

And you are lost and perishing. Hopefully, you will see the light
before it is too late.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Grumman-581 wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:13:09 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
>>Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything
>>you mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from
>>your religion.
>
>
> Sorry Matt, but you have no truly objective proof of that... It seems that
> every religious sect (i.e. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Mormon, Jew,
> Camel ****er, etc) thinks that the other sects are going to get the
> basement level in the afterlife whereas only they are the "true believers"
> and will be afforded the penthouse view... Odds are, most (if not all) of
> them are wrong...

And he has no objective proof that God encourages or even condones the
atrocities to which he makes reference.

Matt

[Jose[_1_]]

>>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.

He was talking about me. He considers me less intelligent than
somebody's former (dumb) girlfriend because I stated that our ancestors
(far enough back in evolutionary times) =did= have the ability to regrow
parts.

He's using faith based reasoning. Don't sweat it.

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_]]

> The hospital says I'm only
> allowed immediate family to visit. My best mate of 30 years, whom I love
> like a brother, isn't allowed to visit. This would irk him too, but he
> doesn't cry discrimination or equal rights about it.

Would it irk you? Do you consider this "best mate" to =be= family?

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_]]

> Whenever I see see a read with repeated dialog between less than a half
> dozen people, I really wish the participants would try using Instant
> messenger, rather than watsing usenet bnswidth ona local dialog.
>
> The thread leading into this message is a case in point!

We actually had a good solution for that (the prepends, like OT, POL,
PED) but forgot. I've started prepending POL when I remember.

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_]]

>>Would it irk you? Do you consider this "best mate" to =be= family?
> No. He's not family. Nothing will change that.

Well then, your comparison to some gay couples is flawed. There are gay
couples that are like "boyfriend/girlfriend"; they are not family to
each other. They're dating. Those are not the ones seeking visitation
rights for themselves. However, there are other gay couples that have
committed themselves to each other for life. =They= are family to each
other. =They= are the ones that want their ssspouse to be able to visit
them.

That's far more akin to your wife being denied visitation rights because
she is not a blood relative. I bet that would irk you.

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_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> The hospital says I'm only allowed immediate family to visit. My best
>> mate of 30 years, whom I love like a brother, isn't allowed to visit.
>> This would irk him too, but he doesn't cry discrimination or equal rights
>> about it.
>
> Would it irk you? Do you consider this "best mate" to =be= family?
>
> Jose

No. He's not family. Nothing will change that. (unless he marries my sister
or something, and even then, he wouldn't pass as immediate family.)
Oz/Crash Lander

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-15, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
> Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything
> you mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from
> your religion.

Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's an
....absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you know.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[mike regish]

Not even close.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>> Psycho.
>>
>> Do you REALLY believe that crap? And if you do, and I think you do, then
>> you know what a powerful tool it is with which to control men and
>> convince them that the vilest most cruel acts are justified.
>
> Sure beats your crap.
>
>
>> Check this crap out and tell me you would even want to be associated with
>> a god who would encourage this.
>> http://www.dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm
>
> God doesn't encourage that. Evil men do.

Yeah. OK. You keep believing that. Does the tooth fairy leave money for
dentures? Do you still leave out cookies and milk for Santa? Grow up! Make
your own decisions and stop deluding yourself.
>
>
>> Maybe W went here for some tips.
>>
>> You are truly sick.
>
> And you are lost and perishing. Hopefully, you will see the light before
> it is too late.

I already have.
>
> Matt

[mike regish]

I love this! YOU want PROOF. How freakin rich is that?

OK. I want PROOF that there is a god. Proof...not that "cause the bible says
so" crap.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> And he has no objective proof that God encourages or even condones the
> atrocities to which he makes reference.
>
> Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Dylan,

> Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's an
> ....absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you know.
>

We had a extensive discussion on this a while back - google it, if you
like. I promise you: Matt won't budge. You haven't seen half of it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-15, Grumman-581 > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:34:53 +0000, Judah wrote:
>> I guess there are indeed fanatics in ALL religions...
>
> Yep... Some say System V, some say BSD... And then there is that really
> strange fringe element, Ultrix... I'm flexible -- I figure any of them is
> better than Windoze...

Vi is better than emacs.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-14, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> If you decide you're going to stick your finger in your nose in a fine
> restaurant, and eat whatever you retrieve, you WILL be escorted from
> that restaurant, guaranteed.
>
> However, if you have blue eyes, you won't. One is an action, one is an
> appearance. They are both harmless to all concerned, but are treated
> quite differently.

How is the action of a straight couple loving each other any different
from a gay couple loving each other? Gayness or straightness is just an
attribute of who you are, just like, say, having blue eyes or being left
handed. Denying gay marriage makes as much sense as denying left handed
marriage.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:18:35 +0000, Dylan Smith wrote:
> Vi is better than emacs.

Hmmm... It would appear that we are of the same religious sect... <grin>

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:
> I love this! YOU want PROOF. How freakin rich is that?
>
> OK. I want PROOF that there is a god. Proof...not that "cause the bible says
> so" crap.

I have at least as much proof as you have.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> On 2006-11-15, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>If yours were practiced universally, all mankind would spend eternity in
>> Hell, which is much worse in both numbers and magnitude than anything
>>you mentioned above. That is what I call real damage and it occurs from
>>your religion.
>
>
> Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's an
> ...absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you know.
>

No, it is just a different belief system. Try again.

Matt

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-15, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's an
>> ...absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you know.
>
> No, it is just a different belief system. Try again.

Oh - so now if a "belief system" is a religion, is believing that when I
flick the light switch the light will turn on - is the principles that
believing the electricity company will be reliable at providing me with
electricity a religion? No.

Not having a religion is not having a religion. It isn't a belief
system. There's no system about it - it's an ABSENCE of
belief-in-a-deity-system.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jose[_1_]]

> How is the action of a straight couple loving each other any different
> from a gay couple loving each other?

They aren't. That's the point I'm trying to make to Jay, who seems to
think that if we allow gays to marry, there will be gay couples having
sex in public on some airliner. (Fortunately, we have the Patriot Act
we can use on them).

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]

> Whenever I see see a read with repeated dialog between less than a half
> dozen people, I really wish the participants would try using Instant
> messenger, rather than watsing usenet bnswidth ona local dialog.
>
> The thread leading into this message is a case in point!

Agreed. I am outta here. The rest of you guys can bicker about God,
and gays, and Muslims all you want.

I'll continue to post my flying experiences here, but I hope to never,
ever, see another thread go off the deep end like this one did.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 02:41:22 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote in
>:

>On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:04:21 -0500, wrote:
>> Whenever I see see a read with repeated dialog between less than a half
>> dozen people, I really wish the participants would try using Instant
>> messenger, rather than watsing usenet bnswidth ona local dialog.
>
>**** Instant Messanger... Learn how to use the "ignore thread" feature on
>your newsreader...

With all due respect, is it possible you might consider censoring the
profanity from the articles you post to this worldwide forum. Your
use of profanity undermines any sense of responsibility and dignity
that might be conferred on airmen, and casts you personally in an
unflattering light, IMHO. Thank you.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:35:16 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
> With all due respect, is it possible you might consider censoring the
> profanity from the articles you post to this worldwide forum.

