Re: Pathetically Simple Photoshop Question . . .

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 10:54 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:50 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Where is one supposed to put the ready-made "actions" (*.atn) files one 
can find from various third-party sources in order to make them 
available in the program?
On Mac OSX, with Photoshop 7, they reside in the photoshop app 
folder\Presets\Photoshop Actions\.
Thanks.  Of course, I'm using WinXP, and I can't find any folder which 
looks anything like that.  Plug-ins go in a folder named "Plugins", so in 
my naivete I would expect there to be a folder named "Actions" or 
something similar, but, no . . .
Have you tried searching the drive for *.atn files,

Second thing I tried.  (First one being looking for a folder whose name 
suggested that it was the proper place, as I already mentioned.  Third one 
being looking under "actions" in the apparently-misnamed "help" file and 
reading the "read me" files on the installation disc, all of which told me 
plenty about what actions are used for and how to record one of my own, but 
nothing I could find about where they should be located so the program can 
find them.  The fourth thing I tried was asking the list . . . )


or are they *all* missing?

Interestingly, when I start Photoshop, there are several items listed on 
the "Actions" tab, presumably installed as part of the default 
installation.  But no *.atn files show up anywhere either in the 
"Photoshop" folder or any of its subfolders or indeed on the whole drive.


-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
If you don't mind, were you BIC and reared in the Church
Heh! No, Born Free.
or did you join later, and if so, at about what age?
At about 12. Unfortunately for the church's membership rolls, my mental 
development managed to proceed past that age, so the just-so stories 
that satisfied my mind at that time eventually stopped working on me.

Well, that plus the church's attitude toward nonheterosexuals, which is 
intolerable, and its behavior toward divorced mothers, which is 
detestable, was sufficient to show me what a passle of intellectually 
and philosophically inbred louts I'd fallen foul of.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Vectrix Electric Scooter

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

http://www.vectrixusa.com/index3.html
I think I want one of these.
Naah.

I've got the '03. Indispensable. Worked in metro WI, works in rural
AZ.
;)
Where do you plug it in and where are the batteries?
Why, you plug it in under your backside, and the batteries are the 
calories you consume in your daily diet, of course... :D

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Pathetically Simple Photoshop Question . . .

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:39 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:50 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Where is one supposed to put the ready-made "actions" (*.atn) files 
one can find from various third-party sources in order to make them 
available in the program?
On Mac OSX, with Photoshop 7, they reside in the photoshop app 
folder\Presets\Photoshop Actions\.
Thanks.  Of course, I'm using WinXP, and I can't find any folder which 
looks anything like that.  Plug-ins go in a folder named "Plugins", so 
in my naivete I would expect there to be a folder named "Actions" or 
something similar, but, no . . .
Have you tried searching the drive for *.atn files, or are they *all* 
missing?

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Ronn!Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis


> At 08:47 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
>>On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>>
>>>At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:

>But for damn sure
>they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except 
>through
>me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.

Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)
>>>
>>>And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;)
>>
>>Strictly speaking he did. TTBOMK I'm still on the church's 
>>membership roster,
>
>
>
> Most likely, unless you have requested name removal.
>
>
>
>>despite being inactive for 18 years.
>
>
>
> If you don't mind, were you BIC and reared in the Church or did you 
> join later, and if so, at about what age?
>
>

Sheeesh!
I see a spate of Mormanupmanship coming on.


xponent
Catholicupman Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Vectrix Electric Scooter

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Warren Ockrassa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:04 PM
Subject: Re: Vectrix Electric Scooter


> On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:04 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
>
>> http://www.vectrixusa.com/index3.html
>>
>> I think I want one of these.
>
> Naah.
>
> 
>
> I've got the '03. Indispensable. Worked in metro WI, works in rural 
> AZ.
>
> ;)

Where do you plug it in and where are the batteries?


xponent
Electric Freedom Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Pathetically Simple Photoshop Question . . .

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:50 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Where is one supposed to put the ready-made "actions" (*.atn) files one 
can find from various third-party sources in order to make them available 
in the program?
On Mac OSX, with Photoshop 7, they reside in the photoshop app 
folder\Presets\Photoshop Actions\.

Thanks.  Of course, I'm using WinXP, and I can't find any folder which 
looks anything like that.  Plug-ins go in a folder named "Plugins", so in 
my naivete I would expect there to be a folder named "Actions" or something 
similar, but, no . . .

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 08:47 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)
And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;)
Strictly speaking he did. TTBOMK I'm still on the church's membership roster,

Most likely, unless you have requested name removal.

despite being inactive for 18 years.

If you don't mind, were you BIC and reared in the Church or did you join 
later, and if so, at about what age?

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:26 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Oh, Bob.  Bob, Bob, Bob.  I had the answer!
In your opinion you did...
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Julia Thompson]

Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:20:34 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote
Okay, I'm watching and the final category is Invented Words.  I'm 
guessing, given that somebody mentioned "poem," that it's about 
Jabberwocky.  How can Bob lose?

Except that I got the impression from my mother that he's not about 
to win.

Oh, Bob.  Bob, Bob, Bob.  I had the answer!
So did I.  So did the other 2 contestants.
At least I wasn't in the same sort of situation I was a few weeks ago, 
in one of the non-Final rounds, yelling, "Drown!  Drown!  Drown! 
Drown!" at the TV as none of the contestants were confident enough to 
ring in with the answer

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:15:27 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
> 
> > He's my cousin.
> 
> Not your uncle?

We're not Australia.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:20:34 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote
> Okay, I'm watching and the final category is Invented Words.  I'm 
> guessing, given that somebody mentioned "poem," that it's about 
> Jabberwocky.  How can Bob lose?
> 
> Except that I got the impression from my mother that he's not about 
> to win.

Oh, Bob.  Bob, Bob, Bob.  I had the answer!

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Nick Arnett]

Okay, I'm watching and the final category is Invented Words.  I'm guessing, 
given that somebody mentioned "poem," that it's about Jabberwocky.  How can 
Bob lose?

Except that I got the impression from my mother that he's not about to win.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
He's my cousin.
Not your uncle?
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:02:41 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote
> At 07:23 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
> >On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:31:48 -0230, Travis Edmunds wrote
> >
> > > He's put on a good show, twofold; i.e. he's smart & funny as you
> > > said. And yes, set the VCR, if only for the halibut.
> >
> >It's on at 7, it seems, so I'll watch live.
> >
> >Mom just called to also remind me.
> 
> Okay, I'm guessing from the cluesin this thread that "Bob" is 
> someone who some of you know personally who was on "Jeopardy" 
> tonight.  I heard the last bit of the program while I was in the 
> kitchen feeding the master of the house (feline species).  Was "Bob" 
> the guy who in response to the "Final Jeopardy" question quoted most 
> of the entire poem?  (Spoiler-type phrasing there.)

Hey!  Don't give it away -- I'm about to watch.

He's my cousin.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Vectrix Electric Scooter

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 6:04 PM, Robert G. Seeberger wrote:
http://www.vectrixusa.com/index3.html
I think I want one of these.
Naah.

I've got the '03. Indispensable. Worked in metro WI, works in rural AZ.
;)
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 5:01 PM, Travis Edmunds wrote:
"I Think I'm Sentient"
My first instinct, while usually right
when acted upon, is usually wrong.
Huh. That's rather good, you know.
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Pathetically Simple Photoshop Question . . .

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 4:09 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Where is one supposed to put the ready-made "actions" (*.atn) files 
one can find from various third-party sources in order to make them 
available in the program?
On Mac OSX, with Photoshop 7, they reside in the photoshop app 
folder\Presets\Photoshop Actions\.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)

And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;)
Strictly speaking he did. TTBOMK I'm still on the church's membership 
roster, despite being inactive for 18 years.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Vectrix Electric Scooter

[Robert G. Seeberger]

http://www.vectrixusa.com/index3.html


I think I want one of these.


xponent
Quiet Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:23 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:31:48 -0230, Travis Edmunds wrote
> He's put on a good show, twofold; i.e. he's smart & funny as you
> said. And yes, set the VCR, if only for the halibut.
It's on at 7, it seems, so I'll watch live.
Mom just called to also remind me.

Okay, I'm guessing from the cluesin this thread that "Bob" is someone who 
some of you know personally who was on "Jeopardy" tonight.  I heard the 
last bit of the program while I was in the kitchen feeding the master of 
the house (feline species).  Was "Bob" the guy who in response to the 
"Final Jeopardy" question quoted most of the entire poem?  (Spoiler-type 
phrasing there.)

-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

RE: Radical National Rifle Assoc.

[Jim Sharkey]

Gary Nunn wrote:
>I have always been a supporter of personal firearms, as well as the
>*reasonable* regulation of guns (no, I don't have a definition of
>reasonable), but guys making comments like the ones Ted Nugent made 
>(see below) make all gun owners look like dangerous, radical 
>fundamentalists.

Anyone taking his political stances from the guy who wrote "Wango Tango" 
probably should be on some sort of medication.  :)

At least Noog is consistent, though.  He *really* believes what he's spouting 
there, you know.

