"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton [Archive]

Gig601XLBuilder

January 3rd 08, 04:14 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> She's been here every other day --
>> Came for the movie night and decided to stay, did she?
>
> Nope. There's no way any of the politicos would stay at anything
> other than a big-box chain motel, if for no other reason than
> security.
>
> Our little place is wide open, with no way (for example) to securely
> guard a floor. And, of course, we're so small (just 30 suites) and so
> occupied that we couldn't even handle a third-tier party's entourage,
> let alone the bloated gang that follows Clinton and Obama around.
>
> According to our friends at the Sheraton, she rents two entire floors
> every time she comes to town. And she's been here every other day for
> MONTHS.
>
> Obama prefers the Marriott in our sister city of Coralville. He also
> rents two floors. The money involved is astounding.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

That's funny considering when Bill Clinton ran in his first Presidential
campaign a friend of mine was on the traveling staff that shadowed him
throughout the primaries and general election campaign. I talked to him
one night about a week before the NH primary and they were staying 4 to
a room for a total of 3 rooms + 1 for Bill in what he called the most
rundown motel in the state. The hotels did get better when Clinton
started to win.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 3rd 08, 04:31 PM

Jay Honeck > wrote in news:958f1d2b-cb87-441b-8342-
:

>> > She's been here every other day --
>>
>> Came for the movie night and decided to stay, did she?
>
> Nope. There's no way any of the politicos would stay at anything
> other than a big-box chain motel, if for no other reason than
> security.
>
> Our little place is wide open, with no way (for example) to securely
> guard a floor. And, of course, we're so small (just 30 suites) and so
> occupied that we couldn't even handle a third-tier party's entourage,
> let alone the bloated gang that follows Clinton and Obama around.
>

What, you're not posting the finger food menu for movie night while you're
at it?

Fjukkwit.

Bertie

WolfRat

January 3rd 08, 09:27 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> Current language usage compels me to use the term
>> "socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton.
>
> I don't care what Hillary is or isn't -- but I'll sure be glad when
> she's gone.
>
> She's been here every other day -- along with Bill, Obama, and Edwards
> -- for months. We can't go to a restaurant, basketball game, or
> library without running into their entourage, keepers, security and
> followers. It's been nuts.
>
> Thankfully, the caucus is tomorrow -- and we can all get back to
> normal.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

The Democrats in Iowa get to choose between an

OREO(Who denies he is half white)
FEMI-NAZI
AMBULANCE CHASER
HALF BREED

Oh Boy

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 3rd 08, 09:36 PM

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 3rd 08, 10:34 PM

> As opposed to the discreet and unnoticeable gangs following Romney or
> Huckabee, I'm sure. Way to keep on topic and follow the charter your buddy
> Larry posted just recently, particularly:
>
> "Chit-chat and hangar-flying articles unrelated to piloting should be
> posted in rec.aviation.miscellaneous."

That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a hangar
flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely across the
board. I have no problem with that, although apparently you do?

As for the Republicans, they don't bother to come to my town. We have had
single-party rule here in Iowa City since before I was born, and I'm going
to be 50 this year.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[email protected]

January 3rd 08, 11:04 PM

On Jan 2, 7:44*pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Current language usage compels me to use the term
> > "socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton.
>
> I don't care what Hillary is or isn't -- but I'll sure be glad when
> she's gone.
>
> She's been here every other day -- along with Bill, Obama, and Edwards
> -- for months. *We can't go to a restaurant, basketball game, or
> library without running into their entourage, keepers, security and
> followers. *It's been nuts.
>
> Thankfully, the caucus is tomorrow -- and we can all get back to
> normal.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

How do the 250,000 caucus goers earn the right to be national judges
of candidates ??

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 3rd 08, 11:19 PM

> How do the 250,000 caucus goers earn the right to be national judges
> of candidates ??

Stupid, ain't it? I have no idea why all states don't hold their primaries
on the same day.

Although, if someone has to be first, I guess I'd rather see Iowa ahead of
most states...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

gatt[_2_]

January 3rd 08, 11:34 PM

>> Iowa City, IA
>> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
>> "Your Aviation Destination"

>How do the 250,000 caucus goers earn the right to be national judges
>of candidates ??

People in Iowa are 100% unlikely to be in or from California or Florida, so
it's probably for the best.

-c
(Oregon)

Morgans[_2_]

January 3rd 08, 11:58 PM

>> How do the 250,000 caucus goers earn the right to be national judges
>> of candidates ??
>
> Stupid, ain't it? I have no idea why all states don't hold their
> primaries on the same day.

I don't usually comment on politics, as it is a losing battle in a public
forum, and will comment on the system, not the people, in this case.

It bothers me to no end, that some states get to weed out the field, before
I get a chance to vote on the entire bunch of candidates.

The last time there were primary elections, the person I wanted to vote for
was eliminated in the first few weeks of primaries. The states that had not
voted never got to say who their first choice in the primaries should be.

That was not what our forefathers intended. The system has been corrupted.

What will it take to fix it? I have no idea, but I wish it would be fixed.
I realize why it has not been; because the powers wish it to stay as it is.
--
Jim in NC

John Mazor[_2_]

January 4th 08, 12:15 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> >> How do the 250,000 caucus goers earn the right to be national judges
>>> of candidates ??
>>
>> Stupid, ain't it? I have no idea why all states don't hold their primaries on the
>> same day.
>
> I don't usually comment on politics, as it is a losing battle in a public forum, and
> will comment on the system, not the people, in this case.
>
> It bothers me to no end, that some states get to weed out the field, before I get a
> chance to vote on the entire bunch of candidates.
>
> The last time there were primary elections, the person I wanted to vote for was
> eliminated in the first few weeks of primaries. The states that had not voted never got
> to say who their first choice in the primaries should be.
>
> That was not what our forefathers intended. The system has been corrupted.
>
> What will it take to fix it? I have no idea, but I wish it would be fixed. I realize
> why it has not been; because the powers wish it to stay as it is.
> --
> Jim in NC

The first few primaries are all about money - convincing contributors to put their money
on you and not the other candidates. Only later is it about winning enough delegates for
the nominating convention.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 4th 08, 12:20 AM

> What will it take to fix it? I have no idea, but I wish it would be
> fixed. I realize why it has not been; because the powers wish it to stay
> as it is.

Two ideas:

1. Hold all state primaries on the same day, by law no more than six months
in advance of the presidential election. (This never-ending electioneering
must end...)

2. Make Election Day a national holiday, as is done in many democracies.
(Before you think I've gone soft, though, in order to do this Congress must
eliminate one other national holiday...)

I think #1 would go a long ways toward leveling the playing field, and #2
would help address our absurdly low election day turnout.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 4th 08, 12:20 AM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> As opposed to the discreet and unnoticeable gangs following Romney or
>> Huckabee, I'm sure. Way to keep on topic and follow the charter your
>> buddy Larry posted just recently, particularly:
>>
>> "Chit-chat and hangar-flying articles unrelated to piloting should be
>> posted in rec.aviation.miscellaneous."
>
> That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a hangar
> flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely across the
> board.

Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
convenient to you. Not surprised.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 4th 08, 12:40 AM

>> That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a hangar
>> flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely across the
>> board.
>
> Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
> convenient to you. Not surprised.

I never said anything about enforcing any "charter". I am, however, opposed
to personal attacks on other posters -- as your post so nicely illustrates.

Your obsession with this topic seems odd. I suggest flying as an elixir to
cheer your tortured soul... It works for me!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Morgans[_2_]

January 4th 08, 04:31 AM

"John Mazor" > wrote

> The first few primaries are all about money - convincing contributors to
> put their money on you and not the other candidates. Only later is it
> about winning enough delegates for the nominating convention.

Yes, but if a candidate does not do well in the early showings, he/she will
not get enough money, and usually have to drop out, all together.

That is what I object to, in the big picture. They are not around to get my
state's vote (and my vote) to be a possible choice.

I resent that. BIG time. I'll bet in the last 30 years, half of the early
primaries have eliminated my top choice in the presidential primary. Some
few states have been allowed to make choices for the country, that should be
made by the WHOLE country.

Simply, it sucks.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans[_2_]

January 4th 08, 04:43 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Two ideas:
>
> 1. Hold all state primaries on the same day, by law no more than six
> months in advance of the presidential election. (This never-ending
> electioneering must end...)
>
> 2. Make Election Day a national holiday, as is done in many democracies.
> (Before you think I've gone soft, though, in order to do this Congress
> must eliminate one other national holiday...)
>
> I think #1 would go a long ways toward leveling the playing field, and #2
> would help address our absurdly low election day turnout.

Possible ideas, not bad.

One improvement to 1.

There really needs to be two primaries, where the dozen or so candidates for
each party are trimmed down to perhaps 5 choices after the first primary, to
2 choices after the second primary, for each party. Again, all on the same
day, and not too far ahead of election day.

If that is not done, I see a few cohesive minority groups getting their
candidates on the ticket, and the moderate, majority voters, split their
votes among dozens of non descript candidates.

Perhaps not a very good correlation, but I see this type of thing happen all
the time in elections in high school for things like student council, and
prom/homecoming queens and court.
--
Jim in NC

skym

January 4th 08, 05:17 AM

On Jan 3, 2:27*pm, WolfRat > wrote:
> The Democrats in Iowa get to choose between an
>
> OREO(Who denies he is half white)
> FEMI-NAZI
> AMBULANCE CHASER
> HALF BREED
>
> Oh Boy- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, that tells us all we need to know about you and your republican
ilk.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 4th 08, 05:31 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:nqdfj.284140$Fc.251926@attbi_s21:

>> As opposed to the discreet and unnoticeable gangs following Romney or
>> Huckabee, I'm sure. Way to keep on topic and follow the charter your
>> buddy Larry posted just recently, particularly:
>>
>> "Chit-chat and hangar-flying articles unrelated to piloting should be
>> posted in rec.aviation.miscellaneous."
>
> That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
> hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely
> across the board. I have no problem with that,

So, you get to make up the rules, do you fukkkwit?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 4th 08, 05:32 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:Tfffj.284269$Fc.282352@attbi_s21:

>>> That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
>>> hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely
>>> across the board.
>>
>> Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
>> convenient to you. Not surprised.
>
> I never said anything about enforcing any "charter".

Oh, you just want everyone to abide by your rules.

Bertie

Bertie

January 4th 08, 05:34 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:l4efj.19953$Ux2.17252@attbi_s22:

>> How do the 250,000 caucus goers earn the right to be national judges
>> of candidates ??
>
> Stupid, ain't it? I have no idea why all states don't hold their
> primaries on the same day.
>

You don't know much of anything, do you?

How's that killfiel working for you fjukkwit?

Bertie

news.verizon.net[_2_]

January 4th 08, 12:44 PM

One could say the same about you then since you see a kook's posting and
automatically decide what party he supports and what that party thinks
about.
"skym" > wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 2:27 pm, WolfRat > wrote:
> The Democrats in Iowa get to choose between an
>
> OREO(Who denies he is half white)
> FEMI-NAZI
> AMBULANCE CHASER
> HALF BREED
>
> Oh Boy- Hide quoted text -
>
Well, that tells us all we need to know about you and your republican
ilk.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 4th 08, 03:04 PM

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in news:oSpfj.4468
$nN5.3569@trndny04:

> One could say the same about you then since you see a kook's posting and
> automatically decide what party he supports and what that party thinks
> about.

Funny, jay does that too.

Bertie

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 4th 08, 04:43 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>> That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
>>> hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely
>>> across the board.
>>
>> Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
>> convenient to you. Not surprised.
>
> I never said anything about enforcing any "charter". I am, however,
> opposed to personal attacks on other posters -- as your post so nicely
> illustrates.
>
> Your obsession with this topic seems odd. I suggest flying as an elixir
> to cheer your tortured soul... It works for me!

Nothing tortured about my soul. Hell, I don't even believe in the notion
of soul. I just like shining the light on self-promoting hypocrites. A
class you so nicely represent.

WolfRat

January 4th 08, 05:01 PM

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>> That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
>>>> hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range widely
>>>> across the board.
>>>
>>> Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
>>> convenient to you. Not surprised.
>>
>> I never said anything about enforcing any "charter". I am, however,
>> opposed to personal attacks on other posters -- as your post so nicely
>> illustrates.
>>
>> Your obsession with this topic seems odd. I suggest flying as an
>> elixir to cheer your tortured soul... It works for me!
>
> Nothing tortured about my soul. Hell, I don't even believe in the notion
> of soul. I just like shining the light on self-promoting hypocrites. A
> class you so nicely represent.

I saw tape of Hillary screeching this morning that they were
now going to "take this enthusiasm" to New Hampshire.
Enthusiasm? What enthusiasm? As Peggy Noonan says, Hillary
had the money, she had the organization, she had Bill ...
and she lost. She came in third. She didn't even carry the
female vote .. that went to Obama. Perhaps the more people
see of Hillary Clinton the more they're reminded of her
lies, her meanness and her seemingly unquenchable desire for
power. Look at Hillary and you see:

* Whitewater, Casa Grande and her role in those scams
* "Fire their asses!" The order given by Hillary to
sack the White House Travel Office
* Marines being used to hand out canapés at White House
functions
* Her obstruction of justice and perjury in the Rose
Law Firm billing records scandal.
* Craig Livingstone and the cache of FBI files
* The "I want to take those profits" moment.
* Leading the effort to destroy the women involved with
her husband.

Oh yeah .. there's more, and (again) as Peggy Noonan says in
this column: "There's something about her that makes you
look, watch, think, look again, weigh and say: No."

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 4th 08, 05:33 PM

WolfRat > wrote in :

> Rich Ahrens wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>>>>> That's where Larry and I part ways. I think this is basically a
>>>>> hangar flying session, where conversations among pilots range
>>>>> widely across the board.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, so you only want to enforce the parts of the charter that are
>>>> convenient to you. Not surprised.
>>>
>>> I never said anything about enforcing any "charter". I am, however,
>>> opposed to personal attacks on other posters -- as your post so
>>> nicely illustrates.
>>>
>>> Your obsession with this topic seems odd. I suggest flying as an
>>> elixir to cheer your tortured soul... It works for me!
>>
>> Nothing tortured about my soul. Hell, I don't even believe in the
>> notion of soul. I just like shining the light on self-promoting
>> hypocrites. A class you so nicely represent.
>
>
> I saw tape of Hillary screeching this morning that they were
> now going to "take this enthusiasm" to New Hampshire.
> Enthusiasm? What enthusiasm?

Look, regardless of your political persuasion, there's little point in
hyperbole. There's definitely enthusiasm for her and she will probably
be elected because of it. I don't particularly care for her either, but
nattering on about crap like this isn't going to get you anywhwere.

OTOH, seeing as how just about every other candidate is equally or even
more unattractive, ther's little point in sespousing the alternative,
which is, of course, intelligent perceptive quetioning and debate, so ,
carry on, I guess.

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 4th 08, 05:56 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message ...
>
> "John Mazor" > wrote
>
>> The first few primaries are all about money - convincing contributors to put their
>> money on you and not the other candidates. Only later is it about winning enough
>> delegates for the nominating convention.
>
> Yes, but if a candidate does not do well in the early showings, he/she will not get
> enough money, and usually have to drop out, all together.
>
> That is what I object to, in the big picture. They are not around to get my state's
> vote (and my vote) to be a possible choice.
>
> I resent that. BIG time. I'll bet in the last 30 years, half of the early primaries
> have eliminated my top choice in the presidential primary. Some few states have been
> allowed to make choices for the country, that should be made by the WHOLE country.
>
> Simply, it sucks.

Amen. Paul Tsongas was a Democrat who was saying what needed to be said, that we needed
to conserve energy, we had to set funding priorities and stop promising everything to
everybody, and that Americans would have to start making sacrifices. I think he did well
in NH but as you would expect, voters didn't take well to someone who was brave enough to
speak the truth and he dropped out. I would have walked 10 miles in a blizzard to cast my
vote for him.

The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections. I don't know how you
fix that without doing excessive violence to the First Amendment, but something is wrong
in a system where the first thing a winning candidate has to do is start calling on donors
for the next election cycle.

And speaking of some states determining the outcome, don't even get me started on block
voting in the electoral college system.

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 4th 08, 11:49 PM

WolfRat wrote:
> Oh yeah .. there's more, and (again) as Peggy Noonan says in this
> column: "There's something about her that makes you look, watch, think,
> look again, weigh and say: No."

Peggy Noonan??? Peggy Noonan??? The fact that you take seriously
anything that vapid fool says is enough to categorize you as not worth
listening to...

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 5th 08, 03:44 AM

> The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.

Boy, isn't that the truth? The money that was just spent in Iowa was
absolutely astounding -- and for what?

What's amazing to me is how the money and support in this election cycle is
not following the middle-of-the road candidates. For example, Joe Biden
was, in my mind, the most electable Democrat -- yet he's out today like bad
news.

And the Republicans select Huckabee? A nice guy that admits to not
believing in evolution? That's just downright scary. Yet, today he's the
front-runner... Sure makes ya scratch your head.

Meanwhile, the Democrats -- who, in the wake of GW, could probably nominate
Jack the Ripper and win the White House this year -- have two virtually
unelectable candidates as their front-runners. I simply can't believe the
choices before us are the best America can produce.

Sure is a screwy election cycle... The best we can only hope is that
whoever wins supports GA and doesn't hurt the country too badly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip

January 5th 08, 04:28 AM

On 5 Jan, 03:44, "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> > The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.
>
> Boy, isn't that the truth? *The money that was just spent in Iowa was
> absolutely astounding -- and for what?
>
> What's amazing to me is how the money and support in this election cycle is
> not following the middle-of-the road candidates. *For example, Joe Biden
> was, in my mind, the most electable Democrat -- yet he's out today like bad
> news.
>
> And the Republicans select Huckabee? *A nice guy that admits to not
> believing in evolution? * That's just downright scary. *Yet, today he's the
> front-runner... *Sure makes ya scratch your head.
>
> Meanwhile, the Democrats -- who, in the wake of GW, could probably nominate
> Jack the Ripper and win the White House this year -- have two virtually
> unelectable candidates as their front-runners. * I simply can't believe the
> choices before us are the best America can produce.
>
> Sure is a screwy election cycle... * The best we can only hope is that
> whoever wins supports GA and doesn't hurt the country too badly.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

More great aviation content there fjukwit

Don Tabor

January 5th 08, 11:48 AM

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:20:32 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Two ideas:

I'll add a third.

Put "None of the above" on the ballot.

If NOTA wins, we start over, but all those on the ballot the first
time are disqualified.

Don

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

Matt Whiting

January 5th 08, 11:34 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.
>
> Boy, isn't that the truth? The money that was just spent in Iowa was
> absolutely astounding -- and for what?
>
> What's amazing to me is how the money and support in this election cycle
> is not following the middle-of-the road candidates. For example, Joe
> Biden was, in my mind, the most electable Democrat -- yet he's out today
> like bad news.
>
> And the Republicans select Huckabee? A nice guy that admits to not
> believing in evolution? That's just downright scary. Yet, today he's

I find it comforting that he doesn't believe in evolution. And I hope
he also doesn't believe in global warming, er, uh, excuse me, global
climate change. It is hard to keep up with all these PC terms. I read
an article recently by a Russian scientist who talks about the coming
global cooling trend that will start in the not too distant future and
run for many decades.

Both of these theories are full of holes you could drive a truck through
so I'm glad Huckabee doesn't subscribe to them. However, there are
other reasons I can't support him unfortunately.

I can't say that there is a single candidate I can get behind at
present. Probably Mitt Romney is the closest given his fairly broad
experience both in business and in politics. I believe the CEO of our
country should have expert beyond law school.

Matt

Thomas Borchert

January 6th 08, 09:15 AM

Jay,

> A nice guy that admits to not
> believing in evolution?
>

Only in America...

I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a guy
like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other than a
crackpot show, let alone be considered for President. The country's
success was and is largely built on science and technology, after all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 11:12 AM

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Jay,
>
>> A nice guy that admits to not
>> believing in evolution?
>>
>
> Only in America...
>
> I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a guy
> like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other than a
> crackpot show, let alone be considered for President. The country's
> success was and is largely built on science and technology, after all.
>

I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.