**** the world...

[mike regish]

Not even close. You have nothing, zip, zilch, nada...

I have mountains of scientific data.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>> I love this! YOU want PROOF. How freakin rich is that?
>>
>> OK. I want PROOF that there is a god. Proof...not that "cause the bible
>> says so" crap.
>
> I have at least as much proof as you have.
>
> Matt

[mike regish]

No it's not.

Try again.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>
>
> No, it is just a different belief system. Try again.
>
> Matt

[Blanche]

Grumman-581 > wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:35:16 +0000, Larry Dighera wrote:
>> With all due respect, is it possible you might consider censoring the
>> profanity from the articles you post to this worldwide forum.
>
>**** the world...

I want to sell tickets to for that show!

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:47:40 +0000, Blanche wrote:
> I want to sell tickets to for that show!

Well, ya' know what the Grand Canyon looks like from a distance, right?
<dirty-old-man-grin>

[Montblack]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
>>> #%^* the world...

>> I want to sell tickets to for that show!

> Well, ya' know what the Grand Canyon looks like from a distance, right?
> <dirty-old-man-grin>


'Sometimes an asteroid is just an asteroid.'


Montblack

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> Not even close. You have nothing, zip, zilch, nada...
>
> I have mountains of scientific data.

Wow, I've never heard that one before.

Matt

[Judah]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> Sorry Matt, but you have no truly objective proof of that... It seems
> that every religious sect (i.e. Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Mormon,
> Jew, Camel ****er, etc) thinks that the other sects are going to get the
> basement level in the afterlife whereas only they are the "true
> believers" and will be afforded the penthouse view... Odds are, most (if
> not all) of them are wrong...

Actually, you're wrong.

Jews believe that non-Jews are welcomed into the world to come, assuming
they uphold certain basic morays. In fact, some non-Jews are at the highest
levels of the World to Come, and spend eternity studying and learning with
the greatest Rabbis and Forefathers of the Jewish people.

Additionally, Jews don't look to convert others to Judaism. In fact, they
discourage conversion, and some conversions from more "modernized" sects
are even rejected by the more Orthodox groups.

As for whether the Jews are right or not, I don't know. Maybe Mike is right
with his Atheism. Or maybe the Muslims are right. Or maybe even those guys
who believe Bob is coming back in his spaceship are right. I can't say for
sure.

But at the end of the day, there are certain things in life that I see and
I can't explain. Divinity or Synchronicity - it's just a way of explaining
the unexplainable, and it's still a dogmatic belief system no matter which
side of it your on.

Every dogma has its fleas... But that doesn't make the whole dogma evil...

[mike regish]

And that surprises you?

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> Not even close. You have nothing, zip, zilch, nada...
>>
>> I have mountains of scientific data.
>
> Wow, I've never heard that one before.
>
> Matt

[Judah]

Dylan Smith > wrote in
:

> Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's an
> ...absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you know.

It's possible. But not likely. Atheism is not absence of religion. It's a
dogmatic belief that there is no God. It is not all that much different in
the dogmatic belief that there is a God. Or the dogmatic belief that there
are numerous Gods. Or the dogmatic belief that there is a supernatural force
that governs all things. Or the dogmatic belief that there are 4 elements
that govern all things.

Until someone can unequivocably prove one way or the other, they are all just
religions seeking answers to pretty much the same questions...

[Jim Logajan]

Judah > wrote:
> Dylan Smith > wrote in
> :
>
>> Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's
>> an ...absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you
>> know.
>
> It's possible. But not likely. Atheism is not absence of religion.

"If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

> Until someone can unequivocably prove one way or the other, they are
> all just religions seeking answers to pretty much the same
> questions...

Claiming that atheism is a religion leads to a contradiction. Consider the
logic:

Statement X: "A person making the statement Y, "All religions are
invalid," makes the person a member of a religion R."

Assume statement X is true:

(1) The person is now in a religion R whose only precept, Y, is true,
making the religion R valid.
(2) But if the religion R is valid, then the statement Y is now false
(because by statement X there exists at least one valid religion, R).

Y is true in (1), which leads to (2), where Y is false.

Statement X is therefore self-contradictory for all values of R (including
R = atheism). Therefore atheism is not a religion.

QED ;-)

(I've added PHIL to indicate off-topic philosophical content :-))

[Jay Beckman]

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> Judah > wrote:
>> Dylan Smith > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's
>>> an ...absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you
>>> know.
>>
>> It's possible. But not likely. Atheism is not absence of religion.
>
> "If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

The difference being that no one would ever claim that stamps don't exsist.

Jay B

[Jose[_1_]]

> "If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

Snarf.

To snarf means to take, (usually surrepticiously) an item (usually a
small one). I've just snarfed this into my quotes file. (How) would
you like to be credited when I use it?

> Statement X: "A person making the statement Y, "All religions are
> invalid," makes the person a member of a religion R."

What does "valid" and "invalid" mean in this context? A religion can be
valid and false, for some reasonable definitions of "valid".

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 atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."
> The difference being that no one would ever claim that stamps don't exsist.

Not sufficiently parallel. Stamp collectors collect stamps. Do
religions collect gods?

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_]]

> ...there are certain things in life that I see and
> I can't explain. Divinity or Synchronicity...

.... or perhaps just the way probability really works. Things that seem
improbable occur quite often, merely by chance. (this can be shown to
be true with pure numbers - no actual events are necessary)

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_]]

> Atheism is not absence of religion. It's a
> dogmatic belief that there is no God.

The word is actually used both ways. This tends to confuse things,
since people respond to the words they hear, not to the ideas that were
not successfully expressed. When I need to be precise, I use the
following three words thus:

Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered up in
the religions I know of, exist.

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.

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> "If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."
>
> Snarf.
>
> To snarf means to take, (usually surrepticiously) an item (usually a
> small one). I've just snarfed this into my quotes file. (How) would
> you like to be credited when I use it?

The quote did not originate from me. I don't recall where I first saw it -
a net search may locate the originator.

>> Statement X: "A person making the statement Y, "All religions are
>> invalid," makes the person a member of a religion R."
>
> What does "valid" and "invalid" mean in this context? A religion can be
> valid and false, for some reasonable definitions of "valid".

Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
> Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
> Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
> Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
> up in the religions I know of, exist.

OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

[mike regish]

They're both athiesm. The first is the type of athiest I was when I saw
religion as mostly harmless stupidity.

I don't see it that way any more, so now I'm an active athiest. I no longer
refuse to talk about religion when it is brought up. I state my athiesm and
my reasons.

mike


"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
>> Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
>> Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
>> Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
>> up in the religions I know of, exist.
>
> OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
> trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???
>
> --
> "Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"
>
>

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 05:29:28 -0500, mike regish wrote:
> I don't see it that way any more, so now I'm an active athiest. I no
> longer refuse to talk about religion when it is brought up. I state my
> athiesm and my reasons.