Jim

___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Dave Land]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:27 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Here's something else, then. What if there were Iraqis praying for
an outcome that could only have been possible if Wes didn't survive?
Or anybody!  I suspect there were prayers for various people to be
elected POTUS last fall.  I stopped myself from doing that and decided
to pray to accept whatever outcome happened.
That's it. That's it right there, I think. That's probably the key.
Rather than petitioning a deity for an *outcome*, it might be much more
sensible to petition that deity for acceptance of circumstances.
When praying like that, it doesn't even matter if there's anyone on the
other end of the line. The practice of seeking to accept reality, rather
than dropping prayer coins into some cosmic vending machine, will help.
That said, one prayer that the Judeo-Christian scripture highly honors
is the prayer for wisdom, and seeking acceptance of circumstances seems
to me a most wise prayer.
Solomon is highly praised by God when he prays for wisdom and knowledge,
as told in 2 Chronicles 1 ("[10] Give me now wisdom and knowledge, so
that I may go out and come in before this people: for who is able to be
the judge of this great people of yours? [11] And God said to Solomon,
Because this was in your heart, and you did not make request for money,
property, or honour, or for the destruction of your haters, or for long
life; but you have made request for wisdom and knowledge for yourself,
so that you may be the judge of my people over whom I have made you
king:  Wisdom and knowledge are given to you; and I will give you wealth
and honour, such as no king has had before you or ever will have after
you.").]
Similarly, James 1:5 reads "But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask
of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be
given to him."
On the other hand, I certainly find compassion for those who lose 
faith
after a terrible thing that God seems to have been able to prevent.  I
know a mother whose son was killed on very his first mission in Iraq, 
in
one of those against-all-odds accident.  She says she can't get over 
the
fact that it was such an unlikely event (the accident) and lost faith 
in
God.
Depends on what/why, etc., I think -- I mean, if one is simply angry at
one's god and saying "Stuff it" because of that, it seems a little like
a small child pouting and saying "I hate you" because Mommy won't let
him have a candy bar.
Rather than turn from a faith it seems to me that a more sensible
approach would be to interrogate the faith and especially what one's
expectations are of that faith.
When Nick first told me the story of the mother who lost her son in that
against-all-odds accident, I have to admit that my first instinct was to
wonder whether the faith she lost was such a loss, or whether she was
better off no longer insisting that God spare her son.
I feel as though I have some standing in making such a statement, having
lost my own son ten years ago to a rare brain cancer. We got lots and
lots of advice on how to pray for Kevin, a lot of it of the "vending
machine" variety ("Just ask God and you'll get what you want!"). Some of
it was of that troublesome sort that suggests that if Kevin died, it
would be in part because we failed to pray in the spirit that some find
behind the words of James 1:6 ("But let him ask in faith, without any
doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, driven by the
wind and tossed.").
When we were sane (which was *not* the whole time Kevin was ill by any
stretch of the imagination) we prayed for strength to weather whatever
would befall us and our son.
*That* prayer was answered in spades.
"Why did this or that god let this or that thing happen" suddenly
becomes a question that doesn't need to exist any longer...
For some Christians, that question doesn't mean much, either. A God we
can predict reliably is too small a God.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:31:48 -0230, Travis Edmunds wrote

> He's put on a good show, twofold; i.e. he's smart & funny as you 
> said. And yes, set the VCR, if only for the halibut.

It's on at 7, it seems, so I'll watch live.

Mom just called to also remind me.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Is Supernatural Real?

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: Re: Is Supernatural Real?
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 00:18:36 -0700
On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:23 PM, Alan Ackley wrote:
When my inner tension was finally relaxed, after years of training, 
suddenly I had a deeper understanding of religious literature, and was 
also able to see more meaning in my dreams, which prior to this had eluded 
me.  I was then able to make sense of the flow of the Tao, as described in 
Taoist writings, and could see that this was the same as the Holy Spirit 
as described in Christianity.  What Usheiba Sensei (the founder of Aikido) 
called “the ki of the universe”, is apparently this same thing; The Tao, 
The Holy Spirit, the ki, (or in Chinese, “chi”).  The language creation 
speaks to us in synchronistic external events, is the same language as 
dreams.
This is also what Buddhists might describe as the union of mindfulness and 
awareness -- the pure focus of mind on one point, but with a broad 
awareness of everything else that falls into one's sphere of consciousness. 
It's a delicate balance and. the moment you're aware you have it, it goes 
away. Sigh.

I got similar states in my own martial arts training (Shotokan and Tae Kwon 
Do), particularly in kata/form practice. But I got the same kind of states 
in programming a deep algorithm or writing some intense graf of prose. It's 
an available event in many pursuits that, when it happens, feels almost 
magical in its intensity of focus, its broadness of accessibility, and most 
especially its ephemeral nature.
Mushin.
Sorry, I'm just going through what I haven't already.
-Travis
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: Re: Bob's...
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:37:21 -0700
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:04:52 -0230, Travis Edmunds wrote
> He's a good bit of fun, I must say. Borders on annoying though
> (sorry Nick!). But I really can't say much seeing as how most people
> complain about my darling, Ken Jennings.
He has annoying genes, I'm sure.
I was wondering if you were talking about *that* Bob, but figured that was
just my ego sneaking in.
Some time ago I posted some thoughts that I've since turned into a poem of 
sorts:

"I Think I'm Sentient"
My first instinct, while usually right
when acted upon, is usually wrong.
I have a great imagination, right?

Perhaps you can relate...
What's he done now?  I don't expect to be home tonight at 7:30... should I 
set
the VCR?
He's put on a good show, twofold; i.e. he's smart & funny as you said. And 
yes, set the VCR, if only for the halibut.

-Twavis "," Edmunds
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Julia Thompson]

Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:04:52 -0230, Travis Edmunds wrote

He's a good bit of fun, I must say. Borders on annoying though 
(sorry Nick!). But I really can't say much seeing as how most people 
complain about my darling, Ken Jennings.

He has annoying genes, I'm sure.
I was wondering if you were talking about *that* Bob, but figured that was 
just my ego sneaking in.

What's he done now?  I don't expect to be home tonight at 7:30... should I set 
the VCR?
Yes, do.  I wasn't going to be able to see the beginning, so I had Dan 
record it.  I caught the last half or so, and what I caught is worth 
taping and watching at least once.  :)

Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Travis Edmunds]

From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Subject: Re: Bob's...
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:45:00 -0500
- Original Message -
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Bob's...
>
>>From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
>>To: Killer Bs Discussion 
>>Subject: Re: Bob's...
>>Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:10:47 -0500
>>
>>At 05:46 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote:
>>>
>>> > ...quite the character.
>>> >
>>> > -Travis "teatime" Edmunds
>>>
>>>He sure is.  I was rooting for him to win on future entertainment
>>>value
>>>alone.
>>
>>
>>Am I the only one who is saying
>>
>>???
>
> Stuff it Ronn!ald! It's my turn to be esoteric; which oddly enough
> is esoteric in and of itself unless one is familiar with the exact
> post of mine that I'm referencing...
>
> Anyway, I'm only joking. You know, the whole "stuff it" bit?
>
> -Travis "Bobbing for figurative apples on Jeopardy!" Edmunds
"Uncle Bob is on Jeopardy, baby!"
xponent
As Sung By Greg Kihn Maru
rob
Kihn he sing good or what?
-Twavis
_
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Bob's...


>
>>From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
>>To: Killer Bs Discussion 
>>Subject: Re: Bob's...
>>Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:10:47 -0500
>>
>>At 05:46 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote:
>>>
>>> > ...quite the character.
>>> >
>>> > -Travis "teatime" Edmunds
>>>
>>>He sure is.  I was rooting for him to win on future entertainment 
>>>value
>>>alone.
>>
>>
>>Am I the only one who is saying
>>
>>???
>
> Stuff it Ronn!ald! It's my turn to be esoteric; which oddly enough 
> is esoteric in and of itself unless one is familiar with the exact 
> post of mine that I'm referencing...
>
> Anyway, I'm only joking. You know, the whole "stuff it" bit?
>
> -Travis "Bobbing for figurative apples on Jeopardy!" Edmunds

"Uncle Bob is on Jeopardy, baby!"

xponent
As Sung By Greg Kihn Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:04:52 -0230, Travis Edmunds wrote

> He's a good bit of fun, I must say. Borders on annoying though 
> (sorry Nick!). But I really can't say much seeing as how most people 
> complain about my darling, Ken Jennings.

He has annoying genes, I'm sure.

I was wondering if you were talking about *that* Bob, but figured that was 
just my ego sneaking in.

What's he done now?  I don't expect to be home tonight at 7:30... should I set 
the VCR?

Oh, and he spent a few years of his life as a professional stand-up comic on 
college campuses, so I would hope he manages to be fun, if not funny.  He's 
scary smart.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: Re: Bob's...
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:46:38 -0500 (CDT)

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote:
> ...quite the character.
>
> -Travis "teatime" Edmunds
He sure is.  I was rooting for him to win on future entertainment value
alone.
He's a good bit of fun, I must say. Borders on annoying though (sorry 
Nick!). But I really can't say much seeing as how most people complain about 
my darling, Ken Jennings.

-Travis
_
Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has 
to offer. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:27:48 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote

> What if the sofa responds to prayers in exactly the same way as holy 
> doctrines' deities? Allah, JHVH, Iasus, the Hindu manifestations...

Doesn't matter... you won't be able to prove it.  ;-)

> That is, assuming a deity, its heart must be open to any heart open 
> to it. Else it's not a deity, in my mind. That means rituals, names, 
> even languages are all superseded by the value contained in the 
> *being* doing the reaching or attempting the communication.

Perhaps that's why a surrendering of self, with all of the language and other 
stuff, tends to be common to religions of all sorts.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Travis Edmunds]

From: Ronn!Blankenship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion 
To: Killer Bs Discussion 
Subject: Re: Bob's...
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:10:47 -0500
At 05:46 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote:
> ...quite the character.
>
> -Travis "teatime" Edmunds
He sure is.  I was rooting for him to win on future entertainment value
alone.

Am I the only one who is saying
???
Stuff it Ronn!ald! It's my turn to be esoteric; which oddly enough is 
esoteric in and of itself unless one is familiar with the exact post of mine 
that I'm referencing...

Anyway, I'm only joking. You know, the whole "stuff it" bit?
-Travis "Bobbing for figurative apples on Jeopardy!" Edmunds
_
Scan and help eliminate destructive viruses from your inbound and outbound 
e-mail and attachments. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:18:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> Note that Dan
> and I, for example, despite different positions on the
> war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war
> has costs.  What's striking is the asymmetry here
> because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as
> well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very
> far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact.

Good grief, Gautam. 

I've held the remaining hand of a double amputee from Iraq and could hardly 
speak as we looked into each other's eyes and I told him about Wes.  I've 
visited our returning soldiers in VA hospitals.  I've planted a few hundred 
crosses in the ground at an Iraq memorial.  I've thanked and hugged more 
Marines in the last few months than I can count.  I've seen my 21-year-old 
niece bury her husband of 13 months.  A half-dozen relatives of dead soldiers 
and I share a kind of friendship for which I don't even have words. 