Bertie

Bob Noel

January 6th 08, 12:22 PM

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Only in America...

Freedom is wonderful, isn't it? And painful too.

>
> I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a guy
> like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other than a
> crackpot show, let alone be considered for President. The country's
> success was and is largely built on science and technology, after all.

Science and technology chops aren't (and shouldn't be) qualifications for
political leadership in this country.

I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
than yet another stinkin lawyer.

We need leadership, not lawyers

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Thomas Borchert

January 6th 08, 12:46 PM

Bob,

> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>

That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 6th 08, 12:46 PM

Bertie,

> I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.
>

That, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bob Noel

January 6th 08, 01:00 PM

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Bob,
>
> > I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
> >
>
> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
> is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
> been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).

Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
too? ;-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 01:49 PM

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>> > I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>> >
>>
>> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
>> is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
>> been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>
> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

It is actually.

>
> Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
> science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
> too? ;-)

Not a bad idea.

I reckon I should get about ten votes. At least one for not reading the
enquirer, one more for reading intelligent newspapers and eight for
watching fox news just to **** myself laughing at it.

Bertie

Matt Whiting

January 6th 08, 02:23 PM

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>>>
>> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
>> is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
>> been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>
> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.

Matt

Matt Whiting

January 6th 08, 02:23 PM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Bertie,
>
>> I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.
>>
>
> That, too.
>

That was just a city, not the entire country.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 02:30 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:Lv5gj.1377$2n4.31288
@news1.epix.net:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Bertie,
>>
>>> I thought it was built on Rock N Roll.
>>>
>>
>> That, too.
>>
>
> That was just a city, not the entire country.
>

First a city, then a state...

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 02:33 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:cv5gj.1376$2n4.31050
@news1.epix.net:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>>> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>>>>
>>> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
it
>>> is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
>>> been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>>
>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>
> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
> St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
> scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
> time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.

All science assumed by scientists to be suspect all the time.

It;'s idiotic to imagine that any scientist would say any more than
"this is what it looks like to us now"

So, what you have just said, if I were to parasphrase, is "science is
proving that science is wrong"

What the moron ID and creationists are saying is "we have decided what
science should tell us and we will keep harangueing them until they do
so"

Bertie

Thomas Borchert

January 6th 08, 02:53 PM

Matt,

> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
> St. Helens
>

Care to point us to a source?

Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth. There
is simply NO debate about that in the scientific community. I'll admit
there is a debate about it well outside the scientific community, but
pretty much exclusively in the US.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 6th 08, 02:53 PM

Bob,

> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.

I can't see how it isn't.

> Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
> science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
> too?
>

It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
least if they're supposed to be good ones.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 03:12 PM

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Matt,
>
>> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
>> St. Helens
>>
>
> Care to point us to a source?
>
> Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth. There
> is simply NO debate about that in the scientific community. I'll admit
> there is a debate about it well outside the scientific community, but
> pretty much exclusively in the US.
>

Well, there is plenty of debate,but only as to the mechanism at the moment.
They happily entertianed some of the ID stuff when it came around but it
did not stand up to scrutiny and so far that evidence has been dismissed.
Most rational scientists are glad to look at anything that comes along and
they do, but most of it is easily dismissed and this ****es off the pseudo
scientists that hang their hats on it.

the bacterial flagellum thing is a classic example of this.

Bertie

Larry Dighera

January 6th 08, 03:57 PM

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 14:23:04 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
>St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
>scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
>time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.

Do those unnamed "scientific" studies also call into question carbon
dating?

Unlike religion, science employs independently verifiable and
independently reproducible methods upon which to base its conclusions.

I have no quarrel with organized religion as a civilizing force that
fosters brotherhood and community among its followers, but when it
embraces the likes of evangelical preacher and outted hypocrite Ted
Haggard, criminals like Jim Baker, Jim Jones, and countless Catholic
pedophile priests as its spokesmen, and openly fosters
magical-thinking instead of objective reasoning, the truth is so
evident as to be undeniable.

--

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to
escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." --The intellectual
Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180)

ManhattanMan

January 6th 08, 04:05 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> for watching fox news just to **** myself laughing at it.
>
>

Yep, Bill Orally & Faux News, a match made in heaven... :)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 04:09 PM

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:R_6gj.43316$1C4.6411
@newsfe10.phx:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> for watching fox news just to **** myself laughing at it.
>>
>>
>
> Yep, Bill Orally & Faux News, a match made in heaven... :)
>
>
>

Yeah, the daily show is kind of redundant when you have fox.

Bertie

Andreus

January 6th 08, 04:23 PM

I would tend to excuse much of what the candidates claim to believe or not
believe. They are doing a selling job. In much of the US the republicans
appear to believe their core support comes from uneducated bible belters and
they are careful to cater directly to their core beliefs. I'm not sure they
are right, but I'm not an American. I was astounded that Iowa would accept
Obama as a candidate who happened to be black, instead of as a black
candidate. Perhaps the US does believe it can evolve. I don't think you need
another Clinton in the white house. Time for big changes.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Bob,
>
>> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>>
>
> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge, it
> is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as has
> been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>

Martin Hotze[_2_]

January 6th 08, 04:47 PM

Andreus schrieb:
> I was astounded that Iowa would accept
> Obama as a candidate who happened to be black, instead of as a black
> candidate. Perhaps the US does believe it can evolve.

as media outlets brought it: the more voters the better the chances for him.

> I don't think you need
> another Clinton in the white house. Time for big changes.

well, as she is a women this would also be a big change.

Being a foreigner and abroad almost every candidate seems to be weired
(Huckabee won't make it anywhere in Europe with his program), but it's
up to the American people to vote the best person for the job. And if
they believe that McCain (bomb-bomb-bomb-iran) is the best or any other
person: well, so be it.

#m

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 05:27 PM

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in news:5ucg73F1dq52pU1
@mid.uni-berlin.de:

..
>
> Incidentally evolution is not a theory, it's an observable fact.

Actually, it's both. Theory doesn't mean what it is popularly regarded
to mean. Lift is alos a theory but we also know it to be fact, for
instance ( there are similarly asinine debates going on there as well)
The fact that it is a theory, and called a theory is taken by the
creationists and other twits with agendas to mean that there are major
questions as to it's veracity, which of course, at this moment in time,
there are not.

> Several theories exist that attempt to explain why it happens, the
most
> convincing of which is being taught in schools. Like all theories, it
> may one day be refuted and replaced by a more convincing one, or maybe
> not. The anti-evolution religious bigots are not part of this process
> and most of them probably don't understand it, it's taking place in
the
> scientific community. The fact that evolution is taking place will not
> be refuted, because it is being observed beyond any doubt.
>
> *) Christianity and evolution aren't actually in conflict, except from
> a very naive interpretation of christianity which is an insult for all
> mature believers.
>
And islam is even worse, though only marginally.

There's a turkish writer name Harun Yahya ( sp?) who has been hammering
evolution from a "moderate" muslim viewpoint.
Bizarrely, he calls people like Stephen Gould pawns of the christian
fundalmentalist crusaders, and he himself (Yahya) is considered by the
more conservative elements of islam to be an agent of satan because of
his perceived sympathetic view of evolution!

Just fjukcing weird.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 05:29 PM

Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote in -
berlin.de:
>
> Incidentally evolution is not a theory, it's an observable fact.

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

Right up front. First paragraph

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 06:05 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .

> I reckon I should get about ten votes. At least one for not reading the
> enquirer, one more for reading intelligent newspapers and eight for
> watching fox news just to **** myself laughing at it.

"Fox news" is a contradiction in terms.

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 06:45 PM

"Wolfgang Schwanke" > wrote in message
...

> *) Christianity and evolution aren't actually in conflict, except from
> a very naive interpretation of christianity which is an insult for all
> mature believers.

Even in grade school the nuns taught us that science and faith can easily co-exist.
Christian humility should lead believers to the conclusion that "If God chose to create
mankind through evolution, thus making us descendants of ape-like creatures and related to
everything from pond scum to naked mole rats, that is his will and it doesn't change the
end product."

OTOH, it is the Creationists who are guilty of overweening hubris. They implicitly are
denying that God had the power to create mankind any damn way he pleases, and explicitly
asserting that he went through all the trouble of inhabiting the entire earth with bogus
scientific evidence just to mislead mankind away from faith in him.

Not that I view homo sapiens as being at the pinnacle of the universe, but if you want to
carry on the argument over how we got here, you can easily embrace evolution within the
framework of religious dogma.

WolfRat

January 6th 08, 07:03 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Andreus schrieb:
>> I was astounded that Iowa would accept Obama as a candidate who
>> happened to be black, instead of as a black candidate. Perhaps the US
>> does believe it can evolve.

Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black
half supersede the white half in America?

I don't get it. The attitude is like the black genes are
superior to the white genes

Tiger Woods is half Asian but the left wing media slobbers
over him also like he is all black.

I just don't get it. I also resent Obama "hiding" and
"ignoring" his white blood. I guarantee when he arrives in
the deep South that attitude will not play worth a damn.

"Kissing the Black Ass" is an epidemic in America

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 07:09 PM

WolfRat > wrote in :

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> Andreus schrieb:
>>> I was astounded that Iowa would accept Obama as a candidate who
>>> happened to be black, instead of as a black candidate. Perhaps the US
>>> does believe it can evolve.
>
>
> Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black
> half supersede the white half in America?

Suppose the same reason most people prefer dark chocolate to white.

Who cares?

>
> I don't get it.

Obviously.

Bertie

Bob Noel

January 6th 08, 07:24 PM

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Bob,
>
> > Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>
> I can't see how it isn't.

OK. then we'll just have to disagree

>
> > Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
> > science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
> > too?
> >
>
> It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
> around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
> scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
> least if they're supposed to be good ones.

The way I look at it is that science can be useful for trying to explain
and predict the real world around us. For hundreds of years Newtonian
physics provided a pretty good model of the real world and useful for
making predictions about how things would work. Scientific evidence
today shows that Newtonian physics is incomplete for certain
environments. Who knows what other limitations of our understanding
exist?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel

January 6th 08, 07:25 PM

In article >,
Wolfgang Schwanke > wrote:

> *) Christianity and evolution aren't actually in conflict, except from
> a very naive interpretation of christianity which is an insult for all
> mature believers.

Allow me to commit the sin of posting a "I agree" reply. ;-)

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 07:53 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in
:

> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>
>> In article >,
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>>> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>>>>
>>>
>>> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
>>> it is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as
>>> has been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>>
>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>
>> Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
>> science of Presidential candidates?
>>
> If they can't tell the difference between science and religion, they
> don't qualify for any position that has to make decisions based in
> science.

Or common sense even.

To reduce it to a simplistic scenario, if you were a group of farmers
living in an entirely agri dependent world, you wouldn't elect a ballerina
to represent you.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 07:57 PM

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

>

>
> The way I look at it is that science can be useful for trying to explain
> and predict the real world around us. For hundreds of years Newtonian
> physics provided a pretty good model of the real world and useful for
> making predictions about how things would work. Scientific evidence
> today shows that Newtonian physics is incomplete for certain
> environments. Who knows what other limitations of our understanding
> exist?
>

But up to the point einsteinian physics came into being, nobody but nutjobs
went around denying that gravity existed.

Bertie

Andreus

January 6th 08, 08:00 PM

Well, I am not American, I am a German/French immigrant to Canada and I
describe Obama as black because he is often described so by the press. If it
offfends you, well then it offends you, not my problem. Do you have any
evidence that Obama is hiding his heritage? It seems he has been fairly
clear about it, and the fact that he does not speak "inner city" would
indicate to me that he is not anxious to be percieved as anything much
different than he appears. Perhaps it will please you better if I describe
him as "not 100% Aryan".

"WolfRat" > wrote in message
...

> Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half supersede
> the white half in America?
>
> I don't get it. The attitude is like the black genes are superior to the
> white genes
>
>
> I just don't get it. I also resent Obama "hiding" and "ignoring" his white
> blood. I guarantee when he arrives in the deep South that attitude will
> not play worth a damn.
>
> "Kissing the Black Ass" is an epidemic in America

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 08:04 PM

"Andreus" > wrote in
:

> Well, I am not American, I am a German/French immigrant to Canada and
> I describe Obama as black because he is often described so by the
> press. If it offfends you, well then it offends you, not my problem.
> Do you have any evidence that Obama is hiding his heritage? It seems
> he has been fairly clear about it, and the fact that he does not speak
> "inner city" would indicate to me that he is not anxious to be
> percieved as anything much different than he appears. Perhaps it will
> please you better if I describe him as "not 100% Aryan".###

I'm not black and I'm not 100 percent Aryan.

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 08:26 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>
>> In article >,
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>
>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>
>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>
> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who knows
> what science is...

Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the population.

Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the scientific
method.

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 08:47 PM

"WolfRat" > wrote in message ...
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> Andreus schrieb:
>>> I was astounded that Iowa would accept Obama as a candidate who happened to be black,
>>> instead of as a black candidate. Perhaps the US does believe it can evolve.
>
> Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half supersede the white half
> in America?

Because bigoted beliefs put it in everyone's mind that if you had the least detectable
trace of black ancestry, you were not white. You were black, period. Even an octaroon
(1/8 black) trying to act as a white was "passing" and not really white.

> I don't get it. The attitude is like the black genes are superior to the white genes

You still don't get it if you can make that kind of statement.

> Tiger Woods is half Asian but the left wing media slobbers
> over him also like he is all black.

See previous comment on who is "black" and who is "white" - it applies to any other
background if you're of black heritage.

> I just don't get it. I also resent Obama "hiding" and "ignoring" his white blood. I
> guarantee when he arrives in the deep South that attitude will not play worth a damn.

He's not hiding it, just taking political advantage of his black ancestry.

> "Kissing the Black Ass" is an epidemic in America

You're a vector for spreading the Cracker Bigot Prejudice Syndrome.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 08:56 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02:

>
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>>
>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>>
>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>
>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>> knows what science is...
>
> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
> population.
>
> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles
> of the scientific method.

No need to burn books when nobody reads em anyway...

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 09:37 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "John Mazor" > wrote in
> news:iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02:
>
>>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>>>
>>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>>
>>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>>> knows what science is...
>>
>> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the population.
>>
>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles
>> of the scientific method.
>
> No need to burn books when nobody reads em anyway...

I hadn't thought about it that way but you're right. Somebody tell Ray Bradbury to talk
to his agent about his "Fahrenheit 451" novel. It's been moved from the "cautionary tale"
section to the "redundant fantasy" shelf.

Neil Gould

January 6th 08, 09:40 PM

Recently, Bob Noel > posted:

> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>>>
>>
>> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
>> it is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as
>> has been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>
> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>
> Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
> science of Presidential candidates?
>
If they can't tell the difference between science and religion, they don't
qualify for any position that has to make decisions based in science.

Neil

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 09:44 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:wSbgj.954$hS.331@trnddc08:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>> news:iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02:
>>
>>>
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>>>
>>>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>>>> knows what science is...
>>>
>>> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
>>> population.
>>>
>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
>>> principles of the scientific method.
>>
>> No need to burn books when nobody reads em anyway...
>
> I hadn't thought about it that way but you're right. Somebody tell
> Ray Bradbury to talk to his agent about his "Fahrenheit 451" novel.
> It's been moved from the "cautionary tale" section to the "redundant
> fantasy" shelf.

Yep.

Bertie

Neil Gould

January 6th 08, 09:44 PM

Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:

> Bob Noel wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>>> I'd rather have someone as President with limited science knowledge
>>>>
>>> That's not the point. Denying evolution is not a lack of knowledge,
>>> it is an anti-science stance. It is unforgivable in a president (as
>>> has been well demonstrated by the current one, I might add).
>>
>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>
> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
> St. Helens that calls into question many of the assumptions of the
> scientific communities assumptions about the age of the earth and the
> time required to create formations such as the Grand Canyon.
>
Refutation of prior hypotheses based on testing, new evidence, previously
inaccessible data, etc. *is* the scientific method. Scientific hypotheses
represent the state of the current level of empirical knowledge on a
topic, not necessarily ultimate truth.

Neil

Neil Gould

January 6th 08, 09:47 PM

Recently, Bob Noel > posted:

> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>
>> I can't see how it isn't.
>
> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>
As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who knows
what science is...

Neil

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 09:54 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...

> The way I look at it is that science can be useful for trying to explain
> and predict the real world around us. For hundreds of years Newtonian
> physics provided a pretty good model of the real world and useful for
> making predictions about how things would work. Scientific evidence
> today shows that Newtonian physics is incomplete for certain
> environments. Who knows what other limitations of our understanding exist?

The limits to our understanding are infinite - which is precisely why the scientific
method never claims to have discovered "the unalterable truth" on any matter. It compiles
evidence and tries to make sense of it with hypotheses leading to structured theory sets.
Whenever a scientist says "here's the science" he's essentially betting on the best horse
in the running (or horses, if there are convincing alternate theories in the race).
Because of Occam's Razor, science doesn't like to bet on the long shots, such as the
possibility of ID. Many horses can be - and eventually will be - knocked out of the
running, but that doesn't mean that at any given moment there won't be an acknowledged
front-runner in a race that never will reach a finish line.

Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine the theory of
evolution, but it's just a version of requiring science to prove a negative. "Science was
mistaken about Newtonian mechanics governing all motion, so now prove that its rejection
of ID isn't also wrong." Using that same principle, I can posit that we are surrounded by
invisible aliens from Zygorthia who are getting their kicks by being responsible for
everything bad that happens on earth (including TWA800, for those of you who remember that
set-to with the conspiracy theorists). The alternate or null theory, that they don't
exist, is well supported by hypotheses and data, so it supports a rejection of my theory.
But science can never disprove my theory. After all, they may really be there and we just
haven't discovered the means to detect them yet, just as "ID is/may be true, we just
haven't yet discovered the means to prove it".

For anyone who demands that ID be taught in science classes, I demand equal billing for my
theory that Zygorthians, and not the devil, are responsible for all the evil in the world.

WolfRat

January 6th 08, 10:05 PM

Martin Hotze wrote:
> WolfRat schrieb:
>
>> Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half
>> supersede the white half in America?
>
> I have to admit that living in an area with little to no people of other
> races I might be not representative and got it wrong. Seeing Obama on TV
> (and without checking his or other people's website on him) I got the
> impression that he is black. Sorry for the ignorance or better sorry for
> not getting *all* the information.
>
> #m

His Mother is white
His so called Father a.k.a. sperm donor is black

He was raised by his white GRANDPARENTS

BUT?!?!? he denies his white roots and hides his white
relatives. Notice how when on stage you NEVER see his white
heritage?

He is a SCAM and LIE and MEDIA Darling/CLOWN

No wonder he is leading in the polls so many of the American
people have been dumbed down and made to think using FEDERAL
control of school curriculum and left wing San Francisco
media/ad companies that white is bad and not cool anymore.
They think Black is the next best thing to GOD. If a White
person speaks out about the media bias and mind programming
they are automatically a racist and bigot and DEMONIZED and
belittled. It's all HORSE **** and a SCAM

America has become retarded and clueless and is being turned
into a mongoloid nation and converted to 3rd world status
using our own media and entertainment.

Look at this

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article3137506.ece

I know this is an aviation site but if America continues to
fall and allow politicians and the media to BULL**** us and
become more STUPID we will be riding bicycles soon.

Flying planes will be a luxury for the VERY rich ONLY

No wonder OBAMA is leading the Democrats. 30 years of
Education control by Washington D.C. has produced a
huge STUPID AMERICAN FAT LAZY MONGOLOID populace.

America the year I was born was 1st in Education in the
WORLD. Now America is 20th just ahead of Mexico and Greece.

Federal control of Education is no doubt been a MISERABLE
failure but hey, the politicians don't give a rat's ass.
It's easier to CON a STUPID populace. Now I am back to Obama.