I'm a live and let live type of person for the most part -- as long as
someone doesn't try to force their lifestyle choices / beliefs upon me...
Otherwise, oh well, gators gotta eat too, ya' know... <evil-grin>

http://grumman581.googlepages.com/gators-gotta-eat-too

If someone wants to **** sheep while wearing rubber boots and a raincoat
and singing "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head", I don't care as long as
they do it in private... I don't mind them being a pervert, just keep it
private where it belongs and don't try to pretend that it is a normal
lifestyle choice... If they bring it out in public where my family might
have to see it ... well ... that means that I will have to get involved...
I seriously suspect that neither of us would really like for it to
escalate to that point...

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:
> And that surprises you?
>
> mike
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>mike regish wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not even close. You have nothing, zip, zilch, nada...
>>>
>>>I have mountains of scientific data.
>>
>>Wow, I've never heard that one before.
>>
>>Matt
>
>
>

Nope.

[Matt Whiting]

Jim Logajan wrote:

> Judah > wrote:
>
>>Dylan Smith > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>>Hell doesn't exist, and an absence of religion isn't a religion. It's
>>>an ...absence... of religion. It is possible to have no religion, you
>>>know.
>>
>>It's possible. But not likely. Atheism is not absence of religion.
>
>
> "If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."

Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp
collecting.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> They're both athiesm. The first is the type of athiest I was when I saw
> religion as mostly harmless stupidity.
>
> I don't see it that way any more, so now I'm an active athiest. I no longer
> refuse to talk about religion when it is brought up. I state my athiesm and
> my reasons.

I'm glad to hear that you are willing to debate your religion. That is
the first step to enlightenment.

Matt

[Judah]

Jose > wrote in news:t_T6h.3570$yE6.535
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com:

>> ...there are certain things in life that I see and
>> I can't explain. Divinity or Synchronicity...
>
> ... or perhaps just the way probability really works. Things that seem
> improbable occur quite often, merely by chance. (this can be shown to
> be true with pure numbers - no actual events are necessary)

You are welcome to whatever dogma you would like. But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

[Judah]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
>> Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
>> Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
>> Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
>> up in the religions I know of, exist.
>
> OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
> trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???

For what reasons would you have to kill someone? Self-defense is appropriate.
"Nuking the whole Middle East", as you indicated in a recent post, would not
be classified as self defense, however. It would instead be classified as
Genocide.

Evidently, you believe Genocide is appropriate for anyone who lives in a
region of the world that includes any people who scare you.

This parrallels the belief that Genocide is appropriate for anyone who
subscribes to a religion that includes people who scare you.

That should make you a target of your own fear and aggression...

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>>
>>> It's possible. But not likely. Atheism is not absence of religion.
>>
>> "If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."
>
> The difference being that no one would ever claim that stamps don't
> exsist.
>

Oh? Take a look at Emmanuel Kant for an example.

[Matt Barrow]

"Grumman-581" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:03:03 +0000, Jose wrote:
>> Athism: I do believe that there is no God.
>> Nontheism: I do not believe that there is a God.
>> Agnosticism: I'm not sure if any of the Gods that are proffered
>> up in the religions I know of, exist.
>
> OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
> trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???


I think that was Timothy Leary.

>
> --
> "Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Judah,

> But even scientists believe
> certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:
>

Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
not possible.

Oh, and scientists generally can "believe" all they want - during their
time off the job. "Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Judah]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Judah,
>
>> But even scientists believe
>> certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:
>>
>
> Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
> happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
> not possible.
>
> Oh, and scientists generally can "believe" all they want - during their
> time off the job. "Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.

I didn't say outside the realm of possibility. Only the realm of probability.
Carl Jung used the term Synchronicity to describe coincidental but meaningful
events that were uniquely improbable. It is a scientific principle that has
no basis in the scientific method... In fact I believe that Psychology is one
of the least scientific of the accepted medical sciences.

Scientists theories are beliefs until they are proven using the scientific
method. If a theory never get proven, it may remain a dogmatic belief.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:21:23 +0000, Judah wrote:
> For what reasons would you have to kill someone? Self-defense is
> appropriate. "Nuking the whole Middle East", as you indicated in a
> recent post, would not be classified as self defense, however. It would
> instead be classified as Genocide.

Nawh, it's called a premptive strike... They won't be satisfied until
we're dead, so it only makes sense to get them first...

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 06:49:57 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:
> I think that was Timothy Leary.

Damn... And I thought I was being original... <grin>

[Judah]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1163539109.157714.99560
@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Let's try a rather elaborately silly example to illustrate my point:
<snip>

Your example doesn't work. I don't think gay couples are asking to have the
right to have sex in public.

A better example might be if people who don't wash their hands after they pee
were to ask for the same right to eat in the Fancy Restaurant as those who do
wash their hands after they pee. I have been to plenty of fancy restaurants
and observed people who didn't wash their hands after they peed, and yet they
were not asked to leave the restaurant for their actions, even when there was
a valet in the bathroom as a witness. Personally, I prefer not to eat food
with pee-covered hands, but I certainly don't believe it's my responsibility
to try to prevent other people from eating their own pee if they so choose.
My wife, on the other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action
EXTREMELY disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash
his or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant.

Nonetheless, the non-hand-washing-after-peeing members of society have not
been refused service for their actions, because those actions are performed
in private.

[Don Tabor]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:21:23 GMT, Judah > wrote:

>For what reasons would you have to kill someone? Self-defense is appropriate.
>"Nuking the whole Middle East", as you indicated in a recent post, would not
>be classified as self defense, however. It would instead be classified as
>Genocide.
>
>Evidently, you believe Genocide is appropriate for anyone who lives in a
>region of the world that includes any people who scare you.
>
>This parrallels the belief that Genocide is appropriate for anyone who
>subscribes to a religion that includes people who scare you.

It would seem to me to be an excellent argument for taking care not to
scare him.

For me, deadly force is appropriate for eliminating threats to my
children and grandchildren.

So, cultures who make a point of threatening those I love are
appropriate for neutralization. It is not necessary to kill them all,
but we are entirely justified in denying them the technology for doing
us harm.

Don




Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 14:53:29 +0000, Judah wrote:
> Personally, I prefer not to eat food with pee-covered hands, but I
> certainly don't believe it's my responsibility to try to prevent other
> people from eating their own pee if they so choose. My wife, on the
> other hand, is more conservative, and finds such action EXTREMELY
> disgusting. She would probably look to have someone who didn't wash his
> or her hands after peeing ejected from the restaurant.

Sounds like your wife needs to understand that it is actually possible to
go to the bathroom without peeing all over your own hands... Oh well, it's
probably just a guy thing... Women wouldn't understand that it is possible
since they can't write their name in the snow...

--
"Is it possible for the voices in my head to use email from now on?"

[Thomas Borchert]

Judah,

> It is a scientific principle that has
> no basis in the scientific method
>

Then I guess we don't need to discuss it more.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:21:38 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>Jose > wrote:
>>> "If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."
>>
>> Snarf.
>>
>> To snarf means to take, (usually surrepticiously) an item (usually a
>> small one). I've just snarfed this into my quotes file. (How) would
>> you like to be credited when I use it?
>
>The quote did not originate from me. I don't recall where I first saw it -
>a net search may locate the originator.
>
>>> Statement X: "A person making the statement Y, "All religions are
>>> invalid," makes the person a member of a religion R."
>>
>> What does "valid" and "invalid" mean in this context? A religion can be
>> valid and false, for some reasonable definitions of "valid".
>
>Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
>world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

If cognative dissonance invalidated a religion, we could all stop
right there.