My father is mostly deaf from his time in the belly turret of a light attack 
bomber in WWII.  I have had people die in my hands from violence.  I've made 
the kind of triage decisions that cannot be left behind.  I've spent time in 
dialog with people tortured and targeted by Central American death squads.  
I've traveled to squatter's settlements and remote Third World villages to 
learn from the poor, surrounded by children going blind and dying from 
malnutrition.  Please spare me the arguments that I'm thinking magically and 
don't know the costs of action, inaction or anything in between.  

I choose to have hope for better ways of dealing with conflict *despite* the 
fact that my experiences scream at me to run and hide in cynicism or self-
righteousness.

It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who lost a family member in 
Iraq is failing to acknowledge that our decisions about war come with costs.   
It's a hell of a thing to suggest that anybody who's been a first responder 
fails to acknowledge the cost of violence.  I'm feeling pretty stinking angry 
right now and I'm extremely tempted to dump a truckload of 
"whatthehelldoyouknow" on you...  but I know that you *do* know a great deal 
about the costs and benefits of political decisions.

I acknowledge your education and contacts, so about how giving me the benefit 
of the doubt about my knowledge and experiences.  Please, spare me the 
suggestion that I don't know or acknowledge that there are costs of going to 
war or not going to war.  I know far more than I have words to describe.

Peace!

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 05:46 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote:
> ...quite the character.
>
> -Travis "teatime" Edmunds
He sure is.  I was rooting for him to win on future entertainment value
alone.

Am I the only one who is saying
???
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Pathetically Simple Photoshop Question . . .

[Ronn!Blankenship]

... which I can't seem to find the answer to in any of the "help" files or 
anything else I can find.

I'm in the process of trying to reinstall stuff that was lost during the 
computer problems I had around the turn of the year, and I just reinstalled 
Photoshop (for the third time, actually, but that's another story), and 
here's the question:  Where is one supposed to put the ready-made "actions" 
(*.atn) files one can find from various third-party sources in order to 
make them available in the program?  (It must be obvious that I never tried 
to use such files before . . . )

Anyone know?
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bob's...

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005, Travis Edmunds wrote:

> ...quite the character.
> 
> -Travis "teatime" Edmunds

He sure is.  I was rooting for him to win on future entertainment value 
alone.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Bob's...

[Travis Edmunds]

...quite the character.
-Travis "teatime" Edmunds
_
MSN® Calendar keeps you organized and takes the effort out of scheduling 
get-togethers. 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines 
 Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the 
first two months FREE*.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Robert Seeberger]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3


> On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
>> Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that seems to have best
>> expressed his intentions, says it best - "With malice towards none, 
>> with
>> charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God gives us to see 
>> the
>> right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are in..."
>>
>> With firmness in the right.
>
> "... as God gives us to see the right."
>
> This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of the problem.
>
> Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so far, that our
> certainties are only so certain.
>
>> Lincoln contained multitudes, but none of those multitudes can 
>> plausibly
>> be enlisted in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the 
>> face
>> of great evil.
>
> And this is a result of that failure: the oversimplification of 
> complex
> issues. Who, is it -- citations, please -- is arguing that we should 
> sit
> on our hands in the face of great evil?
>
> While I've certainly heard you, Gautam, and others making the claim 
> that
> Nick has made that argument, I haven't seen him or anyone else argue 
> that
> inaction was the solution.
>
> I see a pattern here:
>
> Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice and/or pretense.
>
> Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.
>
> Isn't the world more complex than this?
>
It is.
And some of those who warned us about binary thinking on this list in 
years past are practicing it today.

xponent
Continuum Maru
rob 


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:23 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
>
> > But for damn sure
> > they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
> > me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
>
> Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)
>
>
> --
> Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
Strangely, it has never come up.
But if you are referring to

I dunno if he was, but I was not in the post where I quoted some scriptures 
pertaining to infant baptism.


that silly practice of baptizing one's ancestors,

It does make one wonder a bit if it's worth it when they're so stiff that 
it is hard to get them under the water . . .


 then you are correct indeed to smile.

I for one am lol . . . :-D
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)

And apparently you did not wait for him to hear from one . . . ;)
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 02:56 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:13:49 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
> IOW, it's all about faith. ;) The above is a much "better" answer
> than many might have given.
"Thank you."
> Here's something else, then. What if there were Iraqis praying for
> an outcome that could only have been possible if Wes didn't survive?
Or anybody!  I suspect there were prayers for various people to be elected
POTUS last fall.  I stopped myself from doing that and decided to pray to
accept whatever outcome happened.

My prayers last fall — and prior to every election — went along the lines 
of "Help us [the voters] to make the best choices and elect the best 
persons, in accordance with Thy will."  I have received different reactions 
to that when I've told it to others:  some are of the opinion that prayers 
don't count if you don't pray for something specific, others agree with me 
that that is the proper thing to pray for.


To the extent that I succeed at letting go
of my attachments to outcomes, I think I'm a better person.
On the other hand, I certainly find compassion for those who lose faith after
a terrible thing that God seems to have been able to prevent.  I know a 
mother
whose son was killed on very his first mission in Iraq, in one of those
against-all-odds accident.  She says she can't get over the fact that it was
such an unlikely event (the accident) and lost faith in God.

> Ostensibly anyone who prays (except possibly a Satanist) is praying
> to fundamentally the same deity as everyone else. Does that
> statement make sense to you, or are you of the persuasion that some
> religions have the right god and others don't?
That is a difficult question that I avoid as much as possible... ;-)  But I'm
serious, as it strikes me as a how-many-angels-can-dance sort of thing.  It's
not really any of my business, I tend to believe.  If your higher power is 
the
sofa, go for it, I say.  See how it works for you.

> IOW is it the heart that is heard, or is it the clacking of
> beads/burning of incense/intoning of litany that reaches the deity's
> notice?
To me, that's a different question.  The first thing that comes to mind is
that I hope (and pray!) that what is heard is God's will, by me.  Even at
church, when we talk about prayer, many of us tend to forget that it is a
conversation, not a monologue.  My religion teaches that God helps us find 
the
words to pray and even answers the unspoken prayers and those for which we
have no words.  As for me, if I can keep it simple, pray to God instead of
Santa Claus, and take the time to shut up and listen, I'm doing well.

> It's clear in scripture, but it could be argued that scripture is
> interested more in solidifying a body politic than it is in
> disseminating objective truth.
That word "objective" seems odd there.  And yes, it could be argued.
> Thus when a people's prayers are
> answered it's because their god is on their side; when the prayers
> aren't answered it's because (1) they're astray; or (2) their deity
> is testing/tempering/delaying/whatevering them.
Yes, well, it is easy to confuse God with Santa Claus.  Santa-ists seem more
dangerous than Satanists.  (Ho, ho, ho.)  I don't mean Christmas, I mean the
attitude that we get what we want if we're good.  I think God is a better
parent than that.
> > I didn't say that God was in charge of all things, only involved.
>
> I thought you wrote that the universe would grind to a halt without
> a deity. That seems a lot more than involved to me. That reminds me
> of a god that is (for instance) constantly supplying propulsive
> force to keep the planets in motion.
I have to have gasoline for my car to go, but that doesn't mean the gasoline
is in charge.  Not a great metaphor, as gasoline is unintelligent, but 
perhaps
that explains what I'm saying?

> No, of course not -- but to they who do self-start, help is not
> denied, correct?
I sure hope not, as I'm a bit of a serial entrepreneur.  I don't know what 
the
relationship between being a self-starter and God is, really.  Perhaps a 
story
will help.  There is a controversy in Christianity about the extent of grace,
between so-called "decision" theology and whatever it is we Lutherans 
believe,
which I'm now tempted to "indecision" theology, but that is just what "they"
want!  Excuse me, got off track.  We believe in grace alone, not indecision.

The story is that there's a guy drowning.  God throws him a life jacket.
Decision theology says the guy has to choose, on his own, to grab the life
jacket.  We "grace alone" types insist that the power to make the decision 
and
the act of grabbing the life jacket are from God also.  Another, similar
story.  A fellow is in the hospital, dying from something.  A doctor (God)
comes along with medicine that will save his life and dangles it before the
patient.  Decision theology says the man has to choose to take the medicine;
his fate is in his own hands.  Grace alone says that when he reac

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 03:44 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote:
>
> > -human life begins at conception
>
> What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry
> spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't
> even realize she's pregnant at all?
>
> Were those 50% of conceptions not human lives? Or do those unbaptized
> souls go right to hell?

No- they go to Limbo!
Or possibly they hang out with Aristotle and and the rest of the good
pagans in the first circle of Hell. At least they'll get a better
education than they probably would've on earth.  But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.

That's incorrect.  That's one of the "plain and precious" parts of the 
Gospel which was lost and had to be restored in modern times:

"And even if it were possible that little children could sin they could not 
be saved; but I say unto you they are blessed; for behold, as in Adam, or 
by nature, they fall, even so the blood of Christ atoneth for their 
sins."  (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 3:16)

"And these are those who have part in the first resurrection; and these are 
they that have died before Christ came, in their ignorance, not having 
salvation declared unto them.  And thus the Lord bringeth about the 
restoration of these; and they have a part in the first resurrection, or 
have eternal life, being redeemed by the Lord.  And little children also 
have eternal life."  (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 15:24 - 25)

"And now, my son, I speak unto you concerning that which grieveth me 
exceedingly; for it grieveth me that there should disputations rise among 
you.  For, if I have learned the truth, there have been disputations among 
you concerning the baptism of your little children.  And now, my son, I 
desire that ye should labor diligently, that this gross error should be 
removed from among you; for, for this intent I have written this 
epistle.  For immediately after I had learned these things of you I 
inquired of the Lord concerning the matter.  And the word of the Lord came 
to me by the power of the Holy Ghost, saying:  Listen to the words of 
Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God.  Behold, I came into the 
world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need 
no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, 
for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is 
taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of 
circumcision is done away in me.  And after this manner did the Holy Ghost 
manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it 
is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little 
children.  Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach—repentance 
and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; 
yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble 
themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their 
little children.  And their little children need no repentance, neither 
baptism.  Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the 
commandments unto the remission of sins.  But little children are alive in 
Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial 
God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many 
little children have died without baptism!  Wherefore, if little children 
could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless 
hell.  Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children 
need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for 
he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off 
while in the thought, he must go down to hell.  For awful is the wickedness 
to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must 
perish because he hath no baptism.  Wo be unto them that shall pervert the 
ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they 
repent.  Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I 
fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.  And I am 
filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are 
alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and 
they are all alike and partakers of salvation.  For I know that God is not 
a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all 
eternity to all eternity.  Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is 
awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are 
all alive in him because of his mercy.  And he that saith that little 
children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught 
the atonement of him and the powe

Re: Peaceful change

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:13:49 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
IOW, it's all about faith. ;) The above is a much "better" answer
than many might have given.
"Thank you."
Well, it was especially the part where you said nothing was provable. 
That's pretty damn refreshing coming from a believer.