Wanna keep flying? Watch this

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 10:08 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08:

>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> The way I look at it is that science can be useful for trying to
>> explain and predict the real world around us. For hundreds of years
>> Newtonian physics provided a pretty good model of the real world and
>> useful for making predictions about how things would work.
>> Scientific evidence today shows that Newtonian physics is incomplete
>> for certain environments. Who knows what other limitations of our
>> understanding exist?
>
> The limits to our understanding are infinite - which is precisely why
> the scientific method never claims to have discovered "the unalterable
> truth" on any matter. It compiles evidence and tries to make sense of
> it with hypotheses leading to structured theory sets. Whenever a
> scientist says "here's the science" he's essentially betting on the
> best horse in the running (or horses, if there are convincing
> alternate theories in the race). Because of Occam's Razor, science
> doesn't like to bet on the long shots, such as the possibility of ID.
> Many horses can be - and eventually will be - knocked out of the
> running, but that doesn't mean that at any given moment there won't be
> an acknowledged front-runner in a race that never will reach a finish
> line.
>
> Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine
> the theory of evolution, but it's just a version of requiring science
> to prove a negative. "Science was mistaken about Newtonian mechanics
> governing all motion, so now prove that its rejection of ID isn't also
> wrong." Using that same principle, I can posit that we are surrounded
> by invisible aliens from Zygorthia who are getting their kicks by
> being responsible for everything bad that happens on earth (including
> TWA800, for those of you who remember that set-to with the conspiracy
> theorists). The alternate or null theory, that they don't exist, is
> well supported by hypotheses and data, so it supports a rejection of
> my theory. But science can never disprove my theory. After all, they
> may really be there and we just haven't discovered the means to detect
> them yet, just as "ID is/may be true, we just haven't yet discovered
> the means to prove it".
>
> For anyone who demands that ID be taught in science classes, I demand
> equal billing for my theory that Zygorthians, and not the devil, are
> responsible for all the evil in the world.
>
>

Infidel. The Flying Spaghetti monster is the one true god. The
Zygorthians are not in the loose canon and therfore do not exist.

RAmen

Bertie

skym

January 6th 08, 10:08 PM

On Jan 4, 5:44*am, "news.verizon.net" > wrote:
> One could say the same about you then since you see a kook's posting and
> automatically decide what party he supports and what that party thinks
> about."skym" > wrote in message
>
And just who else would make such an attack solely on the dems without
making a similar attack on the repubs?

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 10:11 PM

WolfRat > wrote in :

> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> WolfRat schrieb:
>
> His Mother is white
> His so called Father a.k.a. sperm donor is black
>
> He was raised by his white GRANDPARENTS
>
> BUT?!?!? he denies his white roots and hides his white
> relatives. Notice how when on stage you NEVER see his white
> heritage?
>
> He is a SCAM and LIE and MEDIA Darling/CLOWN
>
> No wonder he is leading in the polls so many of the American
> people have been dumbed down and made to think using FEDERAL
> control of school curriculum and left wing San Francisco
> media/ad companies that white is bad and not cool anymore.
> They think Black is the next best thing to GOD. If a White
> person speaks out about the media bias and mind programming
> they are automatically a racist and bigot and DEMONIZED and
> belittled. It's all HORSE **** and a SCAM

Nope, I heard him say he used to watch "Father knows best" and eschews
prk knuckles for white bread.

Good credentials.
>
> America has become retarded and clueless

You've convinced me of that, if nothing else.

Bertie
>
>

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 10:33 PM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "John Mazor" > wrote in
> news:96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08:
>
>>
>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> The way I look at it is that science can be useful for trying to
>>> explain and predict the real world around us. For hundreds of years
>>> Newtonian physics provided a pretty good model of the real world and
>>> useful for making predictions about how things would work.
>>> Scientific evidence today shows that Newtonian physics is incomplete
>>> for certain environments. Who knows what other limitations of our
>>> understanding exist?
>>
>> The limits to our understanding are infinite - which is precisely why
>> the scientific method never claims to have discovered "the unalterable
>> truth" on any matter. It compiles evidence and tries to make sense of
>> it with hypotheses leading to structured theory sets. Whenever a
>> scientist says "here's the science" he's essentially betting on the
>> best horse in the running (or horses, if there are convincing
>> alternate theories in the race). Because of Occam's Razor, science
>> doesn't like to bet on the long shots, such as the possibility of ID.
>> Many horses can be - and eventually will be - knocked out of the
>> running, but that doesn't mean that at any given moment there won't be
>> an acknowledged front-runner in a race that never will reach a finish
>> line.
>>
>> Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine
>> the theory of evolution, but it's just a version of requiring science
>> to prove a negative. "Science was mistaken about Newtonian mechanics
>> governing all motion, so now prove that its rejection of ID isn't also
>> wrong." Using that same principle, I can posit that we are surrounded
>> by invisible aliens from Zygorthia who are getting their kicks by
>> being responsible for everything bad that happens on earth (including
>> TWA800, for those of you who remember that set-to with the conspiracy
>> theorists). The alternate or null theory, that they don't exist, is
>> well supported by hypotheses and data, so it supports a rejection of
>> my theory. But science can never disprove my theory. After all, they
>> may really be there and we just haven't discovered the means to detect
>> them yet, just as "ID is/may be true, we just haven't yet discovered
>> the means to prove it".
>>
>> For anyone who demands that ID be taught in science classes, I demand
>> equal billing for my theory that Zygorthians, and not the devil, are
>> responsible for all the evil in the world.
>
> Infidel. The Flying Spaghetti monster is the one true god. The
> Zygorthians are not in the loose canon and therfore do not exist.
>
> RAmen

Prove it, Heretic!

Bob Noel

January 6th 08, 10:40 PM

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> >>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
> >>
> >> I can't see how it isn't.
> >
> > OK. then we'll just have to disagree
> >
> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who knows
> what science is...

(All the chosen who know "what science is" agree on all theories, eh?)

Since I, in fact, know what science is, are you trying to say that I disagree
with myself?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bob Noel

January 6th 08, 10:44 PM

In article <96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08>, "John Mazor" >
wrote:

[snip]
> Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine the
> theory of
> evolution, but it's just a version of requiring science to prove a negative.
> "Science was
> mistaken about Newtonian mechanics governing all motion, so now prove that
> its rejection
> of ID isn't also wrong."

please please PLEASE note that I wasn't running down the ID path.

My discussion of Newtonian physics was merely an example of how
scientific understanding changes (hopefully improves) over time.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Larry Dighera

January 6th 08, 10:46 PM

On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:05:11 -0500, WolfRat > wrote
in >:

>he denies his white roots and hides his white
>relatives.

If I were related to Cheney I wouldn't flaunt it either. :-)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 11:07 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in news:lHcgj.797$sH.455
@trnddc04:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>> news:96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08:
>>
>>>
>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> The way I look at it is that science can be useful for trying to
>>>> explain and predict the real world around us. For hundreds of
years
>>>> Newtonian physics provided a pretty good model of the real world
and
>>>> useful for making predictions about how things would work.
>>>> Scientific evidence today shows that Newtonian physics is
incomplete
>>>> for certain environments. Who knows what other limitations of our
>>>> understanding exist?
>>>
>>> The limits to our understanding are infinite - which is precisely
why
>>> the scientific method never claims to have discovered "the
unalterable
>>> truth" on any matter. It compiles evidence and tries to make sense
of
>>> it with hypotheses leading to structured theory sets. Whenever a
>>> scientist says "here's the science" he's essentially betting on the
>>> best horse in the running (or horses, if there are convincing
>>> alternate theories in the race). Because of Occam's Razor, science
>>> doesn't like to bet on the long shots, such as the possibility of
ID.
>>> Many horses can be - and eventually will be - knocked out of the
>>> running, but that doesn't mean that at any given moment there won't
be
>>> an acknowledged front-runner in a race that never will reach a
finish
>>> line.
>>>
>>> Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine
>>> the theory of evolution, but it's just a version of requiring
science
>>> to prove a negative. "Science was mistaken about Newtonian
mechanics
>>> governing all motion, so now prove that its rejection of ID isn't
also
>>> wrong." Using that same principle, I can posit that we are
surrounded
>>> by invisible aliens from Zygorthia who are getting their kicks by
>>> being responsible for everything bad that happens on earth
(including
>>> TWA800, for those of you who remember that set-to with the
conspiracy
>>> theorists). The alternate or null theory, that they don't exist, is
>>> well supported by hypotheses and data, so it supports a rejection of
>>> my theory. But science can never disprove my theory. After all,
they
>>> may really be there and we just haven't discovered the means to
detect
>>> them yet, just as "ID is/may be true, we just haven't yet discovered
>>> the means to prove it".
>>>
>>> For anyone who demands that ID be taught in science classes, I
demand
>>> equal billing for my theory that Zygorthians, and not the devil, are
>>> responsible for all the evil in the world.
>>
>> Infidel. The Flying Spaghetti monster is the one true god. The
>> Zygorthians are not in the loose canon and therfore do not exist.
>>
>> RAmen
>
> Prove it, Heretic!
>
>

His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to imagine
anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more perfect. It is
therefore impossible to imagine there not being an FSM since that would
be more perfect than there actually being one and that would be
impossible.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 11:10 PM

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>
>> >>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>> >>
>> >> I can't see how it isn't.
>> >
>> > OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>> >
>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>> knows what science is...
>
> (All the chosen who know "what science is" agree on all theories, eh?)
>
> Since I, in fact, know what science is, are you trying to say that I
> disagree with myself?
>

Your newtonian argument is pretty much proof that you do not understand
science.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 11:11 PM

Bob Noel > wrote in
:

> In article <96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08>, "John Mazor"
> > wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine
>> the theory of
>> evolution, but it's just a version of requiring science to prove a
>> negative. "Science was
>> mistaken about Newtonian mechanics governing all motion, so now prove
>> that its rejection
>> of ID isn't also wrong."
>
> please please PLEASE note that I wasn't running down the ID path.
>
> My discussion of Newtonian physics was merely an example of how
> scientific understanding changes (hopefully improves) over time.
>

Ah, OK, fair enough. I hereby retract what I said in my other post..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 11:14 PM

Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A1DEAFE64961****upropeeh@
207.14.116.130:

>
> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to imagine
> anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more perfect. It is
> therefore impossible to imagine there not being an FSM since that would
> be more perfect than there actually being one and that would be
> impossible.
>

Thomas Aquinas eat your heart out.

Bertie

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 6th 08, 11:19 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> To reduce it to a simplistic scenario, if you were a group of farmers
> living in an entirely agri dependent world, you wouldn't elect a ballerina
> to represent you.

Depends on her legs...

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 6th 08, 11:23 PM

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
et:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> To reduce it to a simplistic scenario, if you were a group of farmers
>> living in an entirely agri dependent world, you wouldn't elect a
>> ballerina to represent you.
>
> Depends on her legs...
>

mmk, but swhe wouldnt' have any tits...

Bertie

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 6th 08, 11:24 PM

WolfRat wrote:
> America has become retarded and clueless

You being the poster child for that notion, clearly...

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 6th 08, 11:37 PM

John Mazor wrote:
> "WolfRat" > wrote in message ...
>> Martin Hotze wrote:
>>> Andreus schrieb:
>>>> I was astounded that Iowa would accept Obama as a candidate who happened to be black,
>>>> instead of as a black candidate. Perhaps the US does believe it can evolve.
>> Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half supersede the white half
>> in America?
>
> Because bigoted beliefs put it in everyone's mind that if you had the least detectable
> trace of black ancestry, you were not white. You were black, period. Even an octaroon
> (1/8 black) trying to act as a white was "passing" and not really white.

Not just beliefs, but laws in many places for many years.

John Mazor[_2_]

January 6th 08, 11:54 PM

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article <96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08>, "John Mazor" >
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Your Newtonian example is frequently used in an attempt to undermine the theory of
>> evolution, but it's just a version of requiring science to prove a negative. "Science
>> was
>> mistaken about Newtonian mechanics governing all motion, so now prove that
>> its rejection of ID isn't also wrong."
>
> please please PLEASE note that I wasn't running down the ID path.

I surmised that from your posts so I carefully worded it not to be a personal attack on
you. I was just trying to nail down the misuse of Newtonian physics. It's been cited by
many in an attempt to give credence to their pet theories, such as the existence of flying
saucers and ghosts as well as ID. "If they got that wrong, then they could be wrong about
my theory too."

> My discussion of Newtonian physics was merely an example of how
> scientific understanding changes (hopefully improves) over time.

Understood.

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 12:03 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:lHcgj.797$sH.455
> @trnddc04:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>>> news:96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08:

>>>> For anyone who demands that ID be taught in science classes, I demand
>>>> equal billing for my theory that Zygorthians, and not the devil, are
>>>> responsible for all the evil in the world.
>>>
>>> Infidel. The Flying Spaghetti monster is the one true god. The
>>> Zygorthians are not in the loose canon and therfore do not exist.
>>>
>>> RAmen
>>
>> Prove it, Heretic!
>
> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to imagine
> anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more perfect. It is
> therefore impossible to imagine there not being an FSM since that would
> be more perfect than there actually being one and that would be impossible.
>
> Bertie

Now I'm wondering if Anthony is frogging you! I've got a 16-point match on this paragraph
and his posting style.

Besides, I'm half Italian. If His Imperial Perfect Pasta ever shows his face around here,
he'll be lunch with garlic tomato sauce and shredded Romano for me. The Zygorthians have
as much as promised that to me.

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 12:03 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A1DEAFE64961****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to imagine
>> anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more perfect. It is
>> therefore impossible to imagine there not being an FSM since that would
>> be more perfect than there actually being one and that would be impossible.
>
> Thomas Aquinas eat your heart out.

Sounds more like Jesuit casuistry to me.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 12:14 AM

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:H%dgj.6760$9e1.4467@trnddc02:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> "John Mazor" > wrote in news:lHcgj.797$sH.455
>> @trnddc04:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> .. .
>>>> "John Mazor" > wrote in
>>>> news:96cgj.955$hS.113@trnddc08:
>
>>>>> For anyone who demands that ID be taught in science classes, I
>>>>> demand equal billing for my theory that Zygorthians, and not the
>>>>> devil, are responsible for all the evil in the world.
>>>>
>>>> Infidel. The Flying Spaghetti monster is the one true god. The
>>>> Zygorthians are not in the loose canon and therfore do not exist.
>>>>
>>>> RAmen
>>>
>>> Prove it, Heretic!
>>
>> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to imagine
>> anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more perfect. It
>> is therefore impossible to imagine there not being an FSM since that
>> would be more perfect than there actually being one and that would be
>> impossible.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Now I'm wondering if Anthony is frogging you! I've got a 16-point
> match on this paragraph and his posting style.

I've always suspected he was divine, but for the worng reason.

Bertie
>
> Besides, I'm half Italian. If His Imperial Perfect Pasta ever shows
> his face around here, he'll be lunch with garlic tomato sauce and
> shredded Romano for me. The Zygorthians have as much as promised that
> to me.
>

That's what his noodly appendage are for.

Bertie

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 7th 08, 12:14 AM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A1DEAFE64961****upropeeh@
> 207.14.116.130:
>
>> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to imagine
>> anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more perfect. It is
>> therefore impossible to imagine there not being an FSM since that would
>> be more perfect than there actually being one and that would be
>> impossible.
>>
>
> Thomas Aquinas eat your heart out.

You do an excellent impersonation of a dumb ox!

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 12:15 AM

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:H%dgj.6761$9e1.3555@trnddc02:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> news:Xns9A1DEAFE64961****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:
>>
>>> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to
>>> imagine anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more
>>> perfect. It is therefore impossible to imagine there not being an
>>> FSM since that would be more perfect than there actually being one
>>> and that would be impossible.
>>
>> Thomas Aquinas eat your heart out.
>
> Sounds more like Jesuit casuistry to me.
>
>
>

It's all the one crap.

As if the universe could ever be described by a series of grunts and
snorts!

Bertie

Rich Ahrens[_2_]

January 7th 08, 12:36 AM

John Mazor wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in news:Xns9A1DEAFE64961****upropeeh@
>> 207.14.116.130:
>>
>>> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to imagine
>>> anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more perfect. It is
>>> therefore impossible to imagine there not being an FSM since that would
>>> be more perfect than there actually being one and that would be impossible.
>> Thomas Aquinas eat your heart out.
>
> Sounds more like Jesuit casuistry to me.

They picked up a few things from the Dominicans.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 12:42 AM

Rich Ahrens > wrote in
. net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote in
>> news:Xns9A1DEAFE64961****upropeeh@ 207.14.116.130:
>>
>>> His most perfect Pasta must exist because it is impossible to
>>> imagine anything more perfect than FSM, there being nothing more
>>> perfect. It is therefore impossible to imagine there not being an
>>> FSM since that would be more perfect than there actually being one
>>> and that would be impossible.
>>>
>>
>> Thomas Aquinas eat your heart out.
>
> You do an excellent impersonation of a dumb ox!
>

Thank you. I meet enough of them. it must be having an effect.

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 7th 08, 01:29 AM

>> A nice guy that admits to not
>> believing in evolution?
>>
>
> Only in America...
>
> I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a guy
> like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other than a
> crackpot show, let alone be considered for President.

I know this will probably shock you into cardiac arrest, but I agree with
you 100%.

The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 01:33 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:xffgj.24465$Ux2.3365@attbi_s22:

>>> A nice guy that admits to not
>>> believing in evolution?
>>>
>>
>> Only in America...
>>
>> I'm afraid there's something seriously wrong with your country if a
>> guy like that gets more than 20 seconds air time in something other
>> than a crackpot show, let alone be considered for President.
>
> I know this will probably shock you into cardiac arrest, but I agree
> with you 100%.
>
> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.

You are the religious right, you moron.

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 7th 08, 01:35 AM

> Since I, in fact, know what science is, are you trying to say that I
> disagree
> with myself?

Well, yes...and no.

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

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 01:37 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:_lfgj.288665
$Fc.172359@attbi_s21:

>> Since I, in fact, know what science is, are you trying to say that I
>> disagree
>> with myself?
>
> Well, yes...and no.
>
>:-)

Spineless twit.

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 7th 08, 01:55 AM

>> Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half supersede
>> the white half in America?
>
> I have to admit that living in an area with little to no people of other
> races I might be not representative and got it wrong. Seeing Obama on TV
> (and without checking his or other people's website on him) I got the
> impression that he is black. Sorry for the ignorance or better sorry for
> not getting *all* the information.

Black, white, or Martian, Obama is remarkable for being the
smoothest-talking guy I've seen in politics for a very, very long time.

He can speak extemporaneously for an hour, leaving me feeling all warm and
fuzzy about a new "inclusiveness" and "standing together" -- and, in the
final analysis, I have NO idea what the hell is just said.

No one does. He's a wizard at speaking without saying anything.

Even though he has almost no experience to merit being president, he's by
far the best team-builder in the race -- although I don't think anyone knows
what his team might actually *do*.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 02:06 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:fEfgj.288685$Fc.13336@attbi_s21:

>>> Obama is not black. He is half white. Why does the black half
>>> supersede the white half in America?
>>
>> I have to admit that living in an area with little to no people of
>> other races I might be not representative and got it wrong. Seeing
>> Obama on TV (and without checking his or other people's website on
>> him) I got the impression that he is black. Sorry for the ignorance
>> or better sorry for not getting *all* the information.
>
> Black, white, or Martian, Obama is remarkable for being the
> smoothest-talking guy I've seen in politics for a very, very long
> time.
>
> He can speak extemporaneously for an hour, leaving me feeling all warm
> and fuzzy about a new "inclusiveness" and "standing together" -- and,
> in the final analysis, I have NO idea what the hell is just said.

I'm sure ou dont'

>
> No one does.

You don't know that, therefore you are talking out of your ass,as usual.

He's a wizard at speaking without saying anything.
>
> Even though he has almost no experience to merit being president, he's
> by far the best team-builder in the race -- although I don't think
> anyone knows what his team might actually *do*.

Wheras we know what you would do.

Get some mexicans in to do it for you.

Bertie

Matt Whiting

January 7th 08, 02:49 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt.
>> St. Helens
>>
>
> Care to point us to a source?

Dr. Steven Austin, who received his doctorate from Penn State. He
conducted much of the research on the area at and around Mount St.
Helens after the eruption.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm

And some interesting information regarding the formation of the Grand
Canyon.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dr-steve-austin-aig-the-grand-canyon/2848553338

> Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth. There
> is simply NO debate about that in the scientific community. I'll admit
> there is a debate about it well outside the scientific community, but
> pretty much exclusively in the US.

Of course it won't as the mainstream scientific community has
preconceived ideas and fits their "data" to their ideas rather than
their ideas to the actual data.