Don

[Jose[_1_]]

> Valid in this context means the statements the religion makes about the
> world are true. At least I think that is what I mean. :-)

Then...

> (1) The person is now in a religion R whose only precept, Y, is true,
> making the religion R valid.

.... the definition of religion implied above is extremely weak. To wit:
"A religion is a set of true statements" is a poor definition of
religion. I suppose that's your point (and I agree with it). However,
R being invalid does not prevent R from being a religion, any more than
X being invalid does.

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_]]

> OK, so which one is, "I don't care whether any dieties exist, I'm just
> trying to get through today without having to kill someone" ???

Pragmatism. :)

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_]]

> They're both athiesm. The first is the type of athiest I was when I saw
> religion as mostly harmless stupidity.

I posted three words.

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 atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."
>
>
> Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp collecting.

Is it possible to not have a hobby? (can you say "chartered accountant"?)

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_]]

> You are welcome to whatever dogma you would like. But even scientists believe
> certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

That "some scientists" believe something doesn't make it true.
Scientists have been wrong. Sometimes ridiculously wrong. However, an
error in science can be discovered (because by definition, a scientific
theory is "falisifiable"). And that one cannot explain something does
not mean that it is beyond explanation.

>> Things that seem improbable occur
>> quite often, merely by chance. (this can be shown to
>> be true with pure numbers - no actual events are necessary)

What is key here is that the class of "remarkable things" is bigger than
the single remakable thing that occurs. For example, it could be
remarkable that my brother and I show up at my cousin's wedding with
exactly the same pattern tie. The chances of that are 1 out of 50
(assuming we each have 50 ties, choose randomly, and always wear a tie)
If it happens, it will surely be noted.

However, it would be equally remarkable if we showed up with the same
pattern shirt, or the same pattern pants, or the same pattern of socks.
It would also be equally remarkable if it happened at my other
cousin's funeral, or the opening night of my sister's play. Using the
same numbers (yes, I know that 50 pairs of patterned pants =is=
remarkable), the chance of A REMARKABLE EVENT occuring is now much
higher, even though the chance of THIS PARTICULAR remarkable event
remains the same.

That's what people fail to fully percieve.

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_]]

> Scientists theories are beliefs until they are proven using the scientific
> method.

That's another misconception about science. Scientific thories are
=always= beliefs, until DISPROVEN. Nothing can be "proven" in science.
However, the failure to dispove something, when sufficiently strong
tests are applied, tend to increase ones faith in those beliefs.

The difference between a scientific theory and a religious idea is the
essence of "falsifiability". If a scientific theory incorrectly
describes reality, then it can be disproven. A theory which cannot be
disproven (even if it is false) is not a scientific theory, but a
religious dogma.

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.

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> (1) The person is now in a religion R whose only precept, Y, is true,
>> making the religion R valid.
>
> ... the definition of religion implied above is extremely weak. To wit:
> "A religion is a set of true statements" is a poor definition of
> religion. I suppose that's your point (and I agree with it). However,
> R being invalid does not prevent R from being a religion, any more than
> X being invalid does.

The "deductive" argument I posted was not the product of long considered
thought and in retrospect I see several problems with it. I'd rather not
spend the time needed to clean it up or defend it - or see others waste
their valuable time on debating it. You will get no arguments from me! :-)

[gatt]

You guys should just plonk this troll and move on. This discussion is like
eating lettuce; it lacks taste and has no nutritional value. -c

"mike regish" > wrote in message
. ..
>I don't care.
>
> mike
>
> "Jessica Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> >
>>
>> I believe top posting is poor form for Usenet posts.

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

>
> You guys should just plonk this troll and move on. This discussion is like
> eating lettuce; it lacks taste and has no nutritional value. -c

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/1664/argue091204cj6.jpg

[mike regish]

I'm already enlightened.

Nothings open to debate in this.

mike

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm glad to hear that you are willing to debate your religion. That is
> the first step to enlightenment.
>
> Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Judah,
>
>
>>But even scientists believe
>>certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:
>>
>
>
> Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
> happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
> not possible.
>
> Oh, and scientists generally can "believe" all they want - during their
> time off the job. "Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.

Sure it is. They believe in their instruments. They believe in their
data. They believed that light consisted of waves for many years. Lots
of things that scientists deal with are based on beliefs.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jose wrote:

>>> "If atheism is a religion, then _not_ collecting stamps is a hobby."
>>
>>
>>
>> Hardly. It simply means your hobby is something other than stamp
>> collecting.
>
>
> Is it possible to not have a hobby? (can you say "chartered accountant"?)

Yes, but the analogy was weak to begin with. Having a hobby isn't like
having beliefs. I don't think it is possible to have no beliefs and
more than it is possible to "stop thinking." It is just a question of
which system of beliefs you choose.

To me the analogy is more akin to a computer CPU. As long as it has
power, it is processing. The process my be excuting NOP instructions,
but the point is that the CPU is ALWAYS executing as long as it has
power. I believe the same is true of the human brain. It is always
processing and always believing in something. So, I reject the idea
that it is possible to either believe in nothing or have no beliefs at all.


Matt

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:

> I'm already enlightened.
>
> Nothings open to debate in this.

If you aren't open to debate, you are operating pretty low on the
intellectual hierarchy.


Matt

[gatt]

"Beavis" > wrote in message
...

>> You guys should just plonk this troll and move on. This discussion is
>> like
>> eating lettuce; it lacks taste and has no nutritional value. -c
>
> http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/1664/argue091204cj6.jpg


Aw, man. If I laugh at that I'll probably get hit by a bus or something as
soon as I step outside!

-c
(Booked marked it, though.)

[Jose[_1_]]

>> "Belief" is not involved in the scientific method.
> Sure it is. They believe in their instruments. They believe in their data.

I believe (sic) that the word is being used in two different senses
here. Scientists don't "believe" their instruments with the same faith
as religious devotees. They in fact are suspicious of their
instruments, and of everyone else's results... so suspicious that they
do experiments in different ways to confirm (or refute) results. They
challenge each other's findings by experiment, often repeating an
experiment several times that other people have already done. If
science were faith based, this would be unnecessary. It would be seen
as a redundant waste of money. But it is not. Lots of effort goes to
attempting to reproduce results. This is =because= science does not
operate on faith.

> They believed that light consisted of waves for many years...

That was not an "act of faith". That was a "best guess so far", as is
everything else that science has discovered.

There is of course a kernel one is reduced to when pressed. For me it
comes down to:

1: Logic works, and I have a command of it.
(despite the opinions of some posters here :)
2: There exists an objective reality.
(QM puts that one into doubt)
3: Within their limits, my senses reflect reality.
(i.e. I'm not just dreaming this whole thing up
as a disembodied brain like on some SF TV show)
4: I can't remember this fourth one right now.
(I know... shades of Monty Python)
5: It is possible to be wrong, and not know it.
(It's amazing how many people "know" they are right about religion.)

These are not so much "acts of faith" as they are admissions to myself
that if =any= =one= of these were false, I would not have a handle on
reality anyway.

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.