Here's something else, then. What if there were Iraqis praying for
an outcome that could only have been possible if Wes didn't survive?
Or anybody!  I suspect there were prayers for various people to be 
elected
POTUS last fall.  I stopped myself from doing that and decided to pray 
to
accept whatever outcome happened.
That's it. That's it right there, I think. That's probably the key. 
Rather than petitioning a deity for an *outcome*, it might be much more 
sensible to petition that deity for acceptance of circumstances.

On the other hand, I certainly find compassion for those who lose 
faith after
a terrible thing that God seems to have been able to prevent.  I know 
a mother
whose son was killed on very his first mission in Iraq, in one of those
against-all-odds accident.  She says she can't get over the fact that 
it was
such an unlikely event (the accident) and lost faith in God.
Depends on what/why, etc., I think -- I mean, if one is simply angry at 
one's god and saying "Stuff it" because of that, it seems a little like 
a small child pouting and saying "I hate you" because Mommy won't let 
him have a candy bar.

Rather than turn from a faith it seems to me that a more sensible 
approach would be to interrogate the faith and especially what one's 
expectations are of that faith.

For me that was the first step toward complete atheism, but it was one 
that I took about 15 years before the "final" destination was reached. 
(Where I'll be in another 15 years is anyone's guess.) My own 
investigations led me to a conclusion that made sense to me, a lot of 
sense, but I realize that not everyone -- not even a huge minority -- 
agree.

Heh, unlike Iraq it seems I can find some reason for faith, belief and 
even religion -- I mean I recognize the value and comfort it gives to 
millions. But there are places where struggles to understand something 
in the context of faith are, to me at least, so simply answered. 
Because by removing the idea of deity from the equation, there's 
suddenly no anomaly left to ponder.

"Why did this or that god let this or that thing happen" suddenly 
becomes a question that doesn't need to exist any longer...

Ostensibly anyone who prays (except possibly a Satanist) is praying
to fundamentally the same deity as everyone else. Does that
statement make sense to you, or are you of the persuasion that some
religions have the right god and others don't?
That is a difficult question that I avoid as much as possible... ;-)
It's another one that was a step on my personal journey to atheism, as 
it happens, so maybe that's a good thing.

But I'm
serious, as it strikes me as a how-many-angels-can-dance sort of 
thing.  It's
not really any of my business, I tend to believe.  If your higher 
power is the
sofa, go for it, I say.  See how it works for you.
What if the sofa responds to prayers in exactly the same way as holy 
doctrines' deities? Allah, JHVH, Iasus, the Hindu manifestations...

IOW is it the heart that is heard, or is it the clacking of
beads/burning of incense/intoning of litany that reaches the deity's
notice?
To me, that's a different question.  The first thing that comes to 
mind is
that I hope (and pray!) that what is heard is God's will, by me.  Even 
at
church, when we talk about prayer, many of us tend to forget that it 
is a
conversation, not a monologue.  My religion teaches that God helps us 
find the
words to pray and even answers the unspoken prayers and those for 
which we
have no words.  As for me, if I can keep it simple, pray to God 
instead of
Santa Claus, and take the time to shut up and listen, I'm doing well.
OK, but there are other religions that would approach this from a very 
different perspective. I think you basically answered the question, and 
I do think it's related to "which" god is being addressed in the 
prayers of any believers, regardless of the rituals associated 
therewith.

That is, back when I did believe in such a thing, I came to a point 
where I could not resolve the claims that some made -- that only this 
particular book and this particular god were true; or that unless you 
used a specific name (i.e., "Yeshua") your prayers went unheard. That's 
-- to me -- one of the silliest notions imaginable.

That is, assuming a deity, its heart must be open to any heart open to 
it. Else it's not a deity, in my mind. That means rituals, names, even 
languages are all superseded by the value contained in the *being* 
doing the reaching or attempting the communication.

Not a monologue -- right. That does seem forgotten a lot. Cursory 
"thanks for..." sentences, and then five pages' worth of "and please do 
thi

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
> 
> > But for damn sure
> > they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
> > me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
> 
> Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)
> 
> 
> --
> Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books

Strangely, it has never come up.
But if you are referring to that silly practice of baptizing one's
ancestors, then you are correct indeed to smile.

~Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote:
> 
> > -human life begins at conception
> 
> What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry
> spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't
> even realize she's pregnant at all?
> 
> Were those 50% of conceptions not human lives? Or do those unbaptized
> souls go right to hell? 


No- they go to Limbo!
Or possibly they hang out with Aristotle and and the rest of the good
pagans in the first circle of Hell. At least they'll get a better
education than they probably would've on earth.  But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'?  They certainly could never have received the Gospel.

~Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Maru Dubshinki]

On 4/18/05, Gary Denton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/13/05, John DeBudge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > China really is greatly increasing its demand for foreign oil, thus
> > becoming a major factor in global demand, which in turn is starting to
> > outpace production, thus resulting in a price increase.
> >
> > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html
> >
> > "China was the world's second largest consumer of petroleum products
> > in 2003, surpassing Japan for the first time, with total demand of
> > 5.56 million barrels per day (bbl/d). China's oil demand is projected
> > by EIA to reach 12.8 million bbl/d by 2025, with net imports of 9.4
> > million bbl/d. As the source of around 40% of world oil demand growth
> > over the past four years, Chinese oil demand already is a very
> > significant factor in world oil markets."
> >
> > General instability in the middle east could definitely contribute to
> > a rise in prices, but only a permanent increase in demand, or a
> > permanent increase in production, will lead to a long term price
> > change.
> >
> > The higher the price of oil gets, the more pressure will be placed on
> > increasing production.
> >
> > Venezuela has a much greater impact on local US fuel prices however,
> > as it is the top supplier of oil to the US. The strike, and general
> > political instability in 2002 and 2003 resulted in a huge decrease in
> > oil exports, and even now the levels have not fully returned to their
> > pre-strike levels. Furthermore the future growth of production in that
> > country is at risk because of the political situation, thus limiting
> > investment that would lead to future expansion.
> >
> > http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/venez.html
> >
> > Just thought I would add some more details to the discussion.
> >
> > John
> Ven. reached peak oil production several years ago and will not be
> able to increase production.   Right now, it is facing the wrath of
> the GOP as it increased the royalty rates from the oil companies,
> slammed a halt on privatization of public utilites and began policies
> to raise the living standards of the majority of the people.
> 
> --
> Gary Denton

'is facing'?  Ven. (and more specifically Chavez) has been facing
their wrath for a while now.  Or have we forgotten the attempted coup
the US supported?


~Maru
How very... Cold War-ish.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> 
> > Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that
> seems to have best
> > expressed his intentions, says it best - "With
> malice towards none, 
> > with
> > charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God
> gives us to see the
> > right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are
> in..."
> >
> > With firmness in the right.
> 
> "... as God gives us to see the right."
> 
> This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of
> the problem.
> 
> Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so
> far, that our
> certainties are only so certain.

Yes, but it doesn't seem to me that that problem is
particularly represented on my side of this particular
debate.  However uncertain you are, _you still have to
make a choice_.  Choosing to do nothing is a choice
every bit as much as choosing to do something is. 
Saying I'm not sure what to do and throwing up your
hands is not a justification, it's an excuse.  

> While I've certainly heard you, Gautam, and others
> making the claim that
> Nick has made that argument, I haven't seen him or
> anyone else argue 
> that
> inaction was the solution.

He's arguing that something functionally equivalent to
inaction was the solution - a six point plan whose
only point relevant to the removal of Saddam (a
necessary condition for the other points) was moral
condmenation.  Saddam Hussein had people tortured to
death as entertainment.  Moral condemnation was not
going to achieve much.
> 
> I see a pattern here:
> 
> Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice
> and/or pretense.
> 
> Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.
> 
> Isn't the world more complex than this?
> 
> Dave

I too see a pattern here.  Use vague and inspecific
action, be called on it, and then respond by
distorting what other people are claiming.  Seems to
me we _just had_ this discussion, Dave.  Cautious
language is different from vague language.  Cautious
action is different from inaction, for that matter,
because cautious action has a chance of achieving
soemthing.  A world court indictment?  Doesn't.

"Cautious" language _that consistently refuses to
acknowledge the consequences of the position that
"cautious" language is advocating isn't cautious at
all, it's morally dishonest, camouflaging a refusal to
face consequences behind a guise of caution and haze. 
The world is more complex than this.  One of the
consequences of its complexity is that all choices
have consequences.  A primary requirement - perhaps
_the_ primary requirement - of moral decisionmaking is
an acknowledgement of the fact that the actions _you_
advocate have negative consequences, along with the
actions that your opponents advocate.  Note that Dan
and I, for example, despite different positions on the
war, have consistently acknowledged that going to war
has costs.  What's striking is the asymmetry here
because, of course, _not_ going to war has costs as
well, and the reason this discussion isn't going very
far is the failure to acknowledge that simple fact.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3


> On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> > Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that seems to have best
> > expressed his intentions, says it best - "With malice towards none,
> > with
> > charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God gives us to see the
> > right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are in..."
> >
> > With firmness in the right.
>
> "... as God gives us to see the right."
>
> This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of the problem.
>
> Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so far, that our
> certainties are only so certain.
>
> > Lincoln contained multitudes, but none of those multitudes can
> > plausibly
> > be enlisted in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the face
> > of great evil.
>
> And this is a result of that failure: the oversimplification of complex
> issues. Who, is it -- citations, please -- is arguing that we should sit
> on our hands in the face of great evil?