Matt

Matt Whiting

January 7th 08, 02:52 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Bob,
>
>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>
> I can't see how it isn't.

If the theory is incorrect, then denying it is not anti-science at all.

>
>> Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
>> science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
>> too?
>>
>
> It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
> around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
> scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
> least if they're supposed to be good ones.

No argument here. The trouble is that much of today's science is based
on some very false assumptions made by Darwin and others.

Matt

Matt Whiting

January 7th 08, 02:54 AM

John Mazor wrote:
> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bob,
>>>>
>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>
>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who knows
>> what science is...
>
> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the population.
>
> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the scientific
> method.

And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a few
decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
"scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
science in our lifetimes.

Matt

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 03:04 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>>> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and
>>> Mt. St. Helens
>>>
>>
>> Care to point us to a source?
>
> Dr. Steven Austin, who received his doctorate from Penn State. He
> conducted much of the research on the area at and around Mount St.
> Helens after the eruption.
>
> http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm
>
>
> And some interesting information regarding the formation of the Grand
> Canyon.
>
> http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dr-steve-austin-aig-the-grand-
canyon/
> 2848553338
>
>
>> Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth.
>> There is simply NO debate about that in the scientific community.
>> I'll admit there is a debate about it well outside the scientific
>> community, but pretty much exclusively in the US.
>
> Of course it won't as the mainstream scientific community has
> preconceived ideas and fits their "data" to their ideas rather than
> their ideas to the actual data.
>

No, they don;t, and you've just firmly planted yourelf in the k00k bin.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 03:05 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> John Mazor wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>>
>>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>>> knows what science is...
>>
>> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
>> population.
>>
>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
>> principles of the scientific method.
>
> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
> who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a
> few decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
> "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
> science in our lifetimes.

No it won't. Even if they are wrong, it won't mean a thing to scientific
method, k00kie boi.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 03:06 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:stggj.1382$2n4.31374
@news1.epix.net:

> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Bob,
>>
>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>
>> I can't see how it isn't.
>
> If the theory is incorrect, then denying it is not anti-science at all.

Yes, it is.

>
>
>>
>>> Are people going to demand some kind litmus test for embracing
>>> science of Presidential candidates? Can we apply that to voters
>>> too?
>>>
>>
>> It would certainly make sense (in both cases ;-)). Everything happening
>> around us is based in science. A thorough understanding of the
>> scientific process is pretty much mandatory for making decisions, at
>> least if they're supposed to be good ones.
>
> No argument here. The trouble is that much of today's science is based
> on some very false assumptions made by Darwin and others.

Prove it.

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 03:42 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> Matt,
>>
>>> There is recent science from studies of both the Grand Canyon and Mt. St. Helens
>>
>> Care to point us to a source?
>
> Dr. Steven Austin, who received his doctorate from Penn State. He conducted much of the
> research on the area at and around Mount St. Helens after the eruption.
>
> http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm

You know where it is going right from the opening blurb - pretentious religious rot
masquerading as science.

He has taken the outcomes of limited, rare catastrophic events and claimed that this
disproves the well-accepted theorems about topological formation under every variety of
more common circumstances. That's like saying that the forward movement of an aircraft in
a vacuum doesn't create lift, therefore the whole theory of lift is wrong. Or claiming
that the fact that we can create diamonds from carbon in hours means that the ones found
thousands of feet below the surface were created in an eyeblink by divine intervention and
not through the commonly accepted scientific explanation.

Even if he's partially correct about some things, revising the conventional explanations
about those specific events doesn't mean that the whole topological house now comes
tumbling down, taking evolution down with it.

And as we know from the various conspiracy groups, having a PhD doesn't prevent you from
being a blinkered fool.

> And some interesting information regarding the formation of the Grand Canyon.
>
> http://video.aol.com/video-detail/dr-steve-austin-aig-the-grand-canyon/2848553338

More of the same bogus "scientific conclusions" from the same moron. Dickering over
details when either view is consistent with or irrelevant to the overarching theory
doesn't even come close to disproving the theory.

>> Whatever it is, it won't shake evolution and the age of the earth. There is simply NO
>> debate about that in the scientific community. I'll admit there is a debate about it
>> well outside the scientific community, but pretty much exclusively in the US.
>
> Of course it won't as the mainstream scientific community has preconceived ideas and
> fits their "data" to their ideas rather than their ideas to the actual data.

Damn straight. I can't get even one lousy media story to alert the public to the fact
that we are surrounded by invisible Zygorthians who are the true cause of all evil on
Earth. And I can show them as an incontrovertible fact that there is absolutely *no* data
that can disprove my theory - but do you think that the media is going to take note of
that or even care about the implications? No, they're stuck in their preconceived notions
about this, too.

Morgans[_2_]

January 7th 08, 04:06 AM

"Jay Honeck" <> wrote

> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
> In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.

Really?

I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude behind it.

I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball bearing and
nails around their body over the top of several pounds of plastic explosive.
I don't see them targeting their own countrymen with assault rifles and
grenade launchers. I have yet to hear them preach death to all unbelievers.

I have yet to see a car full of religious right Americans drive up to a
police checkpoint, in the middle of a market crowded with men, women and
children, guilt only of being hungry, only to have their body parts spread
over a city block, when the fanatics explode several artillery shells in
their car.

Really Jay, I understand your reservations and fear about fanatical
Christians, but to compare the two groups is totally un-American, I think.
You know better than to have that kind of knee jerk reaction.
--
Jim in NC

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 04:12 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>
>> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
>> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>
> Really?
>
> I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude
> behind it.
>
> I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
> bearing and nails around their body over the top of several pounds of
> plastic explosive.

Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 04:38 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> The trouble is that much of today's science is based on some very false assumptions made
> by Darwin and others.

How so?

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 04:40 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor wrote:

>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the
>> scientific method.
>
> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those who claim to be
> scientists.

Wrong, see below.

> This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the global warming, er,
> global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback
> to science in our lifetimes.

Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable scientists claim that
increased global warming to catastrophic levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit to
the usual caveats of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a small
minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science reporting is
notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific statements way beyond the
scientist's actual views. We need to see it in their own published material or equally
reliable sources.

A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the lines
of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global warming,
that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be contributing to this,
and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life on Earth. While
alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining all the observed
data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often scientists are guilty of
not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume that everyone understands the
full but unspoken context of their announcements. But even when they do provide the full
context, it seldom is included in the media accounts because it's not as sexy as some
version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 06:56 AM

Larry,

> I have no quarrel with organized religion as a civilizing force that
> fosters brotherhood and community among its followers,
>

I wouldn't, either. Didn't know there are any religions like that,
though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ron Garret

January 7th 08, 08:20 AM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
> >
> > "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
> >
> >> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
> >> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
> >
> > Really?
> >
> > I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude
> > behind it.
> >
> > I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
> > bearing and nails around their body over the top of several pounds of
> > plastic explosive.
>
> Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.

To say nothing of the odd abortion clinic.

I'm with Jay and Bertie on this. Christian fascists are not much
different from Islamic fascists (or Jewish fascists for that matter). I
think the main reason they don't resort to retail violence like the
Jihadists is they can afford to buy it wholesale.

Not that this has anything to do with flying.

rg

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 10:00 AM

Matt,

> Dr. Steven Austin, who received his doctorate from Penn State. He
> conducted much of the research on the area at and around Mount St.
> Helens after the eruption.
>
> http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm

I couldn't care less where the man got his doctorate. What I do care about is: What
are his findings? They are not really mentioned on the page you give. Did he
publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal? Which? If "creationism.org" is the
only place that would publish what he has to say, that pretty much discounts it
right away.

> Of course it won't as the mainstream scientific community has
> preconceived ideas and fits their "data" to their ideas rather than
> their ideas to the actual data.

And I'm sure you can prove that? Don't bother, I know you can't.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 10:00 AM

John,

well put!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 10:00 AM

Matt,

> This will become very apparent within a few
> decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
> "scientists" are proven wrong.

You know what, let's discuss that in 20 years on that cruise through
the Northwest passage.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 10:00 AM

Matt,

> >> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
> >
> > I can't see how it isn't.
>
> If the theory is incorrect, then denying it is not anti-science at all.

BS. If someone is "denying" evolution, he or she needs too present a better
explanation of the facts. No one has. Evolution is the currently accepted
"best fit" to the facts in the scientific sense.

> No argument here. The trouble is that much of today's science is based
> on some very false assumptions made by Darwin and others.

No way you are dragging me in your kook bin like that. There are no fals
assumptions that trouble "much of today's science".

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 10:00 AM

John,

> Even in grade school the nuns taught us that science and faith can easily co-exist.
>

Ah, maybe nuns are not the most neutral source on this ;-)

I'm not sure they can.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 10:44 AM

Jay,

> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
> In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>

We are indeed in full agreement. And on my birthday, to boot.

If that ain't proof of god... ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 10:44 AM

Morgans,

> I have yet to hear them preach death to all unbelievers.
>

Just read the standard hate mail from religious right people to their
"opponents". Not very Christian at all, one might add.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Andreus

January 7th 08, 11:08 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball bearing
> and nails around their body over the top of several pounds of plastic
> explosive. I don't see them targeting their own countrymen with assault
> rifles and grenade launchers. I have yet to hear them preach death to all
> unbelievers.
>
McVay ring any bells? How about murders of abortion clinic people. In truth
I don't think it has as much to do with religion as has been reported.
Likely more to do with the political situation, struggle for power, poverty.

> Really Jay, I understand your reservations and fear about fanatical
> Christians, but to compare the two groups is totally un-American, I think.
> You know better than to have that kind of knee jerk reaction.
> --
> Jim in NC

Any fanatical devotion to a leader- religious or political -is wrong, and
dangerous.

Andreus

January 7th 08, 11:12 AM

>> I have no quarrel with organized religion as a civilizing force that
>> fosters brotherhood and community among its followers,
>>
>

It's the "amoung it's followers" part. That inevitably leaves another group
on the outside, it's always fun to have someone to focus your
dissatisfaction and anger on! But that's ok, those *******s deserve it!

Bob Noel

January 7th 08, 12:05 PM

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>
> > The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
> > In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>
> Really?
>
> I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude behind it.

The key is what constitutes the "religious right". There are millions of
christians in the US that aren't liberal and might think of themselves as
religious right. Clearly those aren't in the same league as the evil
that promotes suicide bombers. I hope people don't group those
who oppose abortion with those who blow up abortion clinics.
Don't group all environmentalists with the anti-logging nutjobs that
spike trees.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 01:50 PM

Ron Garret > wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> > "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>> >
>> >> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
>> >> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>> >
>> > Really?
>> >
>> > I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude
>> > behind it.
>> >
>> > I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
>> > bearing and nails around their body over the top of several pounds of
>> > plastic explosive.
>>
>> Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.
>
> To say nothing of the odd abortion clinic.
>
> I'm with Jay and Bertie on this.

Why don't youjust run a knife through me?

Bertie

news.verizon.net[_2_]

January 7th 08, 02:06 PM

I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look at the
Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to split off the the
main church because of the views but the view of the main body of the church
is exactly what you seem to claim does not exist.
"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Larry,
>
>> I have no quarrel with organized religion as a civilizing force that
>> fosters brotherhood and community among its followers,
>>
>
> I wouldn't, either. Didn't know there are any religions like that,
> though.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 02:23 PM

"news.verizon.net" > wrote in
news:elqgj.49276$8Z1.13558@trnddc05:

> I can give you a example that I'm personally familiar with. Look at
> the Episcopal church. Yes, there are groups threatening to split off
> the the main church because of the views but the view of the main body
> of the church is exactly what you seem to claim does not exist.

We're having the same problem with the Pastafarian church..

Splinters!

Bertie

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 02:52 PM

Bob,

> Clearly those aren't in the same league as the evil
> that promotes suicide bombers.
>

But they may add support. A good example is the Catholic church, where
millions of "passive bystanders" give much more emphasis to any weird
statement the pope or a cardinal might make, simply by silently letting
it pass and allowing the church to count that as consent.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 7th 08, 03:10 PM

>> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
>> In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>>
>
> We are indeed in full agreement. And on my birthday, to boot.
>
> If that ain't proof of god... ;-)

Well, happy birthday, Thomas! And, if I haven't said it before, it's a
pleasure sparring with you here, from time to time. We may not always
cordially agree, but your reasoned responses usually make the interchange
enjoyable.

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

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 7th 08, 03:28 PM

>> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
>> In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>
> Really?
>
> I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude behind
> it.

The rise of Radical Islam shows what happens when religion melds with a
violent, revenge-driven tribal culture. When petty tribal differences could
be expressed in sweeping religious generalizations (I.E.: "Kill the
infidels!"), violence became endemic in their system.

IMHO (and this is a BROAD generalization) one thing keeping the radical
religious right wing in America from going down this same violent road is
our culture of western reason, which generally discourages violence as a way
of settling intellectual arguments. Remove this aversion to violence and I
could easily see Southern preachers becoming military organizers like the
Mullahs.

As an aside, this favoring of reason over violence is why religion and
science have been able to coexist in Western Civilizations at all.

> Really Jay, I understand your reservations and fear about fanatical
> Christians, but to compare the two groups is totally un-American, I think.
> You know better than to have that kind of knee jerk reaction.

It's a matter of degree. In my religious studies I have found no religion
that is inherently superior to any other -- so there is little reason to
believe that Christianity couldn't be used for the same evil ends as Islam.
In fact, history proves my point.

Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs and
suicide bombers in America.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

ManhattanMan

January 7th 08, 03:38 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Splinters!
>
>
>
Some nu pu's wud fix that

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 04:00 PM

Jay,

> Well, happy birthday, Thomas!
>

Thanks a lot!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

ManhattanMan

January 7th 08, 04:08 PM

WolfRat wrote:
> Martin Hotze wrote:
>> Andreus schrieb:
>>> I was astounded that Iowa would accept Obama as a candidate who
>>> happened to be black, instead of as a black candidate. Perhaps the
>>> US does believe it can evolve.
>
>
> Obama is not black. He is half white.

This will explain it all:

The Zebra

A Zebra dies and arrives at the Pearly Gates. As he enters, he
asks St. Peter, "I have a question that's haunted me all of my
days on earth. Am I white with black stripes, or am I black with white
stripes?"
St. Peter said, "That's a question only God can answer." So the
zebra went off in search of God.
When he found Him, the zebra asked, "God, please - I must know.
Am I white with black stripes, or am I black with white stripes?"
God simply replied "You are what you are."The zebra returned to see
St. Peter once more, who asked him,
"Well, did God straighten out your query for you?"
The zebra looked puzzled. "No sir, God simply said
'You are what you are."
St. Peter smiled and said to the zebra, "Well then,
there you are. You are white with black stripes."
The zebra asked St. Peter, "How do you know that for
certain?
"Because," said St. Peter, "If you were black with
white stripes, God would have said, "You is what you is."

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 04:13 PM

"ManhattanMan" > wrote in news:dIrgj.53424$db7.9262
@newsfe12.phx:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Splinters!
>>
>>
>>
> Some nu pu's wud fix that

OK......
?

Bertie

Neil Gould

January 7th 08, 04:22 PM

Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:

> John Mazor wrote:
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>>
>>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>>> knows what science is...
>>
>> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
>> population.
>>
>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
>> principles of the scientific method.
>
> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
> who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a
> few decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
> "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
> science in our lifetimes.
>
Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific
method?

Neil

Ron Garret

January 7th 08, 04:31 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >> "Morgans" > wrote in
> >> :
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
> >> >> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
> >> >
> >> > Really?
> >> >
> >> > I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of magnitude
> >> > behind it.
> >> >
> >> > I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
> >> > bearing and nails around their body over the top of several pounds of
> >> > plastic explosive.
> >>
> >> Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.
> >
> > To say nothing of the odd abortion clinic.
> >
> > I'm with Jay and Bertie on this.
>
> Why don't youjust run a knife through me?

Huh?

rg

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 04:31 PM

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bob,
>
>> Clearly those aren't in the same league as the evil
>> that promotes suicide bombers.
>>
>
> But they may add support. A good example is the Catholic church, where
> millions of "passive bystanders" give much more emphasis to any weird
> statement the pope or a cardinal might make, simply by silently letting
> it pass and allowing the church to count that as consent.
>

Now that's not nice. The Catholic Church was very nice to you guys in WW2.
Don't you think you owe them somethng?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 04:35 PM

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret > wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>> >> >
>> >> >> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
>> >> >> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>> >> >
>> >> > Really?
>> >> >
>> >> > I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of
>> >> > magnitude behind it.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
>> >> > bearing and nails around their body over the top of several
>> >> > pounds of plastic explosive.
>> >>
>> >> Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.
>> >
>> > To say nothing of the odd abortion clinic.
>> >
>> > I'm with Jay and Bertie on this.
>>
>> Why don't youjust run a knife through me?
>
> Huh?
>
Sorry, the notion that Jay agrees with me on anything has upset my
little buyip world.
He actually said something intelligent about religion there. I'm not
feeling well at all as a result. I feel as though I'm some sort of weird
parralell universe.

You're not a talking rabbit, are you?

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 04:41 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in news:Pksgj.29049$4V6.403
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
>> who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a
>> few decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
>> "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
>> science in our lifetimes.
>>
> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
> are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific
> method?
>

ooow oow ! i know the answer to this.

"Yes"

Bertie
>
>
>

Thomas Borchert

January 7th 08, 04:45 PM

Bertie,

> Now that's not nice. The Catholic Church was very nice to you guys in WW2.
> Don't you think you owe them somethng?
>

Not sure what you mean, but the pope's (non-)reaction to the Holocaust was
one of the many major disgraces that religion has heaped on itself.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 04:51 PM

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Now that's not nice. The Catholic Church was very nice to you guys in
>> WW2. Don't you think you owe them somethng?
>>
>
> Not sure what you mean, but the pope's (non-)reaction to the Holocaust
> was one of the many major disgraces that religion has heaped on
> itself.
>

Well duh!

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 04:58 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> John,
>
> well put!
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thanks. We've had a number of good explanatory replies here, but when arguing religion or
politics it does tend to heat up.

Gig601XLBuilder

January 7th 08, 05:09 PM

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:

>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
>> who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a
>> few decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
>> "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
>> science in our lifetimes.
>>
> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
> are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific
> method?
>
>

The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the
economy.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 05:12 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>
>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
>>> those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
>>> within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
>>> climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
>>> biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>>
>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
>> hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
>> scientific method?
>>
>>
>
> The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
> latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
> proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the
> economy.
>
It won't

What you gonna buy in waterworld, BTW?

Bertie

Ron Garret

January 7th 08, 05:30 PM

In article >,
Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:

> Ron Garret > wrote in
> :
>
> > In article >,
> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret > wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
> >> :
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Morgans" > wrote in
> >> >> :
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
> >> >> >> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Really?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of
> >> >> > magnitude behind it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
> >> >> > bearing and nails around their body over the top of several
> >> >> > pounds of plastic explosive.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.
> >> >
> >> > To say nothing of the odd abortion clinic.
> >> >
> >> > I'm with Jay and Bertie on this.
> >>
> >> Why don't youjust run a knife through me?
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> Sorry, the notion that Jay agrees with me on anything has upset my
> little buyip world.
> He actually said something intelligent about religion there. I'm not
> feeling well at all as a result. I feel as though I'm some sort of weird
> parralell universe.

Hm. I would think you'd be happy about this turn of events.

> You're not a talking rabbit, are you?

Damn, how did you know?

rg

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 05:32 PM

Ron Garret > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > In article >,
>> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ron Garret > wrote in news:rNOSPAMon-
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> > In article >,
>> >> > Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> >> >> :
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Jay Honeck" <> wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as
>> >> >> >> Islamo-fascism. In fact, they are two sides of the same
>> >> >> >> coin.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Really?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I hope that "almost" you speak of has several orders of
>> >> >> > magnitude behind it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping
>> >> >> > ball bearing and nails around their body over the top of
>> >> >> > several pounds of plastic explosive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nope, they just hop into B 52s and bomb entire cities.
>> >> >
>> >> > To say nothing of the odd abortion clinic.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm with Jay and Bertie on this.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't youjust run a knife through me?
>> >
>> > Huh?
>> >
>> Sorry, the notion that Jay agrees with me on anything has upset my
>> little buyip world.
>> He actually said something intelligent about religion there. I'm not
>> feeling well at all as a result. I feel as though I'm some sort of
>> weird parralell universe.
>
> Hm. I would think you'd be happy about this turn of events.