[Beavis[_1_]]

In article >,
"gatt" > wrote:

> > http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/1664/argue091204cj6.jpg
>
>
> Aw, man. If I laugh at that I'll probably get hit by a bus or something as
> soon as I step outside!
>
> -c
> (Booked marked it, though.)

Heh... one of my favorites that I see time and time again on
http://www.fark.com/ ... It never gets old!

[mike regish]

Awww...Now I'm hurt.

mike
P.S. Try reality. You'll be truly impressed.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> mike regish wrote:
>
>> I'm already enlightened.
>>
>> Nothings open to debate in this.
>
> If you aren't open to debate, you are operating pretty low on the
> intellectual hierarchy.
>
>
> Matt

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Judah,
>
>> But even scientists believe
>> certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability:
>>
>
> Such a broad statement doesn't cover the scientific method. Nothing can
> happen outside the realm of possibility - if it is not possible, it is
> not possible.

You may want to read that again. He said "But even scientists believe
certain circumstances happen outside the realm of probability".
PROBABILITY, not POSSIBILITY.
Big difference. For example. It's POSSIBLE this thread will end with
everyone in agreeance, but it's not PROBABLE!
Oz/Crash Lander

[Judah]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Judah,
>
>> It is a scientific principle that has
>> no basis in the scientific method
>>
>
> Then I guess we don't need to discuss it more.

So are you saying that you don't believe in Psychiatry?

[Judah]

Grumman-581 > wrote in news:VM_6h.33713
:

> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:21:23 +0000, Judah wrote:
>> For what reasons would you have to kill someone? Self-defense is
>> appropriate. "Nuking the whole Middle East", as you indicated in a
>> recent post, would not be classified as self defense, however. It would
>> instead be classified as Genocide.
>
> Nawh, it's called a premptive strike... They won't be satisfied until
> we're dead, so it only makes sense to get them first...

Who won't be satisfied? Did you speak to "them?" All of them?

[Matt Whiting]

mike regish wrote:
> Awww...Now I'm hurt.
>
> mike
> P.S. Try reality. You'll be truly impressed.

Chuckle. If you are an example of someone who is trying reality, I
think I'll pass. Time for this thread to die, so I'm bowing out now.
Since folks like you need to have the last word, make your reply to this
and we'll be done.

Cheers,
Matt

[Judah]

Don Tabor > wrote in
:

> It would seem to me to be an excellent argument for taking care not to
> scare him.

He's already scared me. By your and his arguments, I would be justified to
wipe out everyone who flies a Grumman Cheetah in a pre-emptive strike.
Obviously anyone who flies a Grumman Cheetah must feel the same was as
Grumman-581, and be very dangerous.

While we're at it, let's nuke Houston, TX too. Because I know some people
from Houston, and they all pretty much feel the same way as Grumman, and
surely are equally as dangerous.

And just in case there are any stragglers, let's hunt down and assasinate
anyone who went to Louisiana State University, and anyone who went to
Louisiana Tech as well. After all, education has an influence on one's ideas
and principles, so surely others with Grumman's ideas came from the same
University.

Grumman on his website says, "There is a certain mentality that is necessary
for one to be a contractor." Holy cow! Does this mean that all contractors
have his mentality as well? We better get started on killing all the
contractors then, before they "get" us.

> For me, deadly force is appropriate for eliminating threats to my
> children and grandchildren.

I agree. But Genocide of an entire culture of people based on a single
demographic is not.

> So, cultures who make a point of threatening those I love are
> appropriate for neutralization. It is not necessary to kill them all,
> but we are entirely justified in denying them the technology for doing
> us harm.

True. But that's not what Grumman has been pitching...

[Judah]

Grumman-581 > wrote in
:

> Sounds like your wife needs to understand that it is actually possible
> to go to the bathroom without peeing all over your own hands... Oh well,
> it's probably just a guy thing... Women wouldn't understand that it is
> possible since they can't write their name in the snow...

I think a woman named lil or viv could write her name in the snow. And
maybe any woman with kids ("mom") although that would require Kegel
exercises.

For men, peeing your name in the snow legibly requires that you use your
hands to direct your penis.

In her opinion, one should wash one's hands after touching a penis, even
if that hand does not get covered in pee.

I'm afraid further details would be inappropriate in a public forum.

[LWG]

How about "Dot"?

> I think a woman named lil or viv could write her name in the snow. And
> maybe any woman with kids ("mom") although that would require Kegel
> exercises.
>

[Jose[_1_]]

> Having a hobby isn't like having beliefs.

> ...the CPU is ALWAYS executing as long as it has power. I believe the same is true of the human brain. It is always processing and always believing in something. So, I reject the idea that it is possible to either believe in nothing or have no beliefs at all.

What does "having beliefs" mean?

When I say "I believe X is false", I mean something different than when
I say "I do not believe that X is true." Do you see a difference in
those two statements? If not, then this is where our difference begins.

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.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 03:22:11 +0000, Matt Whiting wrote:
> And he has no objective proof that God encourages or even condones the
> atrocities to which he makes reference.

Well, it appears to me at least that if a diety is supposedly classified
as "all powerful" and "all knowing", that diety must in fact condone any
attrocities that might occur since he/she/it could prevent them from
occurring if he/she/it so desired... So, one could argue that this diety
is either not all powerful and all knowing or perhaps the diety just
doesn't care what happens in this physical incarnation of our ethereal
essence... Personally, I suspect that all the existing religions are
wrong... The real truth might be a mix of some of them... Or perhaps is
totally unrelated to *any* of them... By the time we do know, it will be
too late... I have certain morals that I attempt to live my life by...
They don't necessarily conform to any one particular religion...
Basically, it boils down to, "Don't **** over your friends"... Enemies, on
the other hand, are fair game... <evil-grin>

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> That's another misconception about science. Scientific thories are
> =always= beliefs, until DISPROVEN. Nothing can be "proven" in science.
>

Huh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Judah,

> So are you saying that you don't believe in Psychiatry?
>

I didn't know psychiatry requires belief.

What I am saying is that "a scientific principle that has no basis in
the scientific method" is by definition not a scientific principle. And
since we were discussing science...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> They believe in their instruments.
>

Ok. Define belief and we can move on. If you define roundness as
flatness, then indeed the earth is flat.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Crash,

> PROBABILITY, not POSSIBILITY.
> Big difference.
>

I know. I mistyped. Still: Nothing happens if it has zero probability
of happening.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> Having a hobby isn't like
> having beliefs. I don't think it is possible to have no beliefs and
> more than it is possible to "stop thinking."
>

Well, you think wrongly.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-11-16, Matt Whiting > wrote:
> To me the analogy is more akin to a computer CPU. As long as it has
> power, it is processing. The process my be excuting NOP instructions,
> but the point is that the CPU is ALWAYS executing as long as it has
> power.

On a point of pedantry:
It doesn't have to be so. The Z80 processor, for example, executes NOP
instructions when it stops at a HALT instruction because this keeps the
built in DRAM refresh circuitry running. However, it is entirely
possible to design a processor that really does halt completely until it
receives an interrupt.

Even with a processor like the Z80 example, it is possible to stop it
executing (not even NOP operations) and leave it powered up - just take
away the clock signal, and it won't even execute NOPs nor will it
refresh DRAM (which is not a problem if you use SRAM, or your embedded
computer code is entirely in ROM).

