Linux-Advocacy Digest #702, Volume #33 Thu, 19 Apr 01 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Dreamspinner3")
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Dreamspinner3")
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (Rob
Robertson)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Barry Margolin)
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Jim Knowles")
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN) (silverback)
Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Dreamspinner3")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000 ("Jim Knowles")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: Postgres 7.1 Released (Greg Copeland)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("JS PL")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:11:26 -0500
Reply-To: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Does it matter?
"Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:gZCD6.603754$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm just curious... are you a parent? Or are you just someone who feels
they
> know how parenting ought to be done?
>
>
>
> "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9bmnhj$9qvhm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You sound like a very responsible parent. I applaud your efforts.
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:RMsD6.14637$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In comp.os.linux.misc John Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Since this is an informational group, how many people would consider
> > > > it a safe place for a 10 year old to look for information about a
new
> > > > digital camera?
> > >
> > > > Would you want your child using the word in everyday conversation?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't be letting my 10 year old child perusing newsgroups on
their
> > > own. And then, if we encountered this same situation, I would have
> dealt
> > > with it in a mature manner than most on here seem to be handling it.
> > >
> > > Adam
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 10:12:30 -0500
Reply-To: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hmmm....never knew that, and I have been posting to Usenet for years. You
are right. I will drop this thread now. Thanks.
"John Ridley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> By the way, apparently you didn't get the joke. It's an unwritten
> rule of Usenet that all flamewars eventually come around to the point
> where someone mentions either Hitler or Nazis. At that point, the
> thread is usually considered over.
>
------------------------------
From: Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:13:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> Who is Silverdick?
Glen "silverback" Yeadon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
also known as "The Global Village Idiot."
> Matthew Gardiner
_
RR
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:17:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 04:11:07 GMT, Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Try to find the history of why it was necessary for RIPEM to
>>duplicate the gmp library as fgmp in order to release their
>>work without distribution restrictions. The only thing that
>
>The RIPEM authors did that to make FSF happy. They didn't *have* to do
>it to satisfy any legal requirements for distribution of their code, so
>it was not "necessary".
Since it never went to court, we don't really know whether it was legally
necessary or not.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:19:15 GMT
You're not answering the question. I smell evasion in the air.
"Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bmv5l$a5j98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Does it matter?
>
> "Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:gZCD6.603754$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I'm just curious... are you a parent? Or are you just someone who feels
> they
> > know how parenting ought to be done?
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (silverback)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:43:31 GMT
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:13:39 -0400, Rob Robertson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>>
>> Who is Silverdick?
>
> Glen "silverback" Yeadon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>also known as "The Global Village Idiot."
no fraud the village idiot is you
>
>> Matthew Gardiner
>
>_
>RR
***********************************************
GDY Weasel
emailers remove the spam buster
For those seeking enlightenment visit the White Rose at
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
*********************************************
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Who votes for Sliverdick to be executed: AYEs:3 NAYS:0 (1 ABSTAIN)
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:56:35 GMT
>>>>> Joseph T Adams writes:
Joseph> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aaron> Those who seek to enslave others forfeit their right to life.
>> If they act on it sure. If they just run off their mouths,
>> they deserve to be mocked and refuted.
Joseph> That's basically my take on the whole matter as well.
Joseph> I'm sorry to be a party-pooper, but I must vote against the execution
Joseph> of Silverdork. Worse, if this were real life, it would be my
Joseph> unpleasant duty either to prevent the execution, or to die trying.
Joseph> Even though I can't stand the jerk.
Joseph> My first inclination was to abstain from voting at all.
Joseph> However, my oath requires me to defend life and due process of law,
Joseph> among many other things, ESPECIALLY in a situation where the rule of
Joseph> law has broken down, as would obviously be the case in a situation
Joseph> where people were voting whether to kill someone without a fair trial.
Joseph> The right way to do this is to see if there is probable cause to try
Joseph> him for committing some specific crime, try him, and, if convicted,
Joseph> punish him according the law.
Joseph> If he truly is guilty of a capital offense, then the end result will
Joseph> be similar. But it will have been arrived at legitimately, without
Joseph> making criminals out of all of us.
Well said!
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 11:00:06 -0500
Reply-To: "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
No, I have no children. I believe I said that earlier. However, I have
told another person I would drop this thread....so....that is it.
"Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:TlDD6.603769$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're not answering the question. I smell evasion in the air.
>
>
> "Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9bmv5l$a5j98$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Does it matter?
> >
> > "Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:gZCD6.603754$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I'm just curious... are you a parent? Or are you just someone who
feels
> > they
> > > know how parenting ought to be done?
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 19 Apr 2001 16:05:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2001 14:41:38 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>"Roberto Alsina"
>>>
>>>>Why would god give a commandment that could
>>>> not be understood? After all (ok, here's a cite) "if the trumpet call is
>>>> not clear, who will prepare for battle?"
>>>
>>>You're the only one here who doesn't understand it. Check the receiver, not
>>>the transmitter.
>>
>>Fallacy of hasty generalization, and still you can't see that it doesn't
>>matter if I understand it or not, because the commandment was not given to
>>me.
>>
>
>Sure it matters. We understand it. You don't.
You believe you understand it. "Man's interpretation and the true meaning
are different things", you said.
I'm pretty sure most people believe they understand it, yet their
understanding is different from yours. I am not even sure you and
bill understand the same thing, since both refuse to say what
the heck "murder" means.
>>Even if you believe you understand it, that's not enough.
>>Even if Moses believed he understood it, that's not enough.
>>
>>Shouldn't you and Moses actually understand it to mean the same thing?
>
>You are seriously confused.
Not the first time. Of course I am dealing with irrational beliefs,
so confusion is to be expected.
[snip red light analogy]
That's not the same thing at all. The author of the order not to cross
on red lights shares your cultural background and education, the order
is given in a way where in doubt you can assume it's meant to be
understood in the terms of your own culture, it's recent, and you have
a final authority on the meaning (the judges).
None of those features is true of the commandments.
>Your understanding of the law is irrelevant to the law itself. If a police
>officer and a judge decide you have violated this law, then you are guilty
>and will be punished accordingly, regardless of your understanding of this
>law.
Cool. If god tells me I broke a commandment I will agree I broke it.
Until then, why should I accept YOUR interpretation of the commandment
over mine? Has god told you what the true meaning is?
>In the same manner. God gave all of us a law: "you will not murder"
>This law was communicated to us through Moses. You can whine and cry
>all you want that you don't understand this law. Doesn't matter. Most
>societies has written their own laws against murder.
You are conflating "murder as defined by society" and "murder as defined
by god". Both terms are not identical, since one changes according to
geography and time.
> These are, in many
>cases, completely independent of God's commandment. Some societies have
>made this law based on God'd commandment. Most of these societies have
>a judge that will decide (some judges will be a jury) whether you are
>guilty of murder or not. You can cry all you want that you don't understand
>murder in the same way the judge does.
I am clear on what murder means when it's mentioned in the laws of men.
I am not clear of what murder means when it's mentioned in the law of
god. Perhaps you notice they are not the same thing?
Or you mean the commandment says "you should not do what the law says is
murder"?
>Same goes for the judgement of God. If you have any
>doubts, ask the judge ahead of time. If you have any doubts, do what
>you need to do to ask God.
How can I do that? Of course just asking is not enough, what you really
need is an answer...
>>Or rather, since you were not given the commandment, shouldn't you be
>>forced to understand it the same way Moses did? *HE* is the one
>
>How can you force someone to understand something. You are a perfect
>example of how this is impossible.
Well, god can, can't he? Is he being deliberately confusing?
>>supposed to speak to god, not you.
>>
>
>I can speak to God. Can't you?
How do you know you are speaking to god? Does he acknowledge?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Jim Knowles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: rec.photo.digital,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Am I f******? HP Photosmart C500 and Win 2000
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:16:37 GMT
Promise? Cross your heart?
You may find alt.flame.parents or alt.parents.stupid edifying. Enjoy!
"Dreamspinner3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9bn211$a2h95$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No, I have no children. I believe I said that earlier. However, I have
> told another person I would drop this thread....so....that is it.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Apr 2001 11:23:46 -0500
On 19 Apr 2001 16:05:35 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 19 Apr 2001 14:41:38 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"Roberto Alsina"
>>>>
>>>>>Why would god give a commandment that could
>>>>> not be understood? After all (ok, here's a cite) "if the trumpet call is
>>>>> not clear, who will prepare for battle?"