Hard to know, as I say, I'm in shock.
>
>> You're not a talking rabbit, are you?
>
> Damn, how did you know?

I had a suspicion

Now where's tht caterpiller?

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 05:39 PM

"Andreus" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball bearing and nails
>> around their body over the top of several pounds of plastic explosive. I don't see them
>> targeting their own countrymen with assault rifles and grenade launchers. I have yet
>> to hear them preach death to all unbelievers.
>>
> McVay ring any bells? How about murders of abortion clinic people. In truth I don't
> think it has as much to do with religion as has been reported. Likely more to do with
> the political situation, struggle for power, poverty.

True, but the cause-effect relationships are tangled and messy. Religion can be the
principal source of violence as in the Inquisition, but even that had undertones of
personal and political gain. Poverty tends to breed violent fanatics but then you have the
9/11 attackers, who were led by well educated religious fanatics. You can have violent
attacks by well-educated individuals with absolutely no religious overtones, such as the
Weathermen and the Unibomber. The most we can say is that individuals commit violence for
a variety of reasons, and admixtures of the highly volatile elements of politics, poverty,
and religion are particularly powerful ingredients in whatever provokes them. A secondary
observation would be that often, violent groups are created and lead by educated people
who enlist others lower on the secio-economic scale to do their dirty work by playing on
politics, religion, and economic inequality.

The problem for us is that Islam is no more monolithic than Christianity. Our task is to
protect ourselves against the truly dangerous elements without tarring all of Islam with
the same brush. It is complicated by the fact that except at the extremes of the bell
curve, there is no handy formula to predict whether a given individual represents a risk.
We can reduce it to probabilities - which is what TSA does in scoring the risk of airline
passengers - but not to certainties. The bearded Middle Easterner down the street who
scowls and mutters anti-American epithets may never commit violence, and the pleasant
family-oriented local businessman from Somewhereistan might be a ringleader in planning a
horrific attack.

>> Really Jay, I understand your reservations and fear about fanatical Christians, but to
>> compare the two groups is totally un-American, I think. You know better than to have
>> that kind of knee jerk reaction.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>
> Any fanatical devotion to a leader- religious or political -is wrong, and dangerous.

Amen, except that any fanatical American religious or political leader is going to be
constrained by American law, politics, and culture. This limits the scale of potential
damage. That's not to say that they can't be immensely harmful in other ways, but our
system and culture does not tolerate violence or even the advocacy of violence. Here we
insist that differences be settled by law. In other countries not only is violence
tolerated as an accepted way to settle differences, it is aided and abetted by many
elements of government, religion, and local culture. Even if those elements are in the
minority, that's one of the principal differences between "us and them".

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

Morgans[_2_]

January 7th 08, 05:49 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs and
> suicide bombers in America.

Wow.

You are not who I thought you are, Jay.

I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
--
Jim in NC

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 05:50 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in
news:mttgj.8377$Xo1.2518@trnddc06:

>
> "Andreus" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Morgans" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> I don't see many religious right people in the US strapping ball
>>> bearing and nails around their body over the top of several pounds
>>> of plastic explosive. I don't see them targeting their own
>>> countrymen with assault rifles and grenade launchers. I have yet
>>> to hear them preach death to all unbelievers.
>>>
>> McVay ring any bells? How about murders of abortion clinic people. In
>> truth I don't think it has as much to do with religion as has been
>> reported. Likely more to do with the political situation, struggle
>> for power, poverty.
>
> True, but the cause-effect relationships are tangled and messy.
> Religion can be the principal source of violence as in the
> Inquisition, but even that had undertones of personal and political
> gain. Poverty tends to breed violent fanatics but then you have the
> 9/11 attackers, who were led by well educated religious fanatics. You
> can have violent attacks by well-educated individuals with absolutely
> no religious overtones, such as the Weathermen and the Unibomber. The
> most we can say is that individuals commit violence for a variety of
> reasons, and admixtures of the highly volatile elements of politics,
> poverty, and religion are particularly powerful ingredients in
> whatever provokes them. A secondary observation would be that often,
> violent groups are created and lead by educated people who enlist
> others lower on the secio-economic scale to do their dirty work by
> playing on politics, religion, and economic inequality.
>
> The problem for us is that Islam is no more monolithic than
> Christianity. Our task is to protect ourselves against the truly
> dangerous elements without tarring all of Islam with the same brush.
> It is complicated by the fact that except at the extremes of the bell
> curve, there is no handy formula to predict whether a given individual
> represents a risk. We can reduce it to probabilities - which is what
> TSA does in scoring the risk of airline passengers - but not to
> certainties. The bearded Middle Easterner down the street who scowls
> and mutters anti-American epithets may never commit violence, and the
> pleasant family-oriented local businessman from Somewhereistan might
> be a ringleader in planning a horrific attack.
>
>>> Really Jay, I understand your reservations and fear about fanatical
>>> Christians, but to compare the two groups is totally un-American, I
>>> think. You know better than to have that kind of knee jerk reaction.
>>> --
>>> Jim in NC
>>
>> Any fanatical devotion to a leader- religious or political -is wrong,
>> and dangerous.
>
> Amen, except that any fanatical American religious or political leader
> is going to be constrained by American law, politics, and culture.
> This limits the scale of potential damage. That's not to say that
> they can't be immensely harmful in other ways, but our system and
> culture does not tolerate violence or even the advocacy of violence.
> Here we insist that differences be settled by law. In other countries
> not only is violence tolerated as an accepted way to settle
> differences, it is aided and abetted by many elements of government,
> religion, and local culture. Even if those elements are in the
> minority, that's one of the principal differences between "us and
> them".

Nobody has been killed in the name of the FSM

Yet.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 06:08 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs
>> and suicide bombers in America.
>
> Wow.
>
> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>
> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.

Flabbergasted is the work that springs to my mind.

Bertie

WolfRat

January 7th 08, 06:57 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>
>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs
>>> and suicide bombers in America.
>> Wow.

Don't you mean our "white" European culture? As politically
correct tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here
in America we will soon see 3rd word attitudes and
fanaticism in our own malls and streets.

It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown
terror as PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 06:59 PM

WolfRat > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs
>>>> and suicide bombers in America.
>>> Wow.
>
> Don't you mean our "white" European culture?

I said no such thing, fjukkwit.

As politically
> correct tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here
> in America we will soon see 3rd word attitudes and
> fanaticism in our own malls and streets.
>
> It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown
> terror as PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.
>

Ok k00kie boi.

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 08:37 PM

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> John,
>
>> Even in grade school the nuns taught us that science and faith can easily co-exist.
>>
>
> Ah, maybe nuns are not the most neutral source on this ;-)
>
> I'm not sure they can.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Which is precisely why it struck home so hard. The nuns and priests taught us everything,
from the grade-school diagrams of the earth's layers and how the surface formed over the
eons, to biology with evolution. It gave me a great appreciation of how science did not
have to be the natural enemy of faith and vice versa.

-- John Mazor
"The search for wisdom is asymptotic."

"Except for Internet newsgroups, where it is divergent..."
-- R J Carpenter

Neil Gould

January 7th 08, 08:37 PM

Recently, Gig601XLBuilder > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>
>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
>>> those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
>>> within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
>>> climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
>>> biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>>
>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
>> hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
>> scientific method?
>>
>>
>
> The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
> latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
> proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the
> economy.
>
The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within the
control of human beings and has historically always survived in one form
or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis regarding the
human contribution to global climate change is *right*, then the economy
is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as the rational course of
action?

Neil

Morgans[_2_]

January 7th 08, 09:04 PM

"WolfRat" > wrote

> Don't you mean our "white" European culture? As politically correct
> tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here in America we will
> soon see 3rd word attitudes and fanaticism in our own malls and streets.
>
> It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown terror as PC
> tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.

I just think you are all placing blame and responsibility in the wrong
places.

True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a means to
influence others. I think that is because that is the Christian way, and
that is the reason it is the prevalent way.

Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook, I feel that
violence is not the way Christians try to make their point. All throughout
the New Testament, tolerance and love for your neighbors is taught as the
way to treat others. Turn the other cheek, and spread the words and deeds
of Christ, and you will teach others the True Way, and grow His Kingdom on
earth.
--
Jim in NC

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 09:25 PM

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
t...
> Recently, Gig601XLBuilder > posted:

>> The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
>> latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
>> proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the economy.
>>
> The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within the
> control of human beings and has historically always survived in one form
> or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis regarding the
> human contribution to global climate change is *right*, then the economy
> is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as the rational course of action?

That's correct in the sense that even stone-age villages will have some form of ongoing
"economy". I think the point was that global warming can massively disrupt and degrade
ongoing international, regional and local economies to the point that for many of Earth's
inhabitants, existing standards of living (which are largely determined by "the economy")
would be set back centuries if not millenia. So "the economy" is totally relevant - to
the point that we could recycle Clinton's 1992 campaign slogan and apply it here.

That's why global warming grabs headlines. Hardly anyone cares about dire warnings that an
obscure plant or animal living on an isolated pea patch is about to go extinct due to
human activities. The stakes for global warming are enormous if we get it wrong.

Shifting direction a bit, "economy" again rears its head when discussing what humans might
do to reduce their role in global warming. We already have political resistance to
measures that would reduce the human impact on environment but impose economic costs on
industries. This is further compounded by international trade. Even if a nation goes
"totally green" for its own production, its products and services will be undercut in
pricing from nations that impose little or no environmental economic costs on their
producers.

No matter how you look at it, deciding what to do and then getting it done is going to be
one helluva mess.

Gig601XLBuilder

January 7th 08, 09:29 PM

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Gig601XLBuilder > posted:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
>>>> those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
>>>> within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
>>>> climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
>>>> biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>>>
>>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
>>> hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
>>> scientific method?
>>>
>>>
>> The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
>> latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the its
>> proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of destroying the
>> economy.
>>
> The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within the
> control of human beings and has historically always survived in one form
> or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis regarding the
> human contribution to global climate change is *right*, then the economy
> is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as the rational course of
> action?
>
> Neil
>
>

First off let me rephrase to the destruction of the economy AS WE KNOW IT.

From the http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp Natural Resources
Defense Council.

Q. Is the earth really getting hotter?

A. Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past
50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest
rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating:
the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990. Scientists
say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average U.S.
temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century.

Let's say they are right. It isn't going to be a instantaneous event. We
are going to have decades to move the world economy in an orderly
fashion. Everybody talks about how there will be a huge food shortage
but if you look at a map there are many places now to cold to produce
food that with a 3-9 degree increase will be able to produce food.

About a year ago I saw a climate model (and I really do wish I
remembered where) that showed huge amounts of both Canada and Russia
would be better of agriculturally with exactly the amount of global
warming the worst-case guys are talking about. It also touched on the
theory that even Sub Saharan Africa could be better off because of the
additional moisture in the air because of water released in the ice caps.

My favorite fear mongering is the rise in MSL. It is always shown in an
animated New York with cars and the first story or two of all the
buildings being flooded.

While there are many that will disagree New Yorkers aren't stupid. This
isn't going to happen overnight. Those cars can go over those bridges
long before the flood comes but it really won't matter because while it
won't be cheap a wall or other flood control method can be put in long
before there is a problem.

So let's say humans aren't causing GW. We do all this stuff that blows
our economy out of the water and it helps not a lick.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 09:29 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "WolfRat" > wrote
>
>> Don't you mean our "white" European culture? As politically correct
>> tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here in America we
>> will soon see 3rd word attitudes and fanaticism in our own malls and
>> streets.
>>
>> It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown terror as
>> PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.
>
> I just think you are all placing blame and responsibility in the wrong
> places.
>
> True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a
> means to influence others. I think that is because that is the
> Christian way, and that is the reason it is the prevalent way.
>
> Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook,

Not a very respectful way to talk about Bush, so I approve.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 09:31 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Gig601XLBuilder > posted:
>>
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>>>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
>>>>> those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
>>>>> within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
>>>>> climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
>>>>> biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>>>>
>>>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
>>>> hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with
>>>> the scientific method?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
>>> latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the
>>> its proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of
>>> destroying the economy.
>>>
>> The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is within
>> the control of human beings and has historically always survived in
>> one form or another. However, if it turns out that the hypothesis
>> regarding the human contribution to global climate change is *right*,
>> then the economy is completely irrelevant. So... what do you see as
>> the rational course of action?
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>
> First off let me rephrase to the destruction of the economy AS WE KNOW
> IT.
>
> From the http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp Natural Resources
> Defense Council.
>
> Q. Is the earth really getting hotter?
>
> A. Yes. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past
> 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest
> rate in recorded history. And experts think the trend is accelerating:
> the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1990.
> Scientists say that unless we curb global warming emissions, average
> U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the
> century.
>
> Let's say they are right. It isn't going to be a instantaneous event.
> We are going to have decades to move the world economy in an orderly
> fashion. Everybody talks about how there will be a huge food shortage
> but if you look at a map there are many places now to cold to produce
> food that with a 3-9 degree increase will be able to produce food.
>

the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx changes that
it's going to produce that are the problem.

Also you're going to have to replace florida.

Bertie

Andreus

January 7th 08, 10:09 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
news:mttgj.8377$Xo1.2518@trnddc06...
> Amen, except that any fanatical American religious or political leader is
> going to be
> constrained by American law, politics, and culture. This limits the scale
> of potential
> damage. That's not to say that they can't be immensely harmful in other
> ways, but our
> system and culture does not tolerate violence or even the advocacy of
> violence. Here we
> insist that differences be settled by law. In other countries not only is
> violence
> tolerated as an accepted way to settle differences, it is aided and
> abetted by many
> elements of government, religion, and local culture. Even if those
> elements are in the
> minority, that's one of the principal differences between "us and them".
>

I suspect that this is why there are so many black men in jail, the inner
city culture does not demand that difference be settled in court, indeed the
entire court system is out of reach and somewhat of an anathema to the
entire group of inner city youth. So when they "take care of business" the
law punishes them and perpetuates the class. Islamic radicals are, I'm sure,
very interested in these young Americans.
It's odd, one solution is hard and expensive and will never be tried. The
other solutution is reprehensible to the extreme and at some point, I
believe it will be.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 7th 08, 10:13 PM

>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs and
>> suicide bombers in America.
>
> Wow.
>
> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>
> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.

I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions, united by
one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching) principles of our
constitution were laid out by Christian men, but the participants are far
from monolithically Christian, and the principles are not exclusively
Christian.

This is why it so important that we protect and nurture our unique (in the
history of the world) culture, and is why real conservatives (not the
new-fangled religious ones) fight so hard to preserve and protect it. IMHO
it's a delicate thing that could be easily destroyed in a generation or two
if we don't play our cards right.

But, hey -- back to the original topic of this post: It looks like Obama is
going to easily beat Hillary in New Hampshire, according to the latest
polls. Quite a surprise.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Andreus

January 7th 08, 10:20 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...

> Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook, I feel that
> violence is not the way Christians try to make their point. All
> throughout the New Testament, tolerance and love for your neighbors is
> taught as the way to treat others. Turn the other cheek, and spread the
> words and deeds of Christ, and you will teach others the True Way, and
> grow His Kingdom on earth.
> --

So, what book were they reading when they sold indulgences, and commited the
crusades, witch burnings, and many other misdeeds involving native
populations. The Christian church has likely murdered more people than the
others so far and it looks to me like many of it's prophets would like to
have another round. Christianity on an individual level has a lot going for
it, as do most other religions, it's when we/they bunch up that things go
wrong. Don't climb up to far on that pulpit, the fall will hurt.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 10:20 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:kuxgj.25686$Ux2.22866@attbi_s22:

>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs
>>> and suicide bombers in America.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>>
>> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
>
> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions,
> united by one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching)
> principles of our constitution were laid out by Christian men,

Nope. Jefferson was definitely an Atheist and the others likely so from all
available evidence

Bertie

WolfRat

January 7th 08, 10:26 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Morgans" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "WolfRat" > wrote
>>
>>> Don't you mean our "white" European culture? As politically correct
>>> tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here in America we
>>> will soon see 3rd word attitudes and fanaticism in our own malls and
>>> streets.
>>>
>>> It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown terror as
>>> PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.
>> I just think you are all placing blame and responsibility in the wrong
>> places.
>>
>> True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a
>> means to influence others. I think that is because that is the
>> Christian way, and that is the reason it is the prevalent way.
>>
>> Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook,
>
>
> Not a very respectful way to talk about Bush, so I approve.
>
> Bertie

The Christian doctrine were imported from white Europeans.
Our American "culture" is deeply rooted in European
attitudes and religion. Our constitution and founding
documents were based on Christian European values.

We are losing that in the name of greed and PC tyranny and
the mongolization of America driven by PC edicts and one
world idiots.

Obama and the under 30 crowd vote. How many of those under
30 crowd know Obamma is half white? The media does not
mention it EVER. Obama denies his white blood and that's OK?

America is spiraling down like a broke wing Cessna with a
student pilot at the controls. It's just a matter of time
before we go SPLAT

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 10:30 PM

WolfRat > wrote in news:QFxgj.1406$dP7.273
@newsfe07.lga:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Morgans" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> "WolfRat" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Don't you mean our "white" European culture? As politically correct
>>>> tyranny continues to force a mongoloid society here in America we
>>>> will soon see 3rd word attitudes and fanaticism in our own malls
and
>>>> streets.
>>>>
>>>> It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown terror as
>>>> PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.
>>> I just think you are all placing blame and responsibility in the
wrong
>>> places.
>>>
>>> True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a
>>> means to influence others. I think that is because that is the
>>> Christian way, and that is the reason it is the prevalent way.
>>>
>>> Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook,
>>
>>
>> Not a very respectful way to talk about Bush, so I approve.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> The Christian doctrine were imported from white Europeans.
> Our American "culture" is deeply rooted in European
> attitudes and religion. Our constitution and founding
> documents were based on Christian European values.

No, they weren;t actually.

>
> We are losing that in the name of greed and PC tyranny and
> the mongolization of America driven by PC edicts and one
> world idiots.
>
> Obama and the under 30 crowd vote. How many of those under
> 30 crowd know Obamma is half white? The media does not
> mention it EVER. Obama denies his white blood and that's OK?
>
> America is spiraling down like a broke wing Cessna with a
> student pilot at the controls. It's just a matter of time
> before we go SPLAT
>

And good luck with that.

>

Gig601XLBuilder

January 7th 08, 11:04 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx changes that
> it's going to produce that are the problem.
>
> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>
>
> Bertie
>

Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with anything
close to certainty next month why the hell should I believe them when
they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years down the road?

As for Florida, I can live with that.

John Mazor[_2_]

January 7th 08, 11:18 PM

"WolfRat" > wrote in message ...

> The Christian doctrine were imported from white Europeans.
> Our American "culture" is deeply rooted in European attitudes and religion. Our
> constitution and founding documents were based on Christian European values.

Yeah, like the idea that slavery is a perfectly acceptable practice condoned by the Bible,
, that if it ain't European it's inferior and worthless, that women and other chattel
don't get to vote, and that earth and its "inferior" inhabitants exist only for the
exploitation of white Christian males. (Add to that the settlers' view that religious
persecution is God's work.)

> We are losing that in the name of greed and PC tyranny and the mongolization of America
> driven by PC edicts and one world idiots.

The abolition of slavery, complete religious freedom, women's sufferage, the idea that
other cultures have worthy aspects, and evironmentalism used to be radically PC ideas,
too.

> Obama and the under 30 crowd vote. How many of those under 30 crowd know Obamma is half
> white? The media does not mention it EVER. Obama denies his white blood and that's OK?

Given your bigoted views, I'm surprised that you're not rejoicing in the fact that at
least he's half-white and not right off the boat from inner Africa.

> America is spiraling down like a broke wing Cessna with a student pilot at the controls.
> It's just a matter of time before we go SPLAT

You augered in the first time you posted here.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 7th 08, 11:23 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx changes
>> that it's going to produce that are the problem.
>>
>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with anything
> close to certainty next month why the hell should I believe them when
> they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years down the road?