> I believe the same is true of the human brain. It is always
> processing and always believing in something. So, I reject the idea
> that it is possible to either believe in nothing or have no beliefs at all.

That's not terribly useful to this debate, though. It is entirely
possible to not believe in a god. I suppose you can call it a 'belief',
just as logic 0 is different to an input just left floating, but not
believing in deities is not a religion. Absence of a religion is not a
religion.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Jose[_1_]]

>>That's another misconception about science. Scientific thories are
>> =always= beliefs, until DISPROVEN. Nothing can be "proven" in science.
> Huh?

It's a common misconception that science "proves" things. This is not
so. Science is not about proving anything.

Science is a method by which we try to figure out how the world works.
It is an ongoing process, always subject to revision when experiment
disagrees with our ideas to date. But since our experience (and
experiments) are always incomplete, there will probably always be things
we have overlooked, odd effects we hadn't seen, consequences we haven't
come across. The more exepriments we do, and the more carefully we do
them, the better a view of the world we can get.

For a long time motion was a mystery. We knew (viscerally) how things
moved, at least well enough to capture prey, escape being eaten, and
play games. But we just accepted that heavy things fall. It was
obvious that heavier things fall faster (feather, stone, duh) but nobody
knew why. It's quite possible that nobody cared. But then somebody
thought about it, and after a proverbial bop on the head came up with an
idea that every action has a reaction, and that everything with mass
attracts everything else with mass, including the earth. He formulated
these ideas mathematically (so they could be measured and tested), and
then he went out and tested them.

This is called "falsifiability". If his ideas were incorrect, the
experiment should show him up. This is critial to a true scientific
theory. If it is not falsifiable, (that is, testable), then it is not a
scientific theory. A statement like "There is a God" is not a
scientific theory for that reason. It cannot be tested in a manner in
which failure is meaningful.

Anyway, after dropping things off of tall towers (I'm compressing
scintific history here), measuring the twist of wires attached to heavy
balls, and timing balls going down ramps, the findings did not
contradict his idea, but supported it. Thus, we become more confident
that Newtonian mechanics accurately represents reality.

One of the experiments (rolling balls down an incline), if done simply,
illustrates this. Calculate the forces on the ball, and figure out how
long it should take to accelerate down the ramp, based on the angle of
the ramp. You'll find the results actually =disagree= with theory.
They go slower at first. Hmmm... think think think... Well, the balls
are rolling; we didn't think of rotational energy the first time around.
Physics must be a bit more complicated than we though. Now we have to
come up with another theory, or modify the existing one. It makes sense
that it takes some of the energy to spin the ball, in addition to the
energy it takes to get it to move down the ramp. By using some
mathematical techniques we can come up with a good idea of how much that
probably should be.

Once we add that to the theory, everything works out. We've discovered
something new about the world.

Newtonian mechanics (as modified to include torque) has =not= been
"proven". It merely has acquired a lot of support. If it turns out
that it is incorrect, the new theory will still have to explain all the
stuff that Newtonian mechanics explained, and that's going to be hard.

But not impossible.

It turns out that NM is in fact -incorrect-. Experiments with light
waves showed that at high speeds, things are different. More
mathematics, and a new idea emerged... Einsteinian Relativity (ER).
It's bizzare, to be sure, but experiments attempting to knock it down
have failed to disprove it. Meanwhile, it explains everything that NM
does, plus addresses high speeds, and gives us new insights to the world
to boot. ER has gotten a lot of support, because it has =withstood=
many tests designed to burst its bubble.

It's not the last word. There never will be a last word. But as our
understanding of the world gets more sophisticated, our theories get
closer to reality.

None is ever =proven=.

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.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:38:49 GMT, Judah > wrote in
>:

>Atheism is not absence of religion. It's a
>dogmatic belief that there is no God. It is not all that much different in
>the dogmatic belief that there is a God. Or the dogmatic belief that there
>are numerous Gods. Or the dogmatic belief that there is a supernatural force
>that governs all things. Or the dogmatic belief that there are 4 elements
>that govern all things.
>
>Until someone can unequivocably prove one way or the other, they are all just
>religions seeking answers to pretty much the same questions...

So then, this common, virtually universal, human dogmatic belief
characteristic leads one to the question: What benefit does the
devotee derive as a result of his belief?

Has this instinctive, apparently irrational, tribalistic behavior some
survival benefit? Is a tribe member better able to prosper than the
solitary hermit? Is it time for rationality to prevail, or will those
logical souls lose the benefits of tribalism? Inquiring minds ...

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> It was
> obvious that heavier things fall faster (feather, stone, duh)
>

Actually, they don't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[mike regish]

As demonstrated on one of the lunar landings when (I forget which) the
astronaut dropped a feather and a hammer and they fell together.

mike

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jose,
>
>> It was
>> obvious that heavier things fall faster (feather, stone, duh)
>>
>
> Actually, they don't.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Chris M]

This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> As demonstrated on one of the lunar landings when (I forget which) the
> astronaut dropped a feather and a hammer and they fell together.
>

Maybe, if one believes strongly enough in it, they WILL fall at different
speeds. Can you disprove that? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:18:50 -0700, Chris M wrote in
>:

>This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>another forum ...

I'm happy to do that, just as soon as you are able to direct all the
other off topic posts to their appropriate newsgroups. :-)

[Jose[_1_]]

>> It was obvious that heavier
>> things fall faster (feather, stone, duh)
> Actually, they don't.

Correct. But it was obvious that they do.

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.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jose,

> But it was obvious that they do.
>

Uhm, no. And Newton's law never said anything remotely like that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:47:52 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Jose,
>
>> It was
>> obvious that heavier things fall faster (feather, stone, duh)
>>

Drop a sheet of paper (airfoil) and a peanut that weighs the same off
a tall building. Which will get to the ground/pavement sooner (no
wind)

>
>Actually, they don't.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:16:30 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Jose,
>
>> But it was obvious that they do.
>>
>
>Uhm, no. And Newton's law never said anything remotely like that.

Thomas. consider what Jose is actually saying. If it had been
OBVIOUS that everything fell at the SAME rate, Galileo could saved
himself the trouble of climbing all those stairs. Since GG did go to
all that trouble, at least SOME people must have held an idea that
needed disproving.

Don

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>>> It was obvious that heavier
>>> things fall faster (feather, stone, duh)
>> Actually, they don't.
>
> Correct. But it was obvious that they do.

Boy, I hate to be pedantic about this, but in a vacuum the heavier object
_will_ reach the surface of the earth faster than a lighter one if both
are released the same height above the ground. First, the forces are
equal on a mass Mo and the earth Me a distance h apart from their
gravitational centers; the equation being:

F = G*Mo*Me/(h*h)

The acceleration of the earth (Ae) and object (Ao) relative to a fixed
frame of reference are derived from F = m*a and the above gravitational
equation:

Ae = G*Mo/(h*h)
Ao = G*Me/(h*h)

The net closing acceleration in a fixed frame is:

A = Ae + Ao

Therefore:

A = G*(Me + Mo)/(h*h)

But since Me >> Mo (Me ~= 5.98*10^24 kg), then to a very good
approximation we can ignore adding Mo up to values of ~10^18 kg and say
the closing acceleration is just:

A ~= G*Me/(h*h)

But the bottom line is under "ideal" conditions a heavy stone "falls" a
teeny tiny miniscule bit faster to the earth than a light feather would.