>>>>
>>>>You're the only one here who doesn't understand it. Check the receiver, not
>>>>the transmitter.
>>>
>>>Fallacy of hasty generalization, and still you can't see that it doesn't
>>>matter if I understand it or not, because the commandment was not given to
>>>me.
>>>
>>
>>Sure it matters. We understand it. You don't.
>
>You believe you understand it. "Man's interpretation and the true meaning
>are different things", you said.
>
I also said that we can know the true meaning. I didn't say they
must be different.
>I'm pretty sure most people believe they understand it, yet their
>understanding is different from yours. I am not even sure you and
>bill understand the same thing, since both refuse to say what
>the heck "murder" means.
>
Bill has already told you what murder means. Why do you say he
has not? You even started arguing his definition with him.
Again, why have you just made the false claim that he has refused
to say what murder means. Again, you fabricatge to aid your
argument.
>>>Even if you believe you understand it, that's not enough.
>>>Even if Moses believed he understood it, that's not enough.
>>>
>>>Shouldn't you and Moses actually understand it to mean the same thing?
>>
>>You are seriously confused.
>
>Not the first time. Of course I am dealing with irrational beliefs,
>so confusion is to be expected.
>
>[snip red light analogy]
>
>That's not the same thing at all. The author of the order not to cross
>on red lights shares your cultural background and education, the order
>is given in a way where in doubt you can assume it's meant to be
>understood in the terms of your own culture, it's recent, and you have
>a final authority on the meaning (the judges).
>
False. I can understand the traffic laws in Europe, Asia, South America,
etc.
>None of those features is true of the commandments.
>
False again. The final authority is God.
>>Your understanding of the law is irrelevant to the law itself. If a police
>>officer and a judge decide you have violated this law, then you are guilty
>>and will be punished accordingly, regardless of your understanding of this
>>law.
>
>Cool. If god tells me I broke a commandment I will agree I broke it.
>Until then, why should I accept YOUR interpretation of the commandment
>over mine? Has god told you what the true meaning is?
>
Who said you have to accept my interpretation? Of course, you'd be wrong
if you didn't.
>>In the same manner. God gave all of us a law: "you will not murder"
>>This law was communicated to us through Moses. You can whine and cry
>>all you want that you don't understand this law. Doesn't matter. Most
>>societies has written their own laws against murder.
>
>You are conflating "murder as defined by society" and "murder as defined
>by god". Both terms are not identical, since one changes according to
>geography and time.
>
I was speaking of two terms at the same time, side by side. Sorry to make it
too confusing for you.
God's commandments do not change over geography and time. You continue to make
this false assertion.
>> These are, in many
>>cases, completely independent of God's commandment. Some societies have
>>made this law based on God'd commandment. Most of these societies have
>>a judge that will decide (some judges will be a jury) whether you are
>>guilty of murder or not. You can cry all you want that you don't understand
>>murder in the same way the judge does.
>
>I am clear on what murder means when it's mentioned in the laws of men.
>I am not clear of what murder means when it's mentioned in the law of
>god. Perhaps you notice they are not the same thing?
>
It's obvious it's not clear to you, but that is irrelevant to the law itself.
>Or you mean the commandment says "you should not do what the law says is
>murder"?
>
You should not do what God says is murder. You should also not do what
man's law says is murder. Of course you can if you choose to, but
be prepared to face the consequences.
>>Same goes for the judgement of God. If you have any
>>doubts, ask the judge ahead of time. If you have any doubts, do what
>>you need to do to ask God.
>
>How can I do that? Of course just asking is not enough, what you really
>need is an answer...
>
I have an answer, so do you. You just refuse to listen to it.
>>>Or rather, since you were not given the commandment, shouldn't you be
>>>forced to understand it the same way Moses did? *HE* is the one
>>
>>How can you force someone to understand something. You are a perfect
>>example of how this is impossible.
>
>Well, god can, can't he? Is he being deliberately confusing?
>
God can, but he won't. There's nothing confusing about it at all.
It's up to you to understand it.
>>I can speak to God. Can't you?
>
>How do you know you are speaking to god? Does he acknowledge?