Actually, forecasting has become incredibly accurate in the last twenty
years and is getting better all the time, short term certainly. I never
cease to be amazed at how accurate winds aloft are, for the most part,
and terminal forecasting is probably ten times more accurate than it was
even ten or fifteen years ago.

As to the predictions they're making long term, so far the trend seems
to be accurate. More wind, more storms. record highs and lows..
>
> As for Florida, I can live with that.
>

Mmm me too.

Shame about the everglades, though.

Bertie

Matt Whiting

January 8th 08, 01:35 AM

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>
>> John Mazor wrote:
>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily anti-science.
>>>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>>>
>>>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>>>> knows what science is...
>>> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
>>> population.
>>>
>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
>>> principles of the scientific method.
>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those
>> who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent within a
>> few decades when all of the global warming, er, global climate change
>> "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback to
>> science in our lifetimes.
>>
> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
> are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific
> method?

Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics
would come to understand that.

Matt

Matt Whiting

January 8th 08, 01:41 AM

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Jay,
>
>> The religious right in the US scares me almost as much as Islamo-fascism.
>> In fact, they are two sides of the same coin.
>>
>
> We are indeed in full agreement. And on my birthday, to boot.
>
> If that ain't proof of god... ;-)
>

Happy birthday! Are you old enough to vote now? :-)

Matt Whiting

January 8th 08, 01:52 AM

John Mazor wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Mazor wrote:
>
>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the
>>> scientific method.
>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those who claim to be
>> scientists.
>
> Wrong, see below.
>
>> This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the global warming, er,
>> global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest setback
>> to science in our lifetimes.
>
> Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable scientists claim that
> increased global warming to catastrophic levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit to
> the usual caveats of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a small
> minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science reporting is
> notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific statements way beyond the
> scientist's actual views. We need to see it in their own published material or equally
> reliable sources.

http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/global-warming-certain-change-and-moral-uncertainty/

Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just to
be clear is that what you are saying?

> A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the lines
> of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global warming,
> that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be contributing to this,
> and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life on Earth. While
> alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining all the observed
> data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often scientists are guilty of
> not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume that everyone understands the
> full but unspoken context of their announcements. But even when they do provide the full
> context, it seldom is included in the media accounts because it's not as sexy as some
> version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"

I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in
statements such as:

“the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate
change had anything to do with human activity on this planet.”

“There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are
dominated by human activity…The warming of the climate system is now
unequivocal,”

Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?

Matt

Ron Garret

January 8th 08, 01:57 AM

In article <kuxgj.25686$Ux2.22866@attbi_s22>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> >> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs and
> >> suicide bombers in America.
> >
> > Wow.
> >
> > You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
> >
> > I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
>
> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions, united by
> one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching) principles of our
> constitution were laid out by Christian men

Not so.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

> This is why it so important that we protect and nurture our unique (in the
> history of the world) culture, and is why real conservatives (not the
> new-fangled religious ones) fight so hard to preserve and protect it. IMHO
> it's a delicate thing that could be easily destroyed in a generation or two
> if we don't play our cards right.

Yes, but rewriting history doesn't help.

> But, hey -- back to the original topic of this post: It looks like Obama is
> going to easily beat Hillary in New Hampshire, according to the latest
> polls. Quite a surprise.

Not really. Many of the people who were supporting Hillary were doing
so only because they were convinced she would win, and they didn't want
to be left out in the cold when that happened. (This is true of any
front runner. Ask Howard Dean.) In the wake of Iowa, those people now
feel emboldened to abandon her.

rg

John Mazor[_2_]

January 8th 08, 02:23 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould wrote:

>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
>> are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific method?
>
> Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics would come to
> understand that.

Which "fanatics" are you referring to? The millions of scientists and experts worldwide
who understand the limits of the scientific method but still accept evolution as the best
explanation, and are concerned about the mounting evidence of global warming?

Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for evolution and the
growing evidence of global warning?

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 02:42 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>>
>>> John Mazor wrote:
>>>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Recently, Bob Noel > posted:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bob,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Denying the theory of evolution is not necessarily
>>>>>>>> anti-science.
>>>>>>> I can't see how it isn't.
>>>>>> OK. then we'll just have to disagree
>>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you're clear that you're disagreeing with everyone who
>>>>> knows what science is...
>>>> Which, unfortunately, is a dismayingly small percentage of the
>>>> population.
>>>>
>>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
>>>> principles of the scientific method.
>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
>>> those who claim to be scientists. This will become very apparent
>>> within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
>>> climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
>>> biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>>
>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
>> hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
>> scientific method?
>
> Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics
> would come to understand that.

Only if you'll tell me why gravity doesn';t work.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 02:44 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> John Mazor wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> John Mazor wrote:
>>
>>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
>>>> principles of the scientific method.
>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
>>> those who claim to be scientists.
>>
>> Wrong, see below.
>>
>>> This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the
>>> global warming, er,
>>> global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be
>>> the biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>
>> Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable
>> scientists claim that increased global warming to catastrophic levels
>> is a dead certain fact and won't admit to the usual caveats of the
>> scientific method. They may exist but they would be a small
>> minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science
>> reporting is notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific
>> statements way beyond the scientist's actual views. We need to see
>> it in their own published material or equally reliable sources.
>
> http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/global-warming-certain-change-and-
mor
> al-uncertainty/
>
> Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just to
> be clear is that what you are saying?
>
>
>> A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method
>> would be along the lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence
>> that the Earth is experiencing global warming, that the rate of
>> warming is increasing, that human activity could be contributing to
>> this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
>> on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as
>> useful in explaining all the observed data." There is no absolute
>> certainty anywhere in there. Often scientists are guilty of not
>> reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume that
>> everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their
>> announcements. But even when they do provide the full context, it
>> seldom is included in the media accounts because it's not as sexy as
>> some version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"
>
> I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in
> statements such as:
>
> “the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate
> change had anything to do with human activity on this planet.”
>
> “There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are
> dominated by human activity…The warming of the climate system is now
> unequivocal,”
>
> Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?

Why would you want to?

Unless you were an idiot, of course.

Bertie

Al[_2_]

January 8th 08, 02:44 AM

But Jay....the really big question: Did you sell any rooms during the
media frenzy?

Al
1964 Skyhawk
SFF/Spokane WA

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> The root problem is that money plays too big a role in elections.
>
>
> Boy, isn't that the truth? The money that was just spent in Iowa was
> absolutely astounding -- and for what?

John Mazor[_2_]

January 8th 08, 03:01 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> John Mazor wrote:
>>
>>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the
>>>> scientific method.
>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those who claim to be
>>> scientists.
>>
>> Wrong, see below.
>>
>>> This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the global warming,
>>> er, global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest
>>> setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>
>> Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable scientists claim that
>> increased global warming to catastrophic levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit
>> to the usual caveats of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a
>> small minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science reporting is
>> notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific statements way beyond the
>> scientist's actual views. We need to see it in their own published material or equally
>> reliable sources.
>
> http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/global-warming-certain-change-and-moral-uncertainty/
>
> Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just to be clear is that
> what you are saying?

First of all, the statement related only to the question of whether human activity
contributed to the greenhouse effect, not to predictions of how far warming will go or its
effects. At the risk of sounding unscientific, the answer to that was pretty predictable
even before the results were in. Only a fool would deny that it happens. The only open
question is in the details, such as what are the mechanisms and how much does each
contribute?

Furthermore, what they are saying is that the probability that their findings and
conclusions about the effects of human activity on global warming are wrong has decreased
to the point that, given the consequences ignoring the growing body of evidence, they are
confident enough that as human beings who just happen to be scientists, they have been
moved to call for action by society. Since it's inherent in the scientific method that
you're never going to achieve 100% certainty on anything, it's a judgment call on when you
decide that the evidence is "good enough for government work". By your standards,
scientists could never speak up outside the boundaries of their professional constraints
because they know that they can never be 100% sure about their findings and conclusions.

And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method, are
you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility that your
findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.

>> A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
>> lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
>> warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
>> contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
>> on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
>> all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
>> scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
>> that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
>> even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media accounts
>> because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"
>
> I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such as:
>
> “the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
> anything to do with human activity on this planet.”
>
> “There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
> activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”

See previous.

> Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?

See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.

Matt W. Barrow

January 8th 08, 03:22 AM

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
news:T8Bgj.172040$TO.53294@trnddc01...
>
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
>>> hypotheses
>>> are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific
>>> method?
>>
>> Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics
>> would come to understand that.
>
> Which "fanatics" are you referring to? The millions of scientists and
> experts worldwide who understand the limits of the scientific method but
> still accept evolution as the best explanation, and are concerned about
> the mounting evidence of global warming?

What evidence of globa;l warming?

>
> Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for
> evolution and the growing evidence of global warning?

Or those in denial about the fraudulent evidence for global warming.

Matt Whiting

January 8th 08, 03:34 AM

John Mazor wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Mazor wrote:
>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> John Mazor wrote:
>>>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the principles of the
>>>>> scientific method.
>>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of those who claim to be
>>>> scientists.
>>> Wrong, see below.
>>>
>>>> This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of the global warming,
>>>> er, global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the biggest
>>>> setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>> Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable scientists claim that
>>> increased global warming to catastrophic levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit
>>> to the usual caveats of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a
>>> small minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media science reporting is
>>> notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate scientific statements way beyond the
>>> scientist's actual views. We need to see it in their own published material or equally
>>> reliable sources.
>> http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/global-warming-certain-change-and-moral-uncertainty/
>>
>> Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just to be clear is that
>> what you are saying?
>
> First of all, the statement related only to the question of whether human activity
> contributed to the greenhouse effect, not to predictions of how far warming will go or its
> effects. At the risk of sounding unscientific, the answer to that was pretty predictable
> even before the results were in. Only a fool would deny that it happens. The only open
> question is in the details, such as what are the mechanisms and how much does each
> contribute?
>
> Furthermore, what they are saying is that the probability that their findings and
> conclusions about the effects of human activity on global warming are wrong has decreased
> to the point that, given the consequences ignoring the growing body of evidence, they are
> confident enough that as human beings who just happen to be scientists, they have been
> moved to call for action by society. Since it's inherent in the scientific method that
> you're never going to achieve 100% certainty on anything, it's a judgment call on when you
> decide that the evidence is "good enough for government work". By your standards,
> scientists could never speak up outside the boundaries of their professional constraints
> because they know that they can never be 100% sure about their findings and conclusions.

Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
(they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
different?

> And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
> concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method, are
> you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility that your
> findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.
>
>>> A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
>>> lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
>>> warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
>>> contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
>>> on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
>>> all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
>>> scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
>>> that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
>>> even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media accounts
>>> because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end is near!"
>> I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such as:
>>
>> “the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
>> anything to do with human activity on this planet.”
>>
>> “There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
>> activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”
>
> See previous.
>
>> Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?
>
> See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
> caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.

Nice rationalizations. Keep trying, these are pretty weak.

Matt

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 03:40 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> Xref: news rec.aviation.piloting:581205
> Path:
> news.glorb.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!
nntp.frontiernet.net!
> news2.epix.net!news1.epix.net!not-for-mail From: Matt Whiting
> > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT
> 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2) Gecko/20070222 SeaMonkey/1.1.1 - a Firefox
> sibling MIME-Version: 1.0
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
> Subject: Re: "socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
> References: >
> >
> >
> <l4efj.19953$Ux2.17252@attbi_s22> >
> <9Uefj.16965$DG4.7949@trnddc04> >
> <yrufj.130$Xo1.93@trnddc06> <K2Dfj.21648$Ux2.1511@attbi_s22>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> <iQagj.6743$9e1.3236@trnddc02> >
> <W2igj.5915$Xo1.4382@trnddc06> >
> <2IBgj.7352$9e1.4415@trnddc02> In-Reply-To:
> <2IBgj.7352$9e1.4415@trnddc02> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> Lines: 84
> Message-ID: >
> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:34:34 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.74.29.154
> X-Complaints-To:
> X-Trace: news1.epix.net 1199763274 209.74.29.154 (Mon, 07 Jan 2008
> 22:34:34 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:34:34 EST
>
> John Mazor wrote:
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> John Mazor wrote:
>>>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> John Mazor wrote:
>>>>>> Many think they know but they're completely ignorant of the
>>>>>> principles of the scientific method.
>>>>> And a dismayingly small percentage of the current population of
>>>>> those who claim to be scientists.
>>>> Wrong, see below.
>>>>
>>>>> This will become very apparent within a few decades when all of
>>>>> the global warming,
>>>>> er, global climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That
>>>>> will be the biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>>> Please demonstrate that a significant percentage of reputable
>>>> scientists claim that increased global warming to catastrophic
>>>> levels is a dead certain fact and won't admit to the usual caveats
>>>> of the scientific method. They may exist but they would be a
>>>> small minority. And you're going to need primary sources - media
>>>> science reporting is notoriously inaccurate and tries to inflate
>>>> scientific statements way beyond the scientist's actual views. We
>>>> need to see it in their own published material or equally reliable
>>>> sources.
>>> http://scienceline.org/2007/02/07/global-warming-certain-change-and-
m
>>> oral-uncertainty/
>>>
>>> Maybe you don't consider 600 scientists to be significant, but just
>>> to be clear is that what you are saying?
>>
>> First of all, the statement related only to the question of whether
>> human activity contributed to the greenhouse effect, not to
>> predictions of how far warming will go or its effects. At the risk
>> of sounding unscientific, the answer to that was pretty predictable
>> even before the results were in. Only a fool would deny that it
>> happens. The only open question is in the details, such as what are
>> the mechanisms and how much does each contribute?
>>
>> Furthermore, what they are saying is that the probability that their
>> findings and conclusions about the effects of human activity on
>> global warming are wrong has decreased to the point that, given the
>> consequences ignoring the growing body of evidence, they are
>> confident enough that as human beings who just happen to be
>> scientists, they have been moved to call for action by society.
>> Since it's inherent in the scientific method that you're never going
>> to achieve 100% certainty on anything, it's a judgment call on when
>> you decide that the evidence is "good enough for government work".
>> By your standards, scientists could never speak up outside the
>> boundaries of their professional constraints because they know that
>> they can never be 100% sure about their findings and conclusions.
>
> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
> (they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
> scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
> different?
>

Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
certain,
Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
and over and over

And still you won't get it.

Bertie

Morgans[_2_]

January 8th 08, 03:41 AM

"Andreus" > wrote

> So, what book were they reading when they sold indulgences, and commited
> the crusades, witch burnings, and many other misdeeds involving native
> populations.

Don't judge me, on what happened a thousand years ago.

That was a little period of time called the dark ages. Ignorance ruled.
Period.
--
Jim in NC

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 03:46 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Andreus" > wrote
>
>> So, what book were they reading when they sold indulgences, and
>> commited the crusades, witch burnings, and many other misdeeds
>> involving native populations.
>
> Don't judge me, on what happened a thousand years ago.
>
> That was a little period of time called the dark ages. Ignorance
> ruled. Period.

Well, the trend is for a return to those happy times.

http://www.thecatholiclibrary.org/Documents/orders/ssp/article1.php

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 8th 08, 04:15 AM

"Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Mazor" > wrote in message
> news:T8Bgj.172040$TO.53294@trnddc01...
>>
>> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific hypotheses
>>>> are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the scientific method?
>>>
>>> Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics would come to
>>> understand that.
>>
>> Which "fanatics" are you referring to? The millions of scientists and experts
>> worldwide who understand the limits of the scientific method but still accept evolution
>> as the best explanation, and are concerned about the mounting evidence of global
>> warming?
>
> What evidence of globa;l warming?

How about:

- Melting icecaps
- Melting glaciers
- Documented changes due to warming in other local climates

Or do you dismiss that as irrelevant? If so, please see below.

>> Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for evolution and the
>> growing evidence of global warning?
>
> Or those in denial about the fraudulent evidence for global warming.

Please demonstrate and fully explicate the perpetration of fraud in the scientific data.

You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating the fraud in the
following:

http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/23/national_panel_supports_98_global_warming_evidence/

which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.

John Mazor[_2_]

January 8th 08, 04:15 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> John Mazor wrote:

> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of (they call it
> faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is scientists who accepts things they
> aren't 100% sure of it is somehow different?

That's precisely the difference between science and faith. The scientist says "I think,
based on empirical evidence (which might be wrong) that..." whereas fundamentalist
Christians make such a leap of faith that they insist that "I take it as a matter of faith
that this is the gospel truth direct from the mouth of God so it can't possibly be wrong
no matter what evidence to the contrary, and you will burn in hell if you deny it."

>> And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
>> concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method,
>> are you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility
>> that your findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.
>>
>>>> A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
>>>> lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
>>>> warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
>>>> contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
>>>> on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
>>>> all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
>>>> scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
>>>> that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
>>>> even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media
>>>> accounts because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end
>>>> is near!"
>>> I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such
>>> as:
>>>
>>> “the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
>>> anything to do with human activity on this planet.”
>>>
>>> “There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
>>> activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”
>>
>> See previous.
>>
>>> Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?
>>
>> See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
>> caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.
>
> Nice rationalizations. Keep trying, these are pretty weak.

Yeah, right. "None so blind as those who will not see."

John Mazor[_2_]

January 8th 08, 04:15 AM

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Matt Whiting > wrote in
> :

>> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
>> (they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
>> scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
>> different?
>
> Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100% certain,
> Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
> and over and over
>
> And still you won't get it.

Now that's a sig worth considering.

Morgans[_2_]

January 8th 08, 04:37 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions, united by
> one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching) principles of our
> constitution were laid out by Christian men, but the participants are far
> from monolithically Christian, and the principles are not exclusively
> Christian.

I don't see how you can go with that view. Perhaps you do not know what the
numbers are.

Taken directly from the Federal 2001 census, of the adult population, 77% of
the respondents claim a Christian affiliation.

That sounds like it is a good strong majority of the US claim to be
Christians, and that HAS to be a MAJOR influence in our culture, today. Add
to that, the fact that in the past, even a higher percentage were
Christians, and that is the reason I believe our culture is the way it is,
today.

> This is why it so important that we protect and nurture our unique (in the
> history of the world) culture, and is why real conservatives (not the
> new-fangled religious ones) fight so hard to preserve and protect it.
> IMHO it's a delicate thing that could be easily destroyed in a generation
> or two if we don't play our cards right.

I don't disagree with the basic premise of your last paragraph. We do need
to fight for our culture, to keep it true to our standards, and not let any
one group run away with it. The radical right is dangerous, and needs to be
kept from gaining too much power.

All I am saying, is that our culture is formed in the largest part, by
moderate Christian philosophy.

IMHO, that is what helps to make us a great, giving, and caring country.
Even to the extent of some of our young men giving their lives to bring
freedom from oppression to the masses in other countries. Whether every
thing is micro managed to make this happen in the exact best way possible is
another debate.
--
Jim in NC

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 8th 08, 05:07 AM

> But Jay....the really big question: Did you sell any rooms during the
> media frenzy?

Nope. At least not directly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 05:10 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:YxDgj.26131$Ux2.5231
@attbi_s22:

>> But Jay....the really big question: Did you sell any rooms during the
>> media frenzy?
>
> Nope. At least not directly.

Awwwww.

maybe you should have been spamming some other froups.

Bertie

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 8th 08, 05:22 AM

> Taken directly from the Federal 2001 census, of the adult population, 77%
> of the respondents claim a Christian affiliation.

I wonder what that means? A "Christian affiliation" can mean many things.
For example, depending on how it's asked, I could answer that I have a
"Christian affiliation", even though I haven't been a member of any church
for 3 decades.

I don't want to minimize the impact of Christianity on America's past. But
I don't think we should overstate it -- and I also think that the culture
has absorbed the base teachings (I.E.: fairness; law and order; justice)
while moving beyond any specific religion.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 05:23 AM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:jMDgj.290328$Fc.220277@attbi_s21:

>> Taken directly from the Federal 2001 census, of the adult population,
>> 77% of the respondents claim a Christian affiliation.
>
> I wonder what that means? A "Christian affiliation" can mean many
> things. For example, depending on how it's asked, I could answer that
> I have a "Christian affiliation", even though I haven't been a member
> of any church for 3 decades.
>
> I don't want to minimize the impact of Christianity on America's past.
> But I don't think we should overstate it -- and I also think that the
> culture has absorbed the base teachings (I.E.: fairness; law and
> order; justice) while moving beyond any specific religion.