End of pedantry. ;-)

(G ~= 6.67*10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2 and h ~= 6.37*10^6 m)

[A. Sinan Unur]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Crash,
>
>> PROBABILITY, not POSSIBILITY.
>> Big difference.
>>
>
> I know. I mistyped. Still: Nothing happens if it has zero probability
> of happening.
>

Actually, that is not true unless the set of outcomes is discrete and
finite.

To see this, consider the real interval U = [0, 1]. Denote by R the
subset of rational numbers in U. The set of irrational numbers, Q = U/R
is dense in U, therefore, the probability of picking an rational number
in U at random is zero. Yet, it is not impossible.

In addition, with a continuous probability density function, the
probability of picking any given element is zero, yet some specific
element is picked etc etc.

Zero probability does not mean impossibility.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~ndr/ProbabilityParadox.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

Sinan

--
A. Sinan Unur >
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Boy, I hate to be pedantic about this, but in a vacuum the heavier object
> _will_ reach the surface of the earth faster than a lighter one if both
> are released the same height above the ground.

That I'll buy. (unless they are dropped at the same time)

[snip]

> But the bottom line is under "ideal" conditions a heavy stone "falls" a
> teeny tiny miniscule bit faster to the earth than a light feather would.

um, not quite. The force on the more massive object is still just proportional
to the earth's mass. What happens is the earth moves towards the more
massive object more so than towards the less massive object.

Or have I totally botched my freshman physics?

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

[mike regish]

Yes.

mike

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> As demonstrated on one of the lunar landings when (I forget which) the
>> astronaut dropped a feather and a hammer and they fell together.
>>
>
> Maybe, if one believes strongly enough in it, they WILL fall at different
> speeds. Can you disprove that? ;-)
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[mike regish]

All he's saying is that to the people of the time, things obviously fell at
different speeds. They weren't aware of air resistance being a factor.

mike

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Jose,
>
>> But it was obvious that they do.
>>
>
> Uhm, no. And Newton's law never said anything remotely like that.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[mike regish]

Air resistance. Do it in a vacuum and they will hit at the same time.

mike

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:47:52 +0100, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>>Jose,
>>
>>> It was
>>> obvious that heavier things fall faster (feather, stone, duh)
>>>
>
> Drop a sheet of paper (airfoil) and a peanut that weighs the same off
> a tall building. Which will get to the ground/pavement sooner (no
> wind)
>
>>
>>Actually, they don't.
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mike Beede]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> Jose > wrote:
> >>> It was obvious that heavier
> >>> things fall faster (feather, stone, duh)
> >> Actually, they don't.
> >
> > Correct. But it was obvious that they do.
>
> Boy, I hate to be pedantic about this, but in a vacuum the heavier object
> _will_ reach the surface of the earth faster than a lighter one if both
> are released the same height above the ground. First, the forces are
> equal on a mass Mo and the earth Me a distance h apart from their
> gravitational centers; the equation being:
> [etc.]

Interesting. You're saying the earth accelerates towards the heavy
object a little bit faster than towards the light one, right? But
there's only one earth, and if you drop them both at the same time,
don't they both hit the rising earth at the same time? You didn't
say they were released at the same time, but that was the implication
in the thread.

Mike Beede

[Jim Logajan]

Bob Noel > wrote:
> In article >,
> Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> But the bottom line is under "ideal" conditions a heavy stone "falls"
>> a teeny tiny miniscule bit faster to the earth than a light feather
>> would.
>
> um, not quite. The force on the more massive object is still just
> proportional to the earth's mass. What happens is the earth moves
> towards the more massive object more so than towards the less massive
> object.
>
> Or have I totally botched my freshman physics?

You got it right. But to the person standing on the earth trying to time
the fall, the more massive object appears to drop a tiny bit faster (but
I'm not sure the drop time difference could even be measured for most
ordinary cases).

It's really a pedantic issue unless one is dealing with objects of
comparable masses, like the perturbations of planetary orbits due to other
planets.

[Jose[_1_]]

>>But it was obvious that they do.
> Uhm, no. And Newton's law never said anything remotely like that.

Um, yes. Lots of things that are obvious, are not true. The "fact"
that heavier objects fall faster was obvious. It is also wrong.

Newton's law of universal gravitation led to the result that masses fall
to earth at the same rate. Newton had some other discoveries too.

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_]]

> Boy, I hate to be pedantic about this, but in a vacuum the heavier object
> _will_ reach the surface of the earth faster than a lighter one if both
> are released the same height above the ground.

That depends where they come from. If you pick up the feather (leaving
the stone on the ground), the stone's mass is part of the Earth's mass.
If you then drop the feather and pick up the stone, the feather
becomes part of the Earth's mass for that experiment.

The total mass is the same.

This is true in real experiments too, unless you can "beam" the stone
away while playing with the feather.

End of pedantry. :)

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.

[Don Tuite]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:37:33 -0000, Jim Logajan >
wrote:

>
>You got it right. But to the person standing on the earth trying to time
>the fall, the more massive object appears to drop a tiny bit faster (but
>I'm not sure the drop time difference could even be measured for most
>ordinary cases).
>
>It's really a pedantic issue unless one is dealing with objects of
>comparable masses, like the perturbations of planetary orbits due to other
>planets.

Ya gonna drop the marble and the bowling ball at the same time?
Counting the Earth, that's three bodies. I thought the three-body
problem was insoluble?

Don

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

You're right, of course.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Jim Logajan > wrote:

> You got it right. But to the person standing on the earth trying to time
> the fall, the more massive object appears to drop a tiny bit faster (but
> I'm not sure the drop time difference could even be measured for most
> ordinary cases).

If the feather and hammer are dropped at the same time and are next
to each other. otoh - if the hammer is dropped at the true north pole
and the feather were dropped at the true south pole...

:-)

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

[Grumman-581[_3_]]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> If the feather and hammer are dropped at the same time and are next
> to each other. otoh - if the hammer is dropped at the true north pole
> and the feather were dropped at the true south pole...

Ahhh, but more importantly, is the feather from an African or European
swallow...

--
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smells of elderberrys now go away
or I shall taunt you a second time"

[Jim Logajan]

Mike Beede > wrote:
> But
> there's only one earth, and if you drop them both at the same time,
> don't they both hit the rising earth at the same time? You didn't
> say they were released at the same time, but that was the implication
> in the thread.

I was treating the case where only two objects were in motion at any one
time - it's a lot simpler.

Since the implied problem is a three body problem it isn't going to be so
easy to prove that two objects of different masses released at the same
time will accelerate at the same rate towards the center of the earth. The
actual trajectories are going to be surprisingly complex.

[Jim Logajan]

Jose > wrote:
>> Boy, I hate to be pedantic about this, but in a vacuum the heavier
>> object _will_ reach the surface of the earth faster than a lighter
>> one if both are released the same height above the ground.
>
> That depends where they come from. If you pick up the feather
> (leaving the stone on the ground), the stone's mass is part of the
> Earth's mass.
> If you then drop the feather and pick up the stone, the feather
> becomes part of the Earth's mass for that experiment.
>
> The total mass is the same.