>
Faith. Sure he does.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Postgres 7.1 Released
From: Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Apr 2001 11:35:48 -0500
Oracle now supports index on functions. I read an article about it several
months ago in Oracle magazine. Having said that, it's not nearly as straight
forward as one would hope, nonetheless, Oracle does support this.
Greg
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
>
> In one of my web sites, we have a very large shared library of neat Postgres
> functions. It started out as an implementation of oracle's "contains(..)"
> function, and has grown to startling proportions.
>
> One feature I simply love about postgres is the ability to create an index
> based on a function, as in:
>
> create index fubar_ndx on table (function(column)) ;
>
> Thus, one can do really cool stuff like:
>
> select * from table where string_reverse(field) = string_reverse('the quick
> brown fox');
--
Greg Copeland, Principal Consultant
Copeland Computer Consulting
==================================================
PGP/GPG Key at http://www.keyserver.net
DE5E 6F1D 0B51 6758 A5D7 7DFE D785 A386 BD11 4FCD
==================================================
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 12:38:28 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 05 Apr 2001 23:13:48
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Said Craig Kelley in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 05 Apr 2001 09:38:42
> >> >"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Oh, so the Rep's were the only ones honest about their dealings?
> >> >
> >> >Of course not, but at least republicans go after Microsoft with the
> >> >intent of restoring a free market, and not with some loony class-war
> >> >redistribution of wealth fanaticism.
> >>
> >> Liberals have no class-war issues; that's just the straw-man of the
> >> conservatives. Communists have class-war issues. Liberals are not
> >> watered-down communists. That is, again, just the straw-man of the
> >> conservatives. They have a lot of them.
> >
> >You say toe-may-toe, I say toe-ma-toe.
> >
> >Without getting into the particulars, both class warfare and straw man
> >classifications are subjective terms as seen through the eyes of an
> >individual.
>
> Ultimately, all terms are thus subjective, making this an unnecessary,
> and therefore dubious, point.
>
> >I would say that flaming [ie, not run-of-the-mill]
> >liberals are full of straw man arguments (such as: "republicans are
> >the party of big business while democrats are the party of the people"
> >[Barbara Striesand]), but that's probably meaningless to you. Also, I
> >would define such statements as class warfare.
>
> Actually, republicans *are* the party of big business while democrats
> are the party of the people. Of course, republicans like to pretend
> they are the party of the individual, and democrats would like to
> pretend they aren't flaming liberals.
Republicans are the party of individual responsibility and un-intrusive
government. Democrats are the party of AVOIDANCE of individual
responsibility and the "big brother will solve all my problems" mentality.
>My point was that the straw men
> and class warfare of the liberals is no less nor more subjective or
> objective than the straw men and class warfare of the conservatives.
> The concept of class warfare comes from Marx, which is communism, and
> both liberals and conservatives have a very strong affinity, which both
> deny just as strongly and both are accused of by the other just as
> routinely, with communism; the democrats in the socio-economic method,
> and the republicans in the political method.
Nice to see your studying your hero Marx.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 19 Apr 2001 16:37:49 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2001 16:05:35 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 19 Apr 2001 14:41:38 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>billh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Roberto Alsina"
>>>>>
>>>>>>Why would god give a commandment that could
>>>>>> not be understood? After all (ok, here's a cite) "if the trumpet call is
>>>>>> not clear, who will prepare for battle?"
>>>>>
>>>>>You're the only one here who doesn't understand it. Check the receiver, not
>>>>>the transmitter.
>>>>
>>>>Fallacy of hasty generalization, and still you can't see that it doesn't
>>>>matter if I understand it or not, because the commandment was not given to
>>>>me.
>>>
>>>Sure it matters. We understand it. You don't.
>>
>>You believe you understand it. "Man's interpretation and the true meaning
>>are different things", you said.
>>
>
>I also said that we can know the true meaning. I didn't say they
>must be different.
Yes, and I asked how, and you responded nothing.
>>I'm pretty sure most people believe they understand it, yet their
>>understanding is different from yours. I am not even sure you and
>>bill understand the same thing, since both refuse to say what
>>the heck "murder" means.
>
>Bill has already told you what murder means. Why do you say he
>has not?