Nope

Bertie

Jim Logajan

January 8th 08, 05:30 AM

"John Mazor" > wrote:
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>> What evidence of globa;l warming?
>
> How about:
>
> - Melting icecaps
> - Melting glaciers
> - Documented changes due to warming in other local climates

We're in an interglacial period - warming is to be expected during this
period. Glacial rebound is still underway from the last ice age.

What do you think caused the last ice age to end? Why should that factor
now be inoperative?

> You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating
> the fraud in the following:
>
> http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

The graphs on those two sites come from the same place - repetition doesn't
make it any more true. Besides, the author of the EcoBridge site managed to
mislabel the graph claiming "This graph below shows the record of global
average temperatures...." The author couldn't be bothered to actually read
the graph labels - indicating the usual problem of using secondary sources
as references.

There is also something important missing from that graph - can you guess
what it is?

> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/23/national_panel_su
> pports_98_global_warming_evidence/
>
> which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.

I'm a lazy man myself, and although I think the preponderance of evidence
(and basic considerations of physics) suggests human activities have been a
factor in changing the climate, the article is hardly a ringing endorsement
that paleoclimatologists have a firm handle on past climate trends.

As to being a layman, I'll have to check with my wife.

Jim Logajan

January 8th 08, 06:19 AM

Matt Whiting > wrote:
> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
> (they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
> scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
> different?

I thought Christians were, by definition, 100% sure their belief in god is
correct?

Anyway, scientists are never 100% sure (by definition).

There are even a couple (low quality) videos on YouTube of physicist
Richard Feynman explaining the scientific process that stresses the
fundamental provisional nature of scientific "laws":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozF5Cwbt6RY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ZtRN-iGdQ

And if you don't like the fact that physics' description of the way the
universe works is difficult to understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 06:47 AM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
>> (they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
>> scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
>> different?
>
> I thought Christians were, by definition, 100% sure their belief in
> god is correct?

Well, depends on what you call a christian.

>
> Anyway, scientists are never 100% sure (by definition).

Correct.

In this, I think only Buddhists are completely on the same page.

Bertie

John Mazor[_2_]

January 8th 08, 07:44 AM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "John Mazor" > wrote:
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>>> What evidence of globa;l warming?
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> - Melting icecaps
>> - Melting glaciers
>> - Documented changes due to warming in other local climates
>
> We're in an interglacial period - warming is to be expected during this
> period. Glacial rebound is still underway from the last ice age.

Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to predict how all the cycles and epicycles will interact for
any given warming or cooling trend at any given time. One thing that has been well
established about the cycles is:
"It was now clear that not only the most obvious feedback, but also the most momentous
one, was the connection between global temperature and greenhouse gas levels. Relatively
straightforward analysis of the data showed that a doubled level of CO2 had always gone
along with a rise of a few degrees in global temperature. It was a striking verification,
with entirely independent methods and data, of what computer models had been predicting
for the planet's greenhouse future." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm at the
very end.

So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the greenhouse gas CO2. From
one of the websites you so blithely blew off:

"The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since
pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center), a 34% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the
atmosphere are the highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning
of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating
electricity."

So yes, it might all be natural cycles - or it might not. What we do know is that we are
pumping gasses and compounds into the atmosphere that *could* lead to anything from
catastrophic warming to a pre-mature ice age (or both). Are you so confident that all the
modern recorded changes are due solely to ice-age warming that you're willing to dismiss
it all as "fraud" the way Barrow did? (I think not, but you did chime in on his post
where he said that.)

> What do you think caused the last ice age to end? Why should that factor
> now be inoperative?
>
>> You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating
>> the fraud in the following:
>>
>> http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>
> The graphs on those two sites come from the same place - repetition doesn't
> make it any more true. Besides, the author of the EcoBridge site managed to
> mislabel the graph claiming "This graph below shows the record of global
> average temperatures...." The author couldn't be bothered to actually read
> the graph labels - indicating the usual problem of using secondary sources
> as references.

But the Wikipedia entry got it right.

> There is also something important missing from that graph - can you guess
> what it is?

Aside from full labeling of the axis and the nature of the graph, the absolute values of
the temperatures can only be guessed at - but again, the wiki entry gives a comparison of
those in the text, along with the widely accepted conclusion that human activity probably
is contributing to, or possibly is totally causing, the temperature rise.

>> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/23/national_panel_su
>> pports_98_global_warming_evidence/
>>
>> which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.
>
> I'm a lazy man myself, and although I think the preponderance of evidence
> (and basic considerations of physics) suggests human activities have been a
> factor in changing the climate, the article is hardly a ringing endorsement
> that paleoclimatologists have a firm handle on past climate trends.

Oh, absolutely. The aip.org entry shows just how hard it is to nail down the cycles and
epicycles and which factors (sunlight, sunspots, cow farts, etc.) influence them to what
degree. Call me a worry-wort if you want, but from what we do know, I'm just not happy
with the significant possibility that humanity's footprint on the ecology might well be
contributing to speeding up some very unpleasant climate changes in the coming decades
that would not have occurred otherwise. The scientists may or may not be right, but if
they are...

> As to being a layman, I'll have to check with my wife.

Glad to see that you can maintain your sense of humor in all this.

Thomas Borchert

January 8th 08, 08:52 AM

John,

> Religion can be the
> principal source of violence as in the Inquisition, but even that had undertones of
> personal and political gain.
>

Religion itself is all about personal and political gain.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 8th 08, 08:52 AM

WolfRat,

> It won't be Muslim fanatics it will be our own home grown
> terror as PC tyranny and fascism tightens it's grip.
>

Ah, but luckily you'll still have your guns...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 8th 08, 08:52 AM

Morgans,

> True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a means to
> influence others.
>

That is a really good one!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 8th 08, 08:52 AM

WolfRat,

> How many of those under
> 30 crowd know Obamma is half white?
>

And how many know he is spelled Obama?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert

January 8th 08, 09:43 AM

Grumman-581,

> I'm not sure if that says
> something about
>

It says that you are a racist idiot - nothing else.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Andreus

January 8th 08, 11:10 AM

I'm not judging you, I know nothing about you. I'm simply pointing out the
history of christianity to any particularly pious people who might be
reading. I'm not clear that time has anything to do with it, these are
events. Wasn't there something about "those who fail to remember...?" and
that IS important because I think many christians would like to give it
another go. Intolerance is becoming the order of the day. Don't get me
wrong, I believe it will happen, the apocolypse WILL occur, especially if it
can make money.

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't judge me, on what happened a thousand years ago.
>
> That was a little period of time called the dark ages. Ignorance ruled.
> Period.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Grumman-581

January 8th 08, 11:11 AM

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:43:36 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> It says that you are a racist idiot - nothing else.

If I was racist, I wouldn't be able to acknowledge that some black women
are really nice looking, would I?

--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.

dVaridel

January 8th 08, 11:34 AM

"John Mazor" wrote
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
>> Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
>> certain,
>> Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> and over and over
>>
>> And still you won't get it.
>
> Now that's a sig worth considering.

....... But but (tm) ...... it's more than 4 lines and there was no "-----"
thingy.

--
There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot.

Neil Gould

January 8th 08, 12:17 PM

Recently, Gig601XLBuilder > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Gig601XLBuilder > posted:
>>>>
>>> The difference being is that I can't think of one of those that was
>>> latter found to be wrong that if acted upon at the time and as the
>>> its proponents are suggesting would have had the effect of
>>> destroying the economy.
>>>
>> The danger isn't in the "destruction" of the economy, as it is
>> within the control of human beings and has historically always
>> survived in one form or another. However, if it turns out that the
>> hypothesis regarding the human contribution to global climate change
>> is *right*, then the economy is completely irrelevant. So... what do
>> you see as the rational course of action?
>>
>
> First off let me rephrase to the destruction of the economy AS WE
> KNOW IT.
>
The economy "as we know it" is in constant flux. It is not "as I knew it"
10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago, and is almost unrecoginizable
from 40 years ago considering that we were not owned lock stock and barrel
by foriegn investors then. We somehow survive, as "the economy" is
adaptable and resilient.

The same cannot be said about an ecosystem that will no longer support
human life.

Neil

Neil Gould

January 8th 08, 12:21 PM

Recently, Morgans > posted:
>
> True, the American way on the most part is away from violence as a
> means to influence others.
>
Did you hear about this country that used to be known as Iraq?

> Other than the occasional mentally disturbed murderous kook, I feel
> that violence is not the way Christians try to make their point.
>
I think history would strongly disagree with this notion. Crusades.
Inquisition.

And, what about those folks trying to raise the perfect red cow in Texas?

Neil

Neil Gould

January 8th 08, 12:32 PM

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing
>>> IEDs and suicide bombers in America.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>>
>> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
>
> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions,
> united by one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching)
> principles of our constitution were laid out by Christian men, but
> the participants are far from monolithically Christian, and the
> principles are not exclusively Christian.
>
Not all of those who participated in the writing of the constitution were
Christian. Some were not religious at all.

Neil

Neil Gould

January 8th 08, 12:43 PM

Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Matt Whiting > posted:
>>
>>> [...] This will become very apparent
>>> within a few decades when all of the global warming, er, global
>>> climate change "scientists" are proven wrong. That will be the
>>> biggest setback to science in our lifetimes.
>>>
>> Do you understand that, historically speaking, many scientific
>> hypotheses are proven wrong and that doing so is consistent with the
>> scientific method?
>
> Absolutely. Now if only the evolutionists and global warming fanatics
> would come to understand that.
>
Your two comments are unreconcilable. If you understand the scientific
method, then you'd understand the error of your concern about new
scientific or empirical findings impacting science in general.

Neil

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 02:05 PM

Andreus wrote:

>
> I suspect that this is why there are so many black men in jail, the inner
> city culture does not demand that difference be settled in court, indeed the
> entire court system is out of reach and somewhat of an anathema to the
> entire group of inner city youth. So when they "take care of business" the
> law punishes them and perpetuates the class. Islamic radicals are, I'm sure,
> very interested in these young Americans.
> It's odd, one solution is hard and expensive and will never be tried. The
> other solutution is reprehensible to the extreme and at some point, I
> believe it will be.
>
>

I'm a little confused. Do you think white suburban and rural youths are
out suing each other, hence not getting in trouble with the law?

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 02:09 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
> news:kuxgj.25686$Ux2.22866@attbi_s22:
>
>>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing IEDs
>>>> and suicide bombers in America.
>>> Wow.
>>>
>>> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>>>
>>> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
>> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions,
>> united by one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching)
>> principles of our constitution were laid out by Christian men,
>
>
> Nope. Jefferson was definitely an Atheist and the others likely so from all
> available evidence
>
> Bertie

Nope, Jefferson was most likely a Deist.

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 02:14 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>>> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx changes
>>> that it's going to produce that are the problem.
>>>
>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bertie
>>>
>>
>> Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with anything
>> close to certainty next month why the hell should I believe them when
>> they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years down the road?
>
>
> Actually, forecasting has become incredibly accurate in the last twenty
> years and is getting better all the time, short term certainly. I never
> cease to be amazed at how accurate winds aloft are, for the most part,
> and terminal forecasting is probably ten times more accurate than it was
> even ten or fifteen years ago.
>
> As to the predictions they're making long term, so far the trend seems
> to be accurate. More wind, more storms. record highs and lows..
>> As for Florida, I can live with that.
>>
>
> Mmm me too.
>
> Shame about the everglades, though.
>
> Bertie
>

Come on Bertie, they said this was going to be a dry winter in the
Western US. Hasn't been the case.

Both of the last two years they have said would be the worst Hurricane
seasons on record. Both years they were wrong. If they keep saying that
every year sooner or later they are going to be right.

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 02:20 PM

Grumman-581 wrote:
> WolfRat wrote:
>
>> His Mother is white
>> His so called Father a.k.a. sperm donor is black
>>
>> He was raised by his white GRANDPARENTS
>
> So, his mother was a slut...
>
> Ever notice that when a white guy dates a black girl, she's *really*
> nice looking, but when a black guy dates a white girl, she's the
> skankiest whore that you've ever seen? I'm not sure if that says
> something about what type of girl would date a black guy or just that us
> white guys have better taste ...... or both ....

Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Klum

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 02:25 PM

Neil Gould wrote:

>
> The same cannot be said about an ecosystem that will no longer support
> human life.
>
> Neil
>
>

Please cite one legit source that says the current Global warming trend
is going to bring about an ecosystem that will no longer support human
life.

If humans are causing GW then with the exception of us doing something
that causes a VERY rapid and overwhelmingly great change (like popping
off several 1000 nukes) there isn't anything we can do to cause that
sort of change because long before enough had been done to kill everyone
enough would be done to kill enough of us to stop the human caused GW.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 02:57 PM

Grumman-581 > wrote in news:47833669
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> What the moron ID and creationists are saying is "we have decided what
>> science should tell us and we will keep harangueing them until they do
>> so"
>
> Wait a minute... That sounds just like what the Democrats and Sore
> Loserman were saying with all the recounts in Florida... <snicker>
>

Actually, both sides were saying that..

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 02:58 PM

"dVaridel" > wrote in
u:

> "John Mazor" wrote
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote
>>> Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
>>> certain,
>>> Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and
>>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>>> and over and over and over and over
>>>
>>> And still you won't get it.
>>
>> Now that's a sig worth considering.
>
> ...... But but (tm) ...... it's more than 4 lines and there was no
> "-----" thingy.
>
>
>

You shoulda seen my old sig. It was several hundred lines.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 03:04 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>> news:kuxgj.25686$Ux2.22866@attbi_s22:
>>
>>>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing
>>>>> IEDs and suicide bombers in America.
>>>> Wow.
>>>>
>>>> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
>>> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions,
>>> united by one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching)
>>> principles of our constitution were laid out by Christian men,
>>
>>
>> Nope. Jefferson was definitely an Atheist and the others likely so
>> from all available evidence
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Nope, Jefferson was most likely a Deist.
>

Mmm, maybe. We'll never know for sure but he would most definitley would
have given Oral Roberts short shrift.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 03:08 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>
>>>> the temp change is almost irrelevant in itself. It;s the Wx changes
>>>> that it's going to produce that are the problem.
>>>>
>>>> Also you're going to have to replace florida.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well they can't tell me what the weathers going to be with anything
>>> close to certainty next month why the hell should I believe them
>>> when they say what it will be 10, 20 or 50 years down the road?
>>
>>
>> Actually, forecasting has become incredibly accurate in the last
>> twenty years and is getting better all the time, short term
>> certainly. I never cease to be amazed at how accurate winds aloft
>> are, for the most part, and terminal forecasting is probably ten
>> times more accurate than it was even ten or fifteen years ago.
>>
>> As to the predictions they're making long term, so far the trend
>> seems to be accurate. More wind, more storms. record highs and lows..
>>> As for Florida, I can live with that.
>>>
>>
>> Mmm me too.
>>
>> Shame about the everglades, though.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
>
> Come on Bertie, they said this was going to be a dry winter in the
> Western US. Hasn't been the case.
>
> Both of the last two years they have said would be the worst Hurricane
> seasons on record. Both years they were wrong. If they keep saying
> that every year sooner or later they are going to be right.

OK, point taken.

Of course if the Wx is chaging dramatically, then extremes will become
more common and they'll be worknig with an ever more unfamiliar model.
I'm looking at a very fierce gale at the moment.and we've lost more
trees this year than we have in all the years I've lived at this place.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 03:11 PM

Grumman-581 > wrote in news:47833a52
:

> WolfRat wrote:
>
>> His Mother is white
>> His so called Father a.k.a. sperm donor is black
>>
>> He was raised by his white GRANDPARENTS
>
> So, his mother was a slut...
>
> Ever notice that when a white guy dates a black girl, she's *really*
> nice looking, but when a black guy dates a white girl, she's the
> skankiest whore that you've ever seen? I'm not sure if that says
> something about what type of girl would date a black guy or just that us
> white guys have better taste ...... or both ....

Well, it says volumes about you, that's for sure.

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 03:14 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The same cannot be said about an ecosystem that will no longer
support
>> human life.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
>
>
> Please cite one legit source that says the current Global warming
trend
> is going to bring about an ecosystem that will no longer support human
> life.
>
> If humans are causing GW then with the exception of us doing something
> that causes a VERY rapid and overwhelmingly great change (like popping
> off several 1000 nukes) there isn't anything we can do to cause that
> sort of change because long before enough had been done to kill
everyone
> enough would be done to kill enough of us to stop the human caused
GW.
>
>

Right I want you to read through this over and over again, mantra like
over and over and over and over.

Bertie

Are you doing it?

Over and over and over..

Get to it.

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 04:02 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
> :
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>> news:kuxgj.25686$Ux2.22866@attbi_s22:
>>>
>>>>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing
>>>>>> IEDs and suicide bombers in America.
>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
>>>> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions,
>>>> united by one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching)
>>>> principles of our constitution were laid out by Christian men,
>>>
>>> Nope. Jefferson was definitely an Atheist and the others likely so
>>> from all available evidence
>>>
>>> Bertie
>> Nope, Jefferson was most likely a Deist.
>>
>
> Mmm, maybe. We'll never know for sure but he would most definitley would
> have given Oral Roberts short shrift.
>
> Bertie
>

For sure, probably not, but his writings certainly point towards it and
you are also right that he wouldn't be a fan of Oral Roberts. But then
again there are lots of Christians that aren't a fan of Oral Roberts.

p.s. It was very difficult not to drop Mr. Roberts last name out of the
last sentence.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 04:16 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>>> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in
>>>> news:kuxgj.25686$Ux2.22866@attbi_s22:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Our culture -- not our religion -- is the only thing preventing
>>>>>>> IEDs and suicide bombers in America.
>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are not who I thought you are, Jay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm saddened, by your stand on this.
>>>>> I stand by my statement. America is a nation of many religions,
>>>>> united by one culture. The underlying (or, rather, over-arching)
>>>>> principles of our constitution were laid out by Christian men,
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Jefferson was definitely an Atheist and the others likely so
>>>> from all available evidence
>>>>
>>>> Bertie
>>> Nope, Jefferson was most likely a Deist.
>>>
>>
>> Mmm, maybe. We'll never know for sure but he would most definitley
>> would have given Oral Roberts short shrift.
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> For sure, probably not, but his writings certainly point towards it
> and you are also right that he wouldn't be a fan of Oral Roberts. But
> then again there are lots of Christians that aren't a fan of Oral
> Roberts.

And Jefferson wasn't much of a fan of them either.
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
>
>
> p.s. It was very difficult not to drop Mr. Roberts last name out of
> the last sentence.

Took me a minute to get that!

I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"

Bertie
>

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 05:38 PM

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
> And Jefferson wasn't much of a fan of them either.
> "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"

Well if we are going to start quoting the man I always liked this one.

To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the
human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or
that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but
I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and
Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of
immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy
it certainly is.

And my very favorite:

Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,
every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason,
than that of blindfolded fear.

But let's remember what organized Christian religion was back then. It
was the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The first was
headed by the King of England who Jefferson and damn near everyone else
in the US had every reason to dislike. But both tied back to way to much
the European Monarchies of the time for Jefferson to connect himself
to even if he believed in every single word of their dogma.

Also, remember that Jefferson was not only a politician he was also
pretty much a hippy and a lot of his beliefs didn't exactly jive with
even the mainstream of the day.

>>
>> p.s. It was very difficult not to drop Mr. Roberts last name out of
>> the last sentence.
>
>
> Took me a minute to get that!
>
> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
> think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
> considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>

I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one. While I don't really think GW
didn't say it he was probably caught mid babble. Even if I thought GW
was the best President we ever had I would also have to admit he is the
worst public speaker we have ever had in that office. At least since the
advent of TV and maybe radio. But it is kind of fitting because it is a
perfect counter balance to Bill Clinton who while he made everything
sound great he really never said anything. Obama is pretty much the same
as Clinton. He's talked a lot about "Change" but really hasn't
mentioned change to what and how he intends to get there.