It's not that we should sit on our hands, exactlybut that is close to a
first order approximation when it comes to stopping Hussein within Iraq.
As of 2003 we had
1) dealt Hussein an embarassing defeat
2)  strong sanctions
3)  off and on inspections
4) no fly zones over most of Iraq
5) multiple Security Council resolutions condemning his actions.

The consensus in '91 was that this would probably be enough to get him
knocked out of power.  I thought that in '91.  But, in '03, it appears that
the consensus was wrong.  After 12 years of enduring some of the strongest
measures short of war that could be devised, there was no evidence that
Hussein's grip on Iraq had weakened.  Thus, a wide range of people
(including me) concluded that containment could limit the damage Hussein
could do outside of Iraq, but that there was minimal evidence that it was
leading to the fall of Hussein and/or the Bathists.  Therefor, it is not
reasonable to suggest that simply a different type of condemnation in
Euorpe would have much of an affect on his grip on power.


> Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice and/or pretense.
> Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.

It's not cautious language that bothers me, it is vauge language.

> Isn't the world more complex than this?

The world is complex, and one cannot solve problems in political science
the way one does in physics, but I think there are some things that can be
done.  For example, I assign a high probability to the following
statements.

"Since 12 years of containment has not weakened Hussein's grip on power,
but instead has brought condemnation to those that have been containing
him, the probability that further containment will result in Hussein's
downfall is low."

"Since the Republican Guard has kept Hussein in power through intimidation
and the force of arms, and since there is no evidence that this Guard gives
high regard to pronouncements in the Hague, such a pronouncement has a low
probability of causing his removal from power."

>From these two statements I deduced a conclusion:

"Everyone who thinks that continued containment is the best option needs to
be aware of the likelihood that there is a significant negative consequence
to this: Hussein will continue his murder and torture in Iraq during the
containment.  Tens of thousands will be killed each year and millions will
live in fear."

Now, as I think I've stated in most of my posts in this thread, "Everyone
who thinks that continued containment is the best option" includes me.  I
said before the war that containment was the preferred option, and I have
not changed my mind on that in over two years.  But, I consider it a matter
of intellectual honesty to critically review the negative aspects of _my
own_ choice as well as choices I differ with.

In short, I think it is reasonable for me to ask others who were opposed to
invading to  either show how an option like the 6-point plan has a
reasonable chance of overthrowing Hussein or join me in acknowledging that
what we advocate, as well as what we reject, has significant negative
consequences.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 12:13:49 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote

> IOW, it's all about faith. ;) The above is a much "better" answer 
> than many might have given.

"Thank you."

> Here's something else, then. What if there were Iraqis praying for 
> an outcome that could only have been possible if Wes didn't survive?

Or anybody!  I suspect there were prayers for various people to be elected 
POTUS last fall.  I stopped myself from doing that and decided to pray to 
accept whatever outcome happened.  To the extent that I succeed at letting go 
of my attachments to outcomes, I think I'm a better person.

On the other hand, I certainly find compassion for those who lose faith after 
a terrible thing that God seems to have been able to prevent.  I know a mother 
whose son was killed on very his first mission in Iraq, in one of those 
against-all-odds accident.  She says she can't get over the fact that it was 
such an unlikely event (the accident) and lost faith in God.

> Ostensibly anyone who prays (except possibly a Satanist) is praying 
> to fundamentally the same deity as everyone else. Does that 
> statement make sense to you, or are you of the persuasion that some 
> religions have the right god and others don't?

That is a difficult question that I avoid as much as possible... ;-)  But I'm 
serious, as it strikes me as a how-many-angels-can-dance sort of thing.  It's 
not really any of my business, I tend to believe.  If your higher power is the 
sofa, go for it, I say.  See how it works for you.

> IOW is it the heart that is heard, or is it the clacking of 
> beads/burning of incense/intoning of litany that reaches the deity's 
> notice?

To me, that's a different question.  The first thing that comes to mind is 
that I hope (and pray!) that what is heard is God's will, by me.  Even at 
church, when we talk about prayer, many of us tend to forget that it is a 
conversation, not a monologue.  My religion teaches that God helps us find the 
words to pray and even answers the unspoken prayers and those for which we 
have no words.  As for me, if I can keep it simple, pray to God instead of 
Santa Claus, and take the time to shut up and listen, I'm doing well.

> It's clear in scripture, but it could be argued that scripture is 
> interested more in solidifying a body politic than it is in 
> disseminating objective truth. 

That word "objective" seems odd there.  And yes, it could be argued.

> Thus when a people's prayers are 
> answered it's because their god is on their side; when the prayers 
> aren't answered it's because (1) they're astray; or (2) their deity 
> is testing/tempering/delaying/whatevering them.

Yes, well, it is easy to confuse God with Santa Claus.  Santa-ists seem more 
dangerous than Satanists.  (Ho, ho, ho.)  I don't mean Christmas, I mean the 
attitude that we get what we want if we're good.  I think God is a better 
parent than that.

> > I didn't say that God was in charge of all things, only involved.
> 
> I thought you wrote that the universe would grind to a halt without 
> a deity. That seems a lot more than involved to me. That reminds me 
> of a god that is (for instance) constantly supplying propulsive 
> force to keep the planets in motion.

I have to have gasoline for my car to go, but that doesn't mean the gasoline 
is in charge.  Not a great metaphor, as gasoline is unintelligent, but perhaps 
that explains what I'm saying?

> No, of course not -- but to they who do self-start, help is not 
> denied, correct?

I sure hope not, as I'm a bit of a serial entrepreneur.  I don't know what the 
relationship between being a self-starter and God is, really.  Perhaps a story 
will help.  There is a controversy in Christianity about the extent of grace, 
between so-called "decision" theology and whatever it is we Lutherans believe, 
which I'm now tempted to "indecision" theology, but that is just what "they" 
want!  Excuse me, got off track.  We believe in grace alone, not indecision.  

The story is that there's a guy drowning.  God throws him a life jacket.  
Decision theology says the guy has to choose, on his own, to grab the life 
jacket.  We "grace alone" types insist that the power to make the decision and 
the act of grabbing the life jacket are from God also.  Another, similar 
story.  A fellow is in the hospital, dying from something.  A doctor (God) 
comes along with medicine that will save his life and dangles it before the 
patient.  Decision theology says the man has to choose to take the medicine; 
his fate is in his own hands.  Grace alone says that when he reaches out and 
takes it, that's God at work.

As I hope you can see, there's a bit of a difference of opinion about God's 
presence.  And we "grace alone" types are trying to be a bit more humble, 
which itself is a gift of God, if I manage it at all.  Possibly a miracle.

> I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything -- it might really be of 
> interest to you to look into the teachings of Islam if you have

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Dave Land wrote:
Warren,
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand 
and
throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is 
valid"
believers.
That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq
"unjustifiable", eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me
those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've
got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct 
in
my views.
Is it pretense to leave open the possibility that I don't know 
something completely?
Course not. However, it was *never my intention* to suggest I was 
anything less than sure of my opinions on Iraq.

Two years ago my opinion was that the case for attack had not been 
made, but I did wonder about the unconventional weapons -- after all, 
inspectors *had* been told there were some places they couldn't look. 
There was reasonable doubt but not enough, I thought, to justify an 
invasion.

Now, having seen the total lack of "smoking gun" style evidence, having 
seen how the US's status has fallen, having seen the outrageous 
expenses being foisted off on our citizens, having seen the death tolls 
on both sides, I've become certain.

Iraq is not justifiable. That is my point of view on the subject. That 
is what I think and I will not tone down my language on the topic 
because some have a hard time dealing with others who feel sure of some 
of their opinions.

I am tired of the implication that those who choose to be careful with
their language are gutless or liars or both. I heard too much of that
during the last election. I think it is the framing device that
underlies the anti-political correctness statements.
There's something to be said for undermining PC speech as well. PC 
statements can sometimes go too far, after all.

You're missing *my* frustration, what *I* am tired of, which is the 
implication that I'm either arrogant or juvenile -- or both -- for 
possessing certitude in some areas. We ALL do it. We ALL carry opinions 
of which we're certain.

I am not swamped with hubris or with "teenage boy macho" any more than 
anyone else is who's sure of anything. I just happen to hold a view 
that some don't like, and rather than address the view, they address 
the way it's expressed. That's pointless. It is not an argument. It's 
not even a rebuttal.

I'm really put off of discussing this further. At this point I'm just 
rehashing what I've said before, which suggests to me that it's just 
not getting through and there's no point in hammering the horse any 
longer.

If you (or others) want to have a discussion about whether Iraq itself 
was justifiable, that's fine; I'll be glad to join in and maybe even 
have my opinion swayed. But I'm not going to engage in discussion of 
particulars of language, certitude of opinions or implicit disclaimers 
any longer. The topic is done to death, and I am personally done with 
it.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dave Land]

On Apr 17, 2005, at 7:32 PM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Lincoln's last great speech, and the one that seems to have best
expressed his intentions, says it best - "With malice towards none, 
with
charity for all, _with firmess in the right as God gives us to see the
right_, let us strive on to finish the work we are in..."

With firmness in the right.
"... as God gives us to see the right."
This elision is telling, and is for me the crux of the problem.
Too often, we fail to remember that we only see so far, that our
certainties are only so certain.
Lincoln contained multitudes, but none of those multitudes can 
plausibly
be enlisted in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the face
of great evil.
And this is a result of that failure: the oversimplification of complex
issues. Who, is it -- citations, please -- is arguing that we should sit
on our hands in the face of great evil?
While I've certainly heard you, Gautam, and others making the claim that
Nick has made that argument, I haven't seen him or anyone else argue 
that
inaction was the solution.

