Thrown out of an FBO...

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Judah,

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


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

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

Grumman-581 wrote in news:VM_6h.33713
:

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

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

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

mike regish wrote:
Awww...Now I'm hurt.

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

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

Cheers,
Matt

Don Tabor wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grumman-581 wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

How about "Dot"?

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

Having a hobby isn't like having beliefs.

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

What does "having beliefs" mean?

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

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

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

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

Jose,

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


Huh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Judah,

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


I didn't know psychiatry requires belief.

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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)