For those of you that really hate GW and everything he stands for just
be thankful he wasn't a great speaker because if he was you'd really be
screwed.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 05:44 PM

Gig601XLBuilder > wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>>
>> And Jefferson wasn't much of a fan of them either.
>> "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man"
>
> Well if we are going to start quoting the man I always liked this one.
>
> To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that
> the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are
> nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason
> otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by
> Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this
> heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know.
> But heresy it certainly is.
>
> And my very favorite:
>
> Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,
> every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;
> because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of
> reason, than that of blindfolded fear.

That is good.

>
>
> But let's remember what organized Christian religion was back then. It
> was the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. The first was
> headed by the King of England who Jefferson and damn near everyone
> else in the US had every reason to dislike. But both tied back to way
> to much
> the European Monarchies of the time for Jefferson to connect himself
> to even if he believed in every single word of their dogma.

And that has improved over time, how?
>
> Also, remember that Jefferson was not only a politician he was also
> pretty much a hippy and a lot of his beliefs didn't exactly jive with
> even the mainstream of the day.

Now there's understatement. Unless you meant to say the mainstream of
today...

in any case, he wasn't the only one who wouldn't have thought much of
the modern christian right.

>
>
>
>>>
>>> p.s. It was very difficult not to drop Mr. Roberts last name out of
>>> the last sentence.
>>
>>
>> Took me a minute to get that!
>>
>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I
>> don't think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
>> should they be considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>
>
> I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one. While I don't really think GW
> didn't say it he was probably caught mid babble. Even if I thought GW
> was the best President we ever had I would also have to admit he is
> the worst public speaker we have ever had in that office. At least
> since the advent of TV and maybe radio. But it is kind of fitting
> because it is a perfect counter balance to Bill Clinton who while he
> made everything sound great he really never said anything. Obama is
> pretty much the same
> as Clinton. He's talked a lot about "Change" but really hasn't
> mentioned change to what and how he intends to get there.

>
> For those of you that really hate GW and everything he stands for just
> be thankful he wasn't a great speaker because if he was you'd really
> be screwed.

No no, not Shrub.

It was his father. I don't think Shrub even knows what an atheist is.
Not that that would stop him from opining on the subject.

He said it in a newspaper interview.
>

Larry Dighera

January 8th 08, 05:59 PM

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
> wrote in
>:

>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
>> think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
>> considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>
>
>I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.

http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm
http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 06:08 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I
>>> don't think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
>>> should they be considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>>
>>
>>I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
>
> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm
> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
> I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
> They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.
>

He wasn't taking to you, netkkkop.

Bertie

Neil Gould

January 8th 08, 07:12 PM

Recently, Gig601XLBuilder > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> The same cannot be said about an ecosystem that will no longer
>> support human life.
>>
>
>
> Please cite one legit source that says the current Global warming
> trend is going to bring about an ecosystem that will no longer
> support human life.
>
You can easily find such sources if you're genuinely interested and not
simply wishing to dismiss all who disagree with you as illigitimate. As a
starting point, you may wish to look through the last couple of years'
Scientific American as an easily consumable digest of the issues at hand
and that isn't radical in its commentary.

> If humans are causing GW then with the exception of us doing something
> that causes a VERY rapid and overwhelmingly great change (like popping
> off several 1000 nukes) there isn't anything we can do to cause that
> sort of change because long before enough had been done to kill
> everyone enough would be done to kill enough of us to stop the
> human caused GW.
>
I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

Neil

Gig601XLBuilder

January 8th 08, 07:24 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
>>> think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
>>> considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>>
>> I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
>
> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm
> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
> I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
> They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.

You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did and he still hasn't
posted the archived items even though he posted his the 2 year wait 4
years ago.

Jay Honeck[_2_]

January 8th 08, 07:48 PM

> I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
> record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
> contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
> question becomes, what are the consequences of that?

My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 07:57 PM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in news:1sQgj.26972$Ux2.4630
@attbi_s22:

>> I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
>> record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
>> contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
>> question becomes, what are the consequences of that?
>
> My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.

And he's back.

Bertie

Jim Logajan

January 8th 08, 08:33 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote:
> One thing that has been well established about the cycles
> is: "It was now clear that not only the most obvious feedback, but
> also the most momentous one, was the connection between global
> temperature and greenhouse gas levels. Relatively straightforward
> analysis of the data showed that a doubled level of CO2 had always
> gone along with a rise of a few degrees in global temperature. It was
> a striking verification, with entirely independent methods and data,
> of what computer models had been predicting for the planet's
> greenhouse future." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm at
> the very end.
>
> So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the
> greenhouse gas CO2. From one of the websites you so blithely blew
> off:
>
> "The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have
> increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm)
> to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34%
> increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the
> highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the
> burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in
> a power plant generating electricity."

First, I've done some of my own all-too-brief reading of past studies
and did scan the references you gave.

Secondly, I've known for a couple years of at least two groups that
found that over tectonic time scales (i.e. on the order of hundreds of
millions of years) atmospheric CO2 did _not_ appear to covary with
climatic temperatures. They state:

"The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with the
geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales." [1]

"Research on systems ranging in age from 440 million years to the
present suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 16 to
18 times higher at different times in the ancient past than they are
today. However, surface temperatures of ancient, low altitude, tropical
sites appear to have varied only from about 23 degrees C to 32 degrees
C. Interestingly, these temperatures do not seem to covary directly with
ancient atmospheric CO2 pressures."[2]

[1] http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/7/4167
(or: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=123620 )

[2] http://www.geology.smu.edu/~vineyard/yapp.html

> Are you so confident that all the
> modern recorded changes are due solely to ice-age warming that you're
> willing to dismiss it all as "fraud" the way Barrow did? (I think
> not, but you did chime in on his post where he said that.)

I am confident of nothing - I'm just going with what seems most probable
given my limited knowledge of the research and underlying physics. I'm
_inclined_ to believe CO2 is a factor in present climate change in spite
of the research quoted above. I just don't think you should be so
confident either.

I don't agree with Barrow's claim that it is all a fraud. Fraud happens
in science, but if someone has a specific claim, it is up to them to
make their case. Since it is Barrow's claim and not mine, it is up to
him to make his case.

>> There is also something important missing from that graph - can you
>> guess what it is?
>
> Aside from full labeling of the axis and the nature of the graph, the
> absolute values of the temperatures can only be guessed at - but
> again, the wiki entry gives a comparison of those in the text, along
> with the widely accepted conclusion that human activity probably is
> contributing to, or possibly is totally causing, the temperature rise.

What is missing is the error bars. The graph purports to show "Global
Temperature Anomaly" but since it relies on a finite (and
time-and-space-varying) set of observation points, it should be showing
the error range. After all, a single observation is typically
representative of a large area - it should not be taken as _the_
average. Furthermore one has to include calibration errors.

P.S. After writing the above I went back to the wikipedia entry and
following the links to the original graphs - which fortunately include
the error bars I would expect (so even Wikipedia managed to include a
questionable graph - yet _another_ reason to avoid secondary sources):

http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html

Larry Dighera

January 8th 08, 08:39 PM

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
>>>> think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
>>>> considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>>>
>>> I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
>>
>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm
>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
>> I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
>> They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.
>
>
>You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did

That is correct.

>and he still hasn't posted the archived items even though he posted
>his the 2 year wait 4 years ago.

Perhaps you should file a FOIA request to satisfy your curiosity, or
do you expect someone else to do all your research for you?

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 08:53 PM

Jim Logajan > wrote in
:

> "John Mazor" > wrote:
>> One thing that has been well established about the cycles
>> is: "It was now clear that not only the most obvious feedback, but
>> also the most momentous one, was the connection between global
>> temperature and greenhouse gas levels. Relatively straightforward
>> analysis of the data showed that a doubled level of CO2 had always
>> gone along with a rise of a few degrees in global temperature. It was
>> a striking verification, with entirely independent methods and data,
>> of what computer models had been predicting for the planet's
>> greenhouse future." http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm at
>> the very end.
>>
>> So there's a strong link between rises in temperature and the
>> greenhouse gas CO2. From one of the websites you so blithely blew
>> off:
>>
>> "The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have
>> increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm)
>> to 377.5 ppm (2004 Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center), a 34%
>> increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the
>> highest in 650,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the
>> burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in
>> a power plant generating electricity."
>
> First, I've done some of my own all-too-brief reading of past studies
> and did scan the references you gave.
>
> Secondly, I've known for a couple years of at least two groups that
> found that over tectonic time scales (i.e. on the order of hundreds of
> millions of years) atmospheric CO2 did _not_ appear to covary with
> climatic temperatures. They state:
>
> "The resulting CO2 signal exhibits no systematic correspondence with
> the geologic record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."
> [1]
>
> "Research on systems ranging in age from 440 million years to the
> present suggests that atmospheric CO2 levels have been as much as 16
> to 18 times higher at different times in the ancient past than they
> are today. However, surface temperatures of ancient, low altitude,
> tropical sites appear to have varied only from about 23 degrees C to
> 32 degrees C. Interestingly, these temperatures do not seem to covary
> directly with ancient atmospheric CO2 pressures."[2]
>
> [1] http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/7/4167
> (or: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=123620
> )
>
> [2] http://www.geology.smu.edu/~vineyard/yapp.html
>
>> Are you so confident that all the
>> modern recorded changes are due solely to ice-age warming that you're
>> willing to dismiss it all as "fraud" the way Barrow did? (I think
>> not, but you did chime in on his post where he said that.)
>
> I am confident of nothing - I'm just going with what seems most
> probable given my limited knowledge of the research and underlying
> physics. I'm _inclined_ to believe CO2 is a factor in present climate
> change in spite of the research quoted above. I just don't think you
> should be so confident either.
>
> I don't agree with Barrow's claim that it is all a fraud. Fraud
> happens in science, but if someone has a specific claim, it is up to
> them to make their case. Since it is Barrow's claim and not mine, it
> is up to him to make his case.
>
>>> There is also something important missing from that graph - can you
>>> guess what it is?
>>
>> Aside from full labeling of the axis and the nature of the graph, the
>> absolute values of the temperatures can only be guessed at - but
>> again, the wiki entry gives a comparison of those in the text, along
>> with the widely accepted conclusion that human activity probably is
>> contributing to, or possibly is totally causing, the temperature
>> rise.
>
> What is missing is the error bars. The graph purports to show "Global
> Temperature Anomaly" but since it relies on a finite (and
> time-and-space-varying) set of observation points, it should be
> showing the error range. After all, a single observation is typically
> representative of a large area - it should not be taken as _the_
> average. Furthermore one has to include calibration errors.
>
> P.S. After writing the above I went back to the wikipedia entry and
> following the links to the original graphs - which fortunately include
> the error bars I would expect (so even Wikipedia managed to include a
> questionable graph - yet _another_ reason to avoid secondary sources):
>
> http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.h
> tml

After a discussion with someone who claimed it was all bunkum a few months
ago, I went to the usenet GW group. A mistake except I ran into someone i
knew there who helped me wade through the literally hundreds of k00ks
posting there to get some good info for both sides of the argument. Keeping
in mind that I was trying to shore up my postion, but at the same time was
lookin gfor cogent arguments agin, i nearly went mad trying to make sense
of it all.
Anyhow, the info that I came up with in the end, was this.
The SUV drivers can tear it apart, use it for canary droppings or do what
you like. you won't be convinced of anything anyway, but it does have the
best info that several days worth of research on my behalf could produce.

Wanna argue? Write a leter to the NY times or these guys.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-
argument/

This article adressed just about every argument I saw that was worthy of
the title ( I ignored crap like "well, you'd a thunk peeple'd be happy
about longer summers" and "Cows make more greenhouse gas than cars")

Bertie

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 08:54 PM

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I
>>>>> don't think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
>>>>> should they be considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>>>>
>>>> I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
>>>
>>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm
>>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
>>> I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
>>> They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.
>>
>>
>>You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did
>
> That is correct.
>
>>and he still hasn't posted the archived items even though he posted
>>his the 2 year wait 4 years ago.
>
> Perhaps you should file a FOIA request to satisfy your curiosity, or
> do you expect someone else to do all your research for you?
>

He didn;'t ask you Fjukkwit

You want to ignore me then you ignore the conversations I'm having,
netkkkop.

Bertie
>
>

Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]

January 8th 08, 09:25 PM

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
>>> > wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I don't
>>>>> think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be
>>>>> considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>>>>
>>>> I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
>>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm
>>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
>>> I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
>>> They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.
>>
>> You didn't contact the library Rob Sherman did
>
> That is correct.
>
>> and he still hasn't posted the archived items even though he posted
>> his the 2 year wait 4 years ago.
>
> Perhaps you should file a FOIA request to satisfy your curiosity, or
> do you expect someone else to do all your research for you?
>
>

No I expect people who make statements to be able to back them up with
something other than some nut job's website.

Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]

January 8th 08, 09:33 PM

Gig 601XL Builder > wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:24:23 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
>> > wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 11:38:46 -0600, Gig601XLBuilder
>>>> > wrote in
>>>> >:
>>>>
>>>>>> I also can't see him being too enamored of GB s statement "No, I
>>>>>> don't think that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
>>>>>> should they be considerd patriots. this is one nation under God"
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to call 'Cite' on this one.
>>>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2002/0303.htm
>>>> http://www.robsherman.com/information/liberalnews/2004/0204.htm
>>>> I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station,
>>>> Texas. They are archived as Item # CF01193-002.
>
>
> No I expect people who make statements to be able to back them up with
> something other than some nut job's website.
>

Well, he said it to Robert Sherman and never denied he said it after it was
published... It was at a quick press conference when he was VP IIRC. There
were other members of the press there and i suspect one of them would have
set he record straight. As to it being updated, Franco is still dead..

Bertie

Neil Gould

January 8th 08, 09:48 PM

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
>> record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
>> contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
>> question becomes, what are the consequences of that?
>
> My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.
>
Let's hope your house can withstand the breeze that comes along with that
milder temperature.

--
Neil

Matt W. Barrow

January 8th 08, 09:51 PM

"John Mazor" > wrote in message
news:lNCgj.5934$qV.4112@trnddc03...
>
> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> What evidence of globa;l warming?
>
> How about:
>
> - Melting icecaps
> - Melting glaciers

Like those haven't happened for millenium?

> - Documented changes due to warming in other local climates

It's called "Heat Island".

>
> Or do you dismiss that as irrelevant? If so, please see below.

It is irrelevant in that it's a natural thing.

>
>>> Or the fanatics who are in denial about the solid foundations for
>>> evolution and the growing evidence of global warning?
>>
>> Or those in denial about the fraudulent evidence for global warming.
>
> Please demonstrate and fully explicate the perpetration of fraud in the
> scientific data.

Oh, how about multiple cases of fudged data, misrepresented data...say, the
UN farse going my the name of IPCC.

>
> You can start by specifically refuting in detail, and demonstrating the
> fraud in the following:
>
> http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

First, Wiki is virtually useless - it's a "one way discussion".

As for EcoBridge, I'll let Jim Logajan start and I'll add the point of fraud
being how the earlier graphs (CO2 levels | Temps) where the scales were
misrepresented and reverse to show what they wanted to show. You're aware of
that one I suspect, in that you purport to such knowledge.

Or maybe it's just that old logical fallacy "argument from authority".

Matt W. Barrow

January 8th 08, 09:53 PM

"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "John Mazor" > wrote:
>> "Matt W. Barrow" > wrote:
>>> What evidence of globa;l warming?

>>
>> which are simple enough even for the layman to follow.
>
> I'm a lazy man myself, and although I think the preponderance of evidence
> (and basic considerations of physics) suggests human activities have been
> a
> factor in changing the climate,

Sure have; .05C out of 1C at most. In most places that call this background
noise.

We're also a "factor" in global cooling (i.e., sulphur dioxide (?) and
other REAL pollutants.).

Matt Whiting

January 8th 08, 10:28 PM

John Mazor wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>> John Mazor wrote:
>
>> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of (they call it
>> faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is scientists who accepts things they
>> aren't 100% sure of it is somehow different?
>
> That's precisely the difference between science and faith. The scientist says "I think,
> based on empirical evidence (which might be wrong) that..." whereas fundamentalist
> Christians make such a leap of faith that they insist that "I take it as a matter of faith
> that this is the gospel truth direct from the mouth of God so it can't possibly be wrong
> no matter what evidence to the contrary, and you will burn in hell if you deny it."
>
>>> And I'm sure that if you cornered any of those scientists and asked "We understand the
>>> concerns you have expressed, but keeping in mind the limits of the scientific method,
>>> are you prepared to give us a 100% guarantee that there is absolutely no possibility
>>> that your findings might be mistaken?" the vast majority would not say yes.
>>>
>>>>> A full, accurate statement that conforms to the scientific method would be along the
>>>>> lines of "There is mounting scientific evidence that the Earth is experiencing global
>>>>> warming, that the rate of warming is increasing, that human activity could be
>>>>> contributing to this, and if this trend continues, it has major implications for life
>>>>> on Earth. While alternative eplanations exist, they are not as useful in explaining
>>>>> all the observed data." There is no absolute certainty anywhere in there. Often
>>>>> scientists are guilty of not reciting the full version because they mistakenly assume
>>>>> that everyone understands the full but unspoken context of their announcements. But
>>>>> even when they do provide the full context, it seldom is included in the media
>>>>> accounts because it's not as sexy as some version of "Scientistists predict the end
>>>>> is near!"
>>>> I don't see much equivocation or acceptance of any possible error in statements such
>>>> as:
>>>>
>>>> “the question mark was removed behind the debate about whether climate change had
>>>> anything to do with human activity on this planet.”
>>>>
>>>> “There is no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human
>>>> activity…The warming of the climate system is now unequivocal,”
>>> See previous.
>>>
>>>> Can you point out the allowance for error in the above statements?
>>> See previous. And since it is a brief news account, we don't know that the appropriate
>>> caveats weren't given at the news conference or in the report.
>> Nice rationalizations. Keep trying, these are pretty weak.
>
> Yeah, right. "None so blind as those who will not see."

On that we agree. The scientists are so convinced that they are right
they refuse to look any alternate points of view.

Matt Whiting

January 8th 08, 10:29 PM

John Mazor wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>> :
>
>>> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure of
>>> (they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it is
>>> scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is somehow
>>> different?
>> Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100% certain,
>> Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and over and over
>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>> and over and over
>>
>> And still you won't get it.
>
> Now that's a sig worth considering.
>
>

And you just HAD to reply to Buttnip so that I'd see his post even
though my filter killed the original...

Matt Whiting

January 8th 08, 10:31 PM

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> I'm not one to claim that humans are _causing_ GW. Given the historic
>> record of temperatures there is no doubt that human activities are a
>> contributing factor. As I see it, we're aggravating the trend, so the
>> question becomes, what are the consequences of that?
>
> My fervent hope is that winter in the upper Midwest becomes milder.

I live at about 1500' elevation on a mountain in PA and I'm hoping for
waterfront property by the time I retire! :-)

Matt

Elevenize yourself

January 8th 08, 10:34 PM

Matt Whiting > wrote in
:

> John Mazor wrote:
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote in
>>> :
>>
>>>> Why is it that Christians who accept things they aren't 100% sure
>>>> of (they call it faith) are called nutcases or worse, yet when it
>>>> is scientists who accepts things they aren't 100% sure of it is
>>>> somehow different?
>>> Because it's implicit in the scientific method that nothing is 100%
>>> certain, Somethign that has been explained to you over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>>> over over and over and over and over and over and over over and over
>>> and over and over and over and over over and over and over and over
>>> and over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>> over and over and over and over and over and over over and over and
>>> over and over and over and over over and over and over and over and
>>> over and over over and over and over and over and over and over over
>>> and over and over and over and over and over over and over and over
>>> and over and over and over over and over and over and over and over
>>> and over over and over and over and over and over and over over and
>>> over and over and over and over and over over and over and over and
>>> over and over and over over and over and over and over and over and
>>> over over and over and over and over and over and over
>>>
>>> And still you won't get it.
>>
>> Now that's a sig worth considering.
>>
>>
>
> And you just HAD to reply to Buttnip so that I'd see his post even
> though my filter killed the original...

Hey if it's a little filter busting you want...

Very unbecoming to run away from a cute little Bunyip, BTW.

Makes it look like you're afraid of me or something.

eitreB
>