I see a pattern here:
Urge cautious language and be accused of cowardice and/or pretense.
Urge cautious action and stand accused of inaction.
Isn't the world more complex than this?
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:42 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:18:57 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
That's interesting. So you're suggesting that prayer literally works
in all cases (which *does* raise some flag issues regarding your own
troubles), that there literally is a God personally involved with
and in charge of every aspect of creation and -- with the above
quoted statement -- that no matter what anyone does, God's way will
be the way that's followed?
Nope.  I do believe that prayer works, but it is a sort of work that 
is based
on faith and inherently unprovable.  Studies that "prove" it works are
nonsense, because we have no "ground truth" to compare.  We can only 
evaluate
a test if we know the answers, but unless we have the mind of God, we 
cannot
know the answers to prayer.
IOW, it's all about faith. ;) The above is a much "better" answer than 
many might have given.

I have faith that God answered our prayers for Wes' safety; his death 
wasn't
the answer I would have chosen, but it would be a very teensy, tiny 
little god
whose answers were the same as mine.
Here's something else, then. What if there were Iraqis praying for an 
outcome that could only have been possible if Wes didn't survive?

Ostensibly anyone who prays (except possibly a Satanist) is praying to 
fundamentally the same deity as everyone else. Does that statement make 
sense to you, or are you of the persuasion that some religions have the 
right god and others don't?

IOW is it the heart that is heard, or is it the clacking of 
beads/burning of incense/intoning of litany that reaches the deity's 
notice?

At the same time, it is clear in Scripture that our prayers can 
influence God; the Bible even speaks of God repenting after being 
petitioned by people.
It's clear in scripture, but it could be argued that scripture is 
interested more in solidifying a body politic than it is in 
disseminating objective truth. Thus when a people's prayers are 
answered it's because their god is on their side; when the prayers 
aren't answered it's because (1) they're astray; or (2) their deity is 
testing/tempering/delaying/whatevering them.

I didn't say that God was in charge of all things, only involved.
I thought you wrote that the universe would grind to a halt without a 
deity. That seems a lot more than involved to me. That reminds me of a 
god that is (for instance) constantly supplying propulsive force to 
keep the planets in motion.

That may well not be what you meant, but phrases such as "Without God's 
constant, total involvement, all of creation would come to a halt and 
we would cease to exist" suggest that image to me.

It seems clear to me that God allows us great freedoms, refraining 
from wielding omnipotent power.
That's certainly one interpretation, sure. ;)
(That is, if one is going to fail, one will, no matter how hard one
tries? That God won't lend any sort of hand to self-starters?
Not *because* they are self-starters.
No, of course not -- but to they who do self-start, help is not denied, 
correct?

Or do
you mean instead that it's just as useful to kneel and beg the
ceiling as it is to get out and work for change? That *can't* be
what you're suggesting. Can it?)
No, it cannot.  Nor is it a choice between the two.  I think we are 
called to
live in the world as spiritual beings, not to forget either the world 
or our
spirituality.
"In the world, not of the world" -- traveling in samsara -- 
non-attachment, OK, I can see that. It just seemed for a moment that 
you were suggesting that it was as effective to pray for orphans as it 
was to go out and adopt a few. I'd have some issues with such a 
suggestion. ;)

If the above's a valid assessment, you might want to look at the
Koran as a comparative religious exercise, because what I just
described here is very, *very* similar to what Islamic
fundamentalists believe as well.
The confusing thing about fundamentalism is that it is based on things 
that
are true.
Umm, umm, maybe.
I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything -- it might really be of 
interest to you to look into the teachings of Islam if you haven't yet. 
There are some real similarities between it and Pauline adherence. (I 
suppose all the Abrahamic religions would have that resonance, but the 
echoes really are deep and startling.)

It's also good to have an idea what exactly this "crusade" is fighting. 
Right-wing Christianity and fundamentalist Islam have much, *much* more 
in common than they have in difference.

It is not fundamentalism because the underlying facts are wrong, it
is because they are incomplete, yet the fundamentalists insists that 
they have
the whole story, there is no more to be discovered or understood.
You forgot to add "in my opinion". ;)
This I
think is true of many flavors of fundamentalists, not just the 
religious.
To the extent that a mindset is represented and a given philosophy just 
stapled to it, yeah, I can see that.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightw

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

[Dave Land]

Warren,
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and
throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is 
valid"
believers.
That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq
"unjustifiable", eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me
those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've
got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct 
in
my views.
Is it pretense to leave open the possibility that I don't know something
completely?
I am tired of the implication that those who choose to be careful with
their language are gutless or liars or both. I heard too much of that
during the last election. I think it is the framing device that
underlies the anti-political correctness statements.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:18:57 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote

> That's interesting. So you're suggesting that prayer literally works 
> in all cases (which *does* raise some flag issues regarding your own 
> troubles), that there literally is a God personally involved with 
> and in charge of every aspect of creation and -- with the above 
> quoted statement -- that no matter what anyone does, God's way will 
> be the way that's followed?

Nope.  I do believe that prayer works, but it is a sort of work that is based 
on faith and inherently unprovable.  Studies that "prove" it works are 
nonsense, because we have no "ground truth" to compare.  We can only evaluate 
a test if we know the answers, but unless we have the mind of God, we cannot 
know the answers to prayer.  

I have faith that God answered our prayers for Wes' safety; his death wasn't 
the answer I would have chosen, but it would be a very teensy, tiny little god 
whose answers were the same as mine.  At the same time, it is clear in 
Scripture that our prayers can influence God; the Bible even speaks of God 
repenting after being petitioned by people.

I didn't say that God was in charge of all things, only involved.  It seems 
clear to me that God allows us great freedoms, refraining from wielding 
omnipotent power.

> (That is, if one is going to fail, one will, no matter how hard one 
> tries? That God won't lend any sort of hand to self-starters? 

Not *because* they are self-starters.

> Or do 
> you mean instead that it's just as useful to kneel and beg the 
> ceiling as it is to get out and work for change? That *can't* be 
> what you're suggesting. Can it?)

No, it cannot.  Nor is it a choice between the two.  I think we are called to 
live in the world as spiritual beings, not to forget either the world or our 
spirituality.

> If the above's a valid assessment, you might want to look at the 
> Koran as a comparative religious exercise, because what I just 
> described here is very, *very* similar to what Islamic 
> fundamentalists believe as well.

The confusing thing about fundamentalism is that it is based on things that 
are true.  It is not fundamentalism because the underlying facts are wrong, it 
is because they are incomplete, yet the fundamentalists insists that they have 
the whole story, there is no more to be discovered or understood.  This I 
think is true of many flavors of fundamentalists, not just the religious.

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Dave Land]

On Apr 17, 2005, at 9:41 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 10:54 AM Sunday 4/17/2005, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:46:24 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote
> What about the idea that "the Lord helps those who help themselves"?
It is baloney, or perhaps the substance that one finds at the south 
end
of a northbound steer.
How about James 2:17-26?
Permit me to paraphrase James 2:17:, "Faith that does nothing, does
nothing." Faith comes to life in the action it engenders in me.
It seem a world away from "The Lord helps those who help themselves." In
fact, it's quite the opposite: "The Lord helps those who help others,"
is more like it.
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 17, 2005, at 8:54 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 06:46:24 -0500, Ronn!Blankenship wrote
What about the idea that "the Lord helps those who help themselves"?
It is baloney, or perhaps the substance that one finds at the south 
end of a
northbound steer.
That's interesting. So you're suggesting that prayer literally works in 
all cases (which *does* raise some flag issues regarding your own 
troubles), that there literally is a God personally involved with and 
in charge of every aspect of creation and -- with the above quoted 
statement -- that no matter what anyone does, God's way will be the way 
that's followed?

(That is, if one is going to fail, one will, no matter how hard one 
tries? That God won't lend any sort of hand to self-starters? Or do you 
mean instead that it's just as useful to kneel and beg the ceiling as 
it is to get out and work for change? That *can't* be what you're 
suggesting. Can it?)

If the above's a valid assessment, you might want to look at the Koran 
as a comparative religious exercise, because what I just described here 
is very, *very* similar to what Islamic fundamentalists believe as 
well.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
"This thing is invalid" differs from "I cannot see the validity in this
thing" in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent.
I don't believe I ever disputed that.
With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and
throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is 
valid"
believers.
That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq 
"unjustifiable", eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me 
those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've 
got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct 
in my views.

"I cannot see the validity in this thing" expresses the speaker's state
in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, 
disagree
or leave the speaker with his or her doubts.
I've used that language other times. As I stated before it has partly 
to do with how much I'm paying attention -- all evidence to the 
contrary aside I have other things to do than read/post here -- and 
partly with how certain I am of something. Also, I like the occasional 
shock value phrase.

You might have been the one to insert the digression, but you weren't 
the one to drag it into a quagmire, FWIW. That was the work of someone 
else.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Opportunity costs of war

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
Regarding opportunity costs, nowadays, the question in the US should
not be whether school lunches use enable the US government to help the
military, or subsidize small farmers, or subsidize large
agribusinesses.
It should be whether that same money would be better spent by hiring
the farmers to become game keepers instead.  Instead of farming, the
land would be places where wild animals live.  Aquafers need not be
drained for irrigation west of the 100th meridian.
Part of the problems with aquifers way west is the damming of rivers. 
The Colorado delta used to flow. Now the river disappears well before 
it hits the sea. The regular flooding that *used to* happen refilled 
aquifers and let small pockets of greenery dot the American southwest. 
Now those areas are running dry.

Ideally we'd see a return to more soil-friendly methods. Some farmers 
are using these now, letting acreage lie fallow and planting ground 
cover to keep soil erosion under control. ADM and other massive 
corporations are looking at GMOs, but there's an entire subculture of 
hysterical overreaction to them, one that will have to go away before 
we can really deal with worldwide food problems.

As for game preserves -- you can feed more people with a pound of grain 
than a pound of meat, and meat preparation (not just feeding; slaughter 
and cleanup) uses more water than is employed in an entire growing 
season.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote:
-human life begins at conception
What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry 
spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't 
even realize she's pregnant at all?

Were those 50% of conceptions not human lives? Or do those unbaptized 
souls go right to hell? Or is it possible God didn't get around to 
decanting souls into them? Ors is it instead remotely feasible that the 
flawed, imperfect biology we inherited via evolution is malfunctioning 
-- business as usual?