But suppose the "stone" is half the earth!

[Jim Logajan]

"Grumman-581" > wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> If the feather and hammer are dropped at the same time and are next
>> to each other. otoh - if the hammer is dropped at the true north pole
>> and the feather were dropped at the true south pole...
>
> Ahhh, but more importantly, is the feather from an African or European
> swallow...

I don't know!

Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!
<thud>

[Jose[_1_]]

> But suppose the "stone" is half the earth!

F=gmm/r^2 = (m+m)a

You're right. mm is a max when m&m are equal.

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.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:18:50 -0700, Chris M wrote:
> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes

Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?

[Montblack]

("Grumman-581" wrote)
>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes

> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to #%^* off yet?


We were pretty much all waiting for you to do it. <g>


MontBlue

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Grumman-581 wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:18:50 -0700, Chris M wrote:
>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes
>
> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?



Today?



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Matt Barrow]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
> Grumman-581 wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:18:50 -0700, Chris M wrote:
>>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes
>>
>> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?
>
>
>
> Today?
>
Day's young.

[Grumman-581[_1_]]

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:35:16 GMT, Larry Dighera >
wrote:
> With all due respect, is it possible you might consider censoring the
> profanity from the articles you post to this worldwide forum.

I make every effort to choose the proper adjectives and adverbs for my
posts... In the cases where I choose to use profanity, I deem it the
most appropriate words for the thoughts that I am attempting to
convey...

> Your use of profanity undermines any sense of responsibility
> and dignity that might be conferred on airmen

Awh, perish the thought that someone reading this might consider
pilots merely human... Pilots come from all backgrounds... There's the
golfing ex- Air Force types and there's the cussing ex- Navy types...
I'm the latter...

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberry!
Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!"

> and casts you personally in an unflattering light, IMHO

Well, I guess I'm just old enough that I don't really care about such
things...

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:54:36 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" <mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
...
>> Grumman-581 wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:18:50 -0700, Chris M wrote:
>>>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>>>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes
>>>
>>> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?
>>
>>
>>
>> Today?
>>
>Day's young.

I believe in associating with class. Some of my best friends have been
thrown out of some of the best bars in town.


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

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:54:36 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> > wrote:
>>>>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>>>>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes
>>>>
>>>> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Today?
>>>
>>Day's young.
>
> I believe in associating with class. Some of my best friends have been
> thrown out of some of the best bars in town.
>
>
Ah...maybe that explains it! I keep getting thrown out of the sleazy dives
and ********s.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:22:15 GMT, Grumman-581
> wrote in
>:

>
>> and casts you personally in an unflattering light, IMHO
>
>Well, I guess I'm just old enough that I don't really care about such
>things...


Your clients and employers may not share your apathy.

Are you aware that all of the articles you post to Usenet are archived
for posterity, and prospective clients and employers who bother to do
a Google search for MICHAEL JEFFERSON SHELLEY will be treated to your
profanity, misanthropy, and general disdain for civility?

[Al G[_1_]]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:54:36 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>> > wrote:
>>>>>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>>>>>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes
>>>>>
>>>>> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today?
>>>>
>>>Day's young.
>>
>> I believe in associating with class. Some of my best friends have been
>> thrown out of some of the best bars in town.
>>
>>
> Ah...maybe that explains it! I keep getting thrown out of the sleazy dives
> and ********s.
>

Did I mention that I got thrown out of a landfill once?

Al G

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:01:28 -0800, "Al G"
> wrote:

>
>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:54:36 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it to
>>>>>>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Today?
>>>>>
>>>>Day's young.
>>>
>>> I believe in associating with class. Some of my best friends have been
>>> thrown out of some of the best bars in town.
>>>
>>>
>> Ah...maybe that explains it! I keep getting thrown out of the sleazy dives
>> and ********s.
>>
>
> Did I mention that I got thrown out of a landfill once?

Some of them are pretty particular about what you put in them. They
even make you sort your trash.

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

[Al G[_1_]]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:01:28 -0800, "Al G"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:54:36 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> This conversation is no longer aviation related, so please take it
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> another forum, perhaps alt.opinions.are.like.assholes
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Welcome to USENET... Has anyone told you to **** off yet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Today?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Day's young.
>>>>
>>>> I believe in associating with class. Some of my best friends have been
>>>> thrown out of some of the best bars in town.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ah...maybe that explains it! I keep getting thrown out of the sleazy
>>> dives
>>> and ********s.
>>>
>>
>> Did I mention that I got thrown out of a landfill once?
>
> Some of them are pretty particular about what you put in them. They
> even make you sort your trash.
>
>>
>>Al G
>>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com


Ok, Ok, if you insist...

A friend of mine died of Lung Cancer. His brother and I were making a
dump run in his truck to the local landfill. It was absolutely pouring rain,
and had been for a week. After paying at the front gate, we drove up to the
dump locations, and noticed a line of 20 trucks waiting to dump at dump
location #1.
I drove over to the "Community service volunteer", and rolled down the
window to ask a question.
She shouted "Get back in line, you're taking cuts".
I said, No, I'm not trying to cut, I just have a question.
"You have any questions, ask the F___king manager." she says.
"Can we use one of the other dump locations?" I insert.
"No, get back in line!", she responds.
Ok, so we drive to the back of the line, and use the 20 minutes to catch
up on old times, and relive some good times. When our turn came up, the
"volunteer" walked over and told us to use location #8. She made the next
guy wait until we were done, and only then could he begin to use dump
location #1.
On the way out, I was stopped by the "Manager", who said "You're in
violation of DEQ regulation 2364...."
I said "What on earth are you talking about."
He says "You threw a lit cigarette out of your truck, and could have set
the land fill on fire, and polluted the entire valley."
"Oh, come on, I don't even smoke. In fact I don't have any cigarettes" I
retorted.
"Well, it was probably the other gut in the truck." he says.
"He doesn't smoke either. In any case it has been raining steadily for
over a week, you couldn't set fire to this place with 500 gallons of jet
fuel and a propane torch." I replied and started back toward my friends
truck.
As I was walking off, he said "Did you have a question?"
"Yes", I replied, "How much intelligence does it take to mis-manage a
****in dump?"
"That's it", he said, "You're outa here. For LIFE. I have your license
number."

Cool, so he 86'ed my dead friends truck, for life. Well we went back to
the house, and had a small wake for my friend that evening. One of the guys
managed to get the basement door open, where we found some more trash, and a
dead cat. Great, so now someone has to make another dump run. Not me, of
course, I'VE been thrown out. A skydiver there said, "No problem, I have to
take the Super Cub* down to CEC tomorrow, I'll take the bag with me tonight,
and "Drop" it off tomorrow on the way. So he did. As I understand it, the
bag with the cat in it, missed the managers shack by 75 feet, and hit
directly in the center of the access road. The manager had said I couldn't
come back. He didn't say we couldn't drop stuff off.
Two years later, I re-registered the truck, and was asked if I wanted to
keep the current license number. Thinking back to the dump, I said
"Absolutely".

Al G


* required aviation content