All I can recall is "it is determined by intent and (something else)".
That's not a meaning.
>>>>Even if you believe you understand it, that's not enough.
>>>>Even if Moses believed he understood it, that's not enough.
>>>>
>>>>Shouldn't you and Moses actually understand it to mean the same thing?
>>>
>>>You are seriously confused.
>>
>>Not the first time. Of course I am dealing with irrational beliefs,
>>so confusion is to be expected.
>>
>>[snip red light analogy]
>>
>>That's not the same thing at all. The author of the order not to cross
>>on red lights shares your cultural background and education, the order
>>is given in a way where in doubt you can assume it's meant to be
>>understood in the terms of your own culture, it's recent, and you have
>>a final authority on the meaning (the judges).
>
>False. I can understand the traffic laws in Europe, Asia, South America,
>etc.
Really? quick: what do you do if you see a blinking red light in Buenos
Aires? And you are overestimating the world's cultural variety when it
comes to red lights.
>>None of those features is true of the commandments.
>
>False again. The final authority is God.
An authority that is not available for consulting is no authority.
>>>Your understanding of the law is irrelevant to the law itself. If a police
>>>officer and a judge decide you have violated this law, then you are guilty
>>>and will be punished accordingly, regardless of your understanding of this
>>>law.
>>
>>Cool. If god tells me I broke a commandment I will agree I broke it.
>>Until then, why should I accept YOUR interpretation of the commandment
>>over mine? Has god told you what the true meaning is?
>
>Who said you have to accept my interpretation? Of course, you'd be wrong
>if you didn't.
That has to be your most insane statement yet.
>>>In the same manner. God gave all of us a law: "you will not murder"
>>>This law was communicated to us through Moses. You can whine and cry
>>>all you want that you don't understand this law. Doesn't matter. Most
>>>societies has written their own laws against murder.
>>
>>You are conflating "murder as defined by society" and "murder as defined
>>by god". Both terms are not identical, since one changes according to
>>geography and time.
>
>I was speaking of two terms at the same time, side by side. Sorry to make it
>too confusing for you.
>
>God's commandments do not change over geography and time. You continue to make
>this false assertion.
The understanding of the commandment seems to change. Since there is no
access to anything else (that mystical true meaning), all practical usage
of the commandment changes over time and geography. In practice, the
commandment changes.
>>> These are, in many
>>>cases, completely independent of God's commandment. Some societies have
>>>made this law based on God'd commandment. Most of these societies have
>>>a judge that will decide (some judges will be a jury) whether you are
>>>guilty of murder or not. You can cry all you want that you don't understand
>>>murder in the same way the judge does.
>>
>>I am clear on what murder means when it's mentioned in the laws of men.
>>I am not clear of what murder means when it's mentioned in the law of
>>god. Perhaps you notice they are not the same thing?
>
>It's obvious it's not clear to you, but that is irrelevant to the law itself.
What's the purpose of the law, other than to be understood?
>>Or you mean the commandment says "you should not do what the law says is
>>murder"?
>
>You should not do what God says is murder.
Quote the bible on god's definition of murder.
>>>Same goes for the judgement of God. If you have any
>>>doubts, ask the judge ahead of time. If you have any doubts, do what
>>>you need to do to ask God.
>>
>>How can I do that? Of course just asking is not enough, what you really
>>need is an answer...
>
>I have an answer, so do you. You just refuse to listen to it.
So god does talk back to you?
>>>>Or rather, since you were not given the commandment, shouldn't you be
>>>>forced to understand it the same way Moses did? *HE* is the one
>>>
>>>How can you force someone to understand something. You are a perfect
>>>example of how this is impossible.
>>
>>Well, god can, can't he? Is he being deliberately confusing?
>
>God can, but he won't. There's nothing confusing about it at all.
>It's up to you to understand it.
So, he's just being difficult?
>>>I can speak to God. Can't you?
>>
>>How do you know you are speaking to god? Does he acknowledge?
>
>Faith.
Faith is not knowledge. Faith is the opposite of knowledge. You don't
have faith on things you know, you have knowledge, Teology 101.
> Sure he does.
Is this in response to "does he acknowledge?"
Got any proof you are not making this up? If he really talks back,
what's the old dude doing lately?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