BTW, if you really believe life begins at conception, why do you 
celebrate a birthday (I assume you do) -- 9 months after life 
ostensibly began?

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change

[Dave Land]

On Apr 17, 2005, at 4:46 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
What about the idea that "the Lord helps those who help themselves"?
Of course, they are the words of an early American profligate, who was
definitely not a Christian, and which are most emphatically not from the
Bible, as many mistakenly believe. They are utter nonsense, and underlie
the twisted version of "self-reliant" christianity that pollutes much of
American maltheology.
The closer I get to the earliest words of Christ, the more I believe
that the expression ought to be "The Lord asks us to help those who can
least help themselves."
Dave
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babbletheory, and comments))

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:04 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
The other technique (I'm right and y'all are wrong) is common in Usenet
forums, particularly those frequented by teenage boys.  I tend to 
prefer
scholarship over teenage boy macho.
And you elegantly prove your point by attempting college sophomore 
macho?

Congratulations. You've officially tossed out one more ad hominem 
missive than I in this discussion, and you still haven't managed to 
address any of the substance of any of my points.

--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues

[Gary Denton]

On 4/13/05, John DeBudge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> China really is greatly increasing its demand for foreign oil, thus
> becoming a major factor in global demand, which in turn is starting to
> outpace production, thus resulting in a price increase.
> 
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html
> 
> "China was the world's second largest consumer of petroleum products
> in 2003, surpassing Japan for the first time, with total demand of
> 5.56 million barrels per day (bbl/d). China's oil demand is projected
> by EIA to reach 12.8 million bbl/d by 2025, with net imports of 9.4
> million bbl/d. As the source of around 40% of world oil demand growth
> over the past four years, Chinese oil demand already is a very
> significant factor in world oil markets."
> 
> General instability in the middle east could definitely contribute to
> a rise in prices, but only a permanent increase in demand, or a
> permanent increase in production, will lead to a long term price
> change.
> 
> The higher the price of oil gets, the more pressure will be placed on
> increasing production.
> 
> Venezuela has a much greater impact on local US fuel prices however,
> as it is the top supplier of oil to the US. The strike, and general
> political instability in 2002 and 2003 resulted in a huge decrease in
> oil exports, and even now the levels have not fully returned to their
> pre-strike levels. Furthermore the future growth of production in that
> country is at risk because of the political situation, thus limiting
> investment that would lead to future expansion.
> 
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/venez.html
> 
> Just thought I would add some more details to the discussion.
> 
> John
> ___
> http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
> 
Ven. reached peak oil production several years ago and will not be
able to increase production.   Right now, it is facing the wrath of
the GOP as it increased the royalty rates from the oil companies,
slammed a halt on privatization of public utilites and began policies
to raise the living standards of the majority of the people.

-- 
Gary Denton
Easter Lemming Blogs
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
http://elemming.blogspot.com
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 25000!

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 09:31 AM Monday 4/18/2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 4/18/2005 6:48:26 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
has  99,094 digits, 6,249 of which are trailing zeroes.
(That one even took  a measurable length of time on this 3GHz
processor.  Complete value —  about 22 pages — available on on request.)

Naw.
Translate it into binary and redecorate your den.

(1)  My den is covered in real wood paneling, so it doesn't need 
re-decorating.
(2)  That would only be around 300,000 characters (99,094/lg 2), which at a 
reasonable font size would not even cover one wall.  (I am thinking of 
those displays which feature many pages of rows and rows of dots pasted 
together to until they have 1,000,000 dots in order to illustrate what "one 
million" of something really looks like.  Now if they would only make a 
similar display showing one billion or one trillion repetitions of the 
character "$" (preferably in red ink) and use it to cover the Washington 
Monument or the Ellipse or the states of Maryland and Virginia or something 
else clearly visible from the windows of the Capitol so as to remind 
Congress-critters of just how much a billion or a trillion dollars is . . . )


Now, if all the Chinese in the world were to line up on the  equator
--how many would drown?

Julia has already given an adequate answer.
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 10:26:29 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3
> 
> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> >
> > > Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
> > > wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
> > > an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
> > > your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to
> >
> > Harvard takes Jim Wallis seriously.
> 
> In what sense is this true?  

He teaches at Harvard, at the Kennedy School of Government.

> The bias against war cannot provide a bias in analysis.  Facts are, history
> was, and people of different faiths who are committed to rigor 
> should be able to come to an understanding. 

What do you mean by "should?"

Perhaps it will be helpful to acknowledge that I have the advantage of knowing 
the outcomes of the decision to go to war, while those who insist that this 
war was the best course of action have the disadvantage of not being able to 
demonstrate that alternatives would not have worked.

Still, I'll take advantage of my advantage and point out that this decision 
has enmeshed us in a horrible situation, in which the very people we 
supposedly are liberating are killing our troops and demonstrating against our 
presence.  Those who ambushed our troops in Sadr City a year ago were not 
Saddam's people, they were not imported terrorists, they were not even Sunnis! 
They were Shiites, the people we supposedly are helping.  About 300,000 of 
them took to the streets recently to demonstrate against our occupation -- 
again, not the former oppressors, not a minority, but the majority.  

To those who demand that I offer something that "works," I offer the same 
challenge.  Show me something in what we have done that *is* working.  I'm 
sure the election will come up... but to say that it has brought democracy to 
Iraq is one heck of a stretch of reality.  If and when *Iraq* holds an 
election in Iraq, then we could say that democracy is arriving.

Nick

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3


> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
>
> > Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
> > wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
> > an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
> > your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to
>
> Harvard takes Jim Wallis seriously.

In what sense is this true?  Did Sam Huntington or Stanley Hoffman state
that?  Or did some folks in other fields decide that idea should be taken
seriously. I think there is a great deal of difference between the two.
.
Why should I take Jim Wallis's analysis of international relationships
seriously?  Has he shown good craftsmanship in this or related field
before?  Can you give an example of when he has formulated an explanation
of historical events, giving detailed backup with data?  Can you
demonstrate a rigorous paper that he has written?

I view the 6 point plan as somewhat akin to creationism. Now international
relationships is not a science, so there is more wiggle room.  But, there
is a disturbing similarity between refusing to use reason, observation, and
education to determine the most likely outcome of any action and refusing
to use it in describing the earth's past.  Both assume a preferential place
for one's own faith and place it above the observations of others.

The bias against war cannot provide a bias in analysis.  Facts are, history
was, and people of different faiths who are committed to rigor should be
able to come to an understanding. Faith becomes important when we ask,
given my choices, what should I do?  Observations and models of
observations do not provide fundamental axioms of morality.  They can tell
us if we do X, they is Y chance of someone being hurt.  A pacifist should
accept that never using force will result in numerous deaths under certain
circumstances.  If they still say it is wrong to use force, that is their
moral decision...it's not denial.  But, if they state that indicting the
tyrant will change things, so force is not needed, they are practicing
denialwhich is not a moral action.

Finally, I'd be curious to see how the 6-point plan would change the minds
of the Republican guard.  It appears that the mechanism would be that the
indictment would appeal to their consciences...so they would remove Hussein
out of shame, once the world proclaimed the evil of his actions in court.
I do not consider that plausible.  If that isn't the mechanism, what is?

Dan M.

Dan M.


___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote

> Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
> wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
> an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
> your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to

Harvard takes Jim Wallis seriously.

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 25000!

[Julia Thompson]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>  
> In a message dated 4/18/2005 6:48:26 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
> has  99,094 digits, 6,249 of which are trailing zeroes.
> 
> (That one even took  a measurable length of time on this 3GHz 
> processor.  Complete value â  about 22 pages â available on request.)
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
>  
> Translate it into binary and redecorate your den.
>  
> Now, if all the Chinese in the world were to line up on the  equator
>  
> --how many would drown?

A finite number of them.

Julia

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Gautam Mukunda]

--- Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:32:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam
> Mukunda wrote
> > You are
> > twisting his statement into an excuse for inaction
> -
> > we do not know God's will, so we must do nothing. 
> 
> Are you willing to stop saying that, since it's not
> true?

Well, Nick, when you provide _one single example_ of
wanting to do something more meaningful than getting
an indictment at the World Court(!), which is what
your fabled Council of Churches plan adds up to, I'll
stop saying it.  Your vague pronouncements that you
wanted to do something, while you strenuously attack
all the somethings that might actually have _achieved_
anything, are less convincing than that would be. 
> 
> > That's exactly wrong.  What Lincoln was saying is
> > exactly the opposite of that point - he was
> saying, we
> > cannot know God's will, so we must do the best we
> can
> > given what we _do_ know.  
> 
> So we agree.  But we seem to disagree about what is
> the best we can do.

No.  Because "doing something" doesn't mean doing
something that we know, before doing it, will have no
effect whatsoever.  It means doing something that
might actually have an impact on the problem we're
trying to solve.  The other is magical thinking, as
Dan has pointed out.
> 
> > Lincoln contained multitudes,
> > but none of those multitudes can plausibly be
> enlisted
> > in an argument that we should sit on our hands in
> the
> > face of great evil.
> 
> Have you ever considered the fact that if I really
> believed this poppycock, I 
> would speak rather differently about my dead nephew?
> 
> Nick

You can love him and still not support the cause for
which he gave his life.  My parents opposed the war
and did everything short of threatening to disown me
to stop me from volunteering to go.  It didn't mean
that they loved me, or, for that matter, freedom, any
less.  They just didn't want me to be at risk for it,
however much I believed in the cause.  My parents are
not terribly susceptible to feeling that wishing makes
things so, so they did recognize the trade-offs,
though.

I'm going to make one rather more delicate point, I
think.  Two of my best friends on this list are devout
Christians.  In Real Life, several of my best friends
are devout Evangelicals, Orthodox Catholics, or even
Fundamentalists.  I have never felt uncomfortable with
their way of explaining how their faith informs their
beliefs about politics, even when that meant that we
very strongly disagreed in our views on government
policies.  I, as a non-Christian, find President
Bush's expressions of faith and how it informs his
policies to be remarkably welcoming, in fact.  But, to
be blunt, the way in which you use faith - stripped,
so far as I can tell, from rational analysis of means
and ends - makes my skin crawl, which is one of the
main reasons I think you often get such an emotional
response from me.  The conflation of all types of
moral analysis with that that of your own particular
religious principles is one thing - the second is the
consistent failure to acknowledge that just having
faith that something will happen is not a policy.  God
does not, so far as I can tell, intervene to make the
government policies I want successful just because I
believe in Him.  The best I can do is support policies
that history and political science and every other
type of knowledge and analysis tell me might work and
that are as ethical as I can make them, in the hope
that, as Lincoln said, this puts me on His side.  But
arguing that I should - in this case - not go to war
because God is opposed to war (maybe he is, but I
think and pray that He is opposed to other things far
more than He is to war) and therefore I should do
other things (like your council of churches plan) that
could work only if He directly intervenes on this
earth in a way that He certainly didn't in the last
fifty years for European Jews, or Guatemalans, or
Cambodians, or Russians, or Chinese, or Rwandans, or
Kosovars, or Bosnian Muslims - that, it seems to me,
is arguing that your faith dictates specific policy in
a way that I have never seen (for example) the
President do.  I can't really see how it's different,
in fact, from saying we should do this because God
told you that's what to do, and that's not an attitude
that's healthy for democracy, or safe for those of us
who are religious minorities in the world's most
tolerant and diverse democracy.

Gautam Mukunda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Freedom is not free"
http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Plan great trips with Yahoo! Travel: Now over 17,000 guides!
http://travel.yahoo.com/p-travelguide
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 25000!

[Medievalbk]

 
In a message dated 4/18/2005 6:48:26 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

has  99,094 digits, 6,249 of which are trailing zeroes.

(That one even took  a measurable length of time on this 3GHz 
processor.  Complete value â  about 22 pages â available on request.)



Naw.
 
Translate it into binary and redecorate your den.
 
Now, if all the Chinese in the world were to line up on the  equator
 
--how many would drown?
 
Vilyehm
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

25000!

[Ronn!Blankenship]

... has 99,094 digits, 6,249 of which are trailing zeroes.
(That one even took a measurable length of time on this 3GHz 
processor.  Complete value — about 22 pages — available on request.)

FWIW Maru
-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bush cite-

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:21:35 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 8:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3
> 
> > On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:14:08 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
> >
> > > > Whose definition is it?  Yours?  Bush's?  Mine?
> > >
> > > Bush's.
> >
> > Cite please, in that case.

And the definition of who is good and who is evil is where?  And how does this 
reflect what we're actually doing in the world?

Nick

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 24? **correction^2**

[Alberto Monteiro]

Julia Thompson wrote:
>
> 2500! has 500 trailing 0s from the 500 numbers divisible by 5
> another 100 trailing 0s from the 100 numbers divisible by 25
> another 20 trailing 0s from the 20 numbers divisible by 125
> another 4 trailing 0s from the 4 numbers divisible by 625
> for a total of 624 trailing 0s.
>
Yikes! I forgot that! Hell, I guess I am working too much. This
causes brain damage :-/

Alberto Monteiro the mathematically challenged

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Nick Arnett]

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:32:35 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda wrote
> You are
> twisting his statement into an excuse for inaction -
> we do not know God's will, so we must do nothing. 

Are you willing to stop saying that, since it's not true?

> That's exactly wrong.  What Lincoln was saying is
> exactly the opposite of that point - he was saying, we
> cannot know God's will, so we must do the best we can
> given what we _do_ know.  

So we agree.  But we seem to disagree about what is the best we can do.

> Lincoln contained multitudes,
> but none of those multitudes can plausibly be enlisted
> in an argument that we should sit on our hands in the
> face of great evil.

Have you ever considered the fact that if I really believed this poppycock, I 
would speak rather differently about my dead nephew?

Nick
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 24? **correction^2**

[Ronn!Blankenship]

At 07:14 AM Monday 4/18/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:30 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:49 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Yes, 2500! = 1.628 10^7411 has 7412 digits, but 500 of
>> them are zeroes
>
> 624, actually.
>
Ah, ok, I should have mentioned that 500 of them are _trailing_
zeroes. I didn't count the middle zeroes

Neither did I . . .

2500! has 500 trailing 0s from the 500 numbers divisible by 5
another 100 trailing 0s from the 100 numbers divisible by 25
another 20 trailing 0s from the 20 numbers divisible by 125
another 4 trailing 0s from the 4 numbers divisible by 625
for a total of 624 trailing 0s.
(Of course, you need a 2 to go with each 5 to give you a trailing 0, but 
as 2500! has as a factor 2^2495 (if I did my math right), that shouldn't 
be too much of a problem)
Heck, I just counted 'em . . .
Actually I Told The Computer To Count Them For Me Maru
Telling the computer to count them is probably the most efficient method.  
:)
I just felt like explaining.  I'm waiting for Alberto's response now.

Though it is nice when the experimental/computational result agrees with 
the theoretical prediction.

(Of course, it can be Nobel material when the experimental result turns out 
to be incompatible with the prediction of the long-accepted theoretical 
model . . . although it is fairly rare for that to happen in 
straightforward mathematics . . . )


-- Ronn!  :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: 24? **correction^2**

[Julia Thompson]

Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 09:30 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:49 PM Sunday 4/17/2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
>
>> Yes, 2500! = 1.628 10^7411 has 7412 digits, but 500 of
>> them are zeroes
>
> 624, actually.
>
Ah, ok, I should have mentioned that 500 of them are _trailing_
zeroes. I didn't count the middle zeroes

Neither did I . . .

2500! has 500 trailing 0s from the 500 numbers divisible by 5
another 100 trailing 0s from the 100 numbers divisible by 25
another 20 trailing 0s from the 20 numbers divisible by 125
another 4 trailing 0s from the 4 numbers divisible by 625
for a total of 624 trailing 0s.
(Of course, you need a 2 to go with each 5 to give you a trailing 0, 
but as 2500! has as a factor 2^2495 (if I did my math right), that 
shouldn't be too much of a problem)

Heck, I just counted 'em . . .
Actually I Told The Computer To Count Them For Me Maru
Telling the computer to count them is probably the most efficient 
method.  :)

I just felt like explaining.  I'm waiting for Alberto's response now.
Julia
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Peaceful change L3

[Dan Minette]

- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" 
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: Peaceful change L3



> We cannot easily, which is why the moral presumption must be against
actions
> that cause great evil, such as war, especially when many others in the
body of
> Christ oppose it.

Let me clarify this with a question.  Do you think that the death and
maiming of people due to war is worse than death and maiming of people
under a government that is in near total control?  I listed my criterion
for determining whether a war was in the interests of the people of
Iraq...if my kids were magically transported there and were randomly
assigned to take the place of 3 people in Iraq, would I personally favor
the war?

> > When, according to our best
> > understanding,  we have an opportunity to decrease human suffering
> > and death, when does God call us to let things unfold instead,
> > increasing human suffering and death? When does God call us to say
> > no when people ask for help?
>
> Who called for help?
>Exactly which Iraqis called for us to invade and occupy
> their country?  Was there any evidence of even an partial consensus for
that?


There were Iraqis who were in the US, some who were partially maimed, who
were asking for us to help their families back in Iraq.  But, I think it is
not unreasonable to assume that people living horribly under conditions
where they could be reported for something they didn't do and be taken away
to be tortured and killed would prefer to not have that happen.  We
couldn't do an opinion poll in Rwanda either, but I think it was a fair
assumption that the tribes being murdered would have a strong preference to
have it stopped.

The real point is that such actions cries to the heavens for justice.  And,
I certainly agree that God has no hands to work upon this earth except our
own.  It is not arrogance or illusion of control to think that we are
called to stop such actions. But, we have to be sure that the cure isn't
worse than the disease.  Personally, that is where I've come to
stand.asking if the people where we will be fighting will be better off
with the war than without.

In Rwanda, the answer seemed extremely clear.  In Sudan, Neli is mad as
hell that the UN really couldn't care less that this is happening.  In
Iraq, I thought that the people of Iraq would be better off with a war to
remove Hussein, but that the world as a whole would be better off with
containmentso I opposed the war.



> It is exactly this kind of situation when we are most susceptible to the
> temptation to believe that "we" are good victims and "they" are bad
people, so
> anything goes.  That's when it becomes most critical to listen to others
> instead of shutting them out.

Actually, if you look at Bush's speach that I posted at length, it seems
clear to me that the "we" are not Americans but the peoples of the world
who want and deserve to be free and the "they" are the dictators who want
to keep them down.  The world is, indeed more complicated than Bush
imagines. But, making him into a zenophobiac doesn't help us understand the
situation.

This is not what Bush's fault is, IMHO.  I think I can identify two of
them:

1) He believes that the nobelness of his goals provides an assurance of
sucess.  In a sense, he acted in Iraq as a clueless do-gooder.  Overthrow
the guy opressing the people and their natural desire for freedom and
justice will take care of everything else.  This led to his criminal
incompetence in the aftermath of the actual war.  If you remember, I
predicted that we'd bumble the peace afterwards before the war.  But even I
could not imagine the magnitude of his incompetence.

2) He does have a tendency to a black and white WWF view.  It's not that
the good guys are Americans and the bad guys are Arabs.it's that he
thinks that the bad guys are identifyable and that it's acceptable to use
all means necessary against the evil doers.  That is somewhat similar to
what you've been arguing, but there is a critical difference.  It's not
Christians or Americans who are the good people, its the majority of
people.  Bush has a vision of a world of freedom, peace, and prosperity for
all, and he is trying to bring it about.

> > So, if we use  reason to see who has the capacity to physically stop
> > a dictator and the short list has one name, then it's presumptuous
> > to trust reason.
>
> Must dictators be physically stopped?  That is not only morally unclear,
but
> it is certainly not political policy, so I can't see it as anything but a
> straw man.

No, it was one of the justifications for used in the discussions before the
war.  Thomas Friedman, laid out the case of the hawkish liberal which was
the most compelling case for attacking Hussein that I saw before the war.
As I mentioned, he told a compelling story about a conference at which the
consensus was that, unfortunately, we'd have to live with merely