Re: Religious freedom
On 04/09/2006, at 6:44 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to learn that. Yes, there's allways the odd one. But in my experience, the people opposing Scientology are in the ratio of arround 20:1 theists:atheists. Maybe because the families of people affected are more often theists, maybe because there are just MORE theists than atheists in the first place? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 03/09/2006, at 4:30 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's Christians and Jews. Sweeping statement. And utter bollocks. Your attitude towards atheism is hard to distinguish from Will's baiting about religion. How about you *both* cool off a bit? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Congrats, Charlie and Claire...
On 04/09/2006, at 6:28 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Just wanted to add my belated felicitations. I hope you're enjoying your honeymoon in Cyprus. Cheers dude. We're playing "fight the jetlag" at the mo (plus "oooh it's summer here"). May you have a long and exceedingly happy marriage! Ta. We'll do our best... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 04/09/2006, at 5:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 5:36, Charlie Bell wrote: On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe... ...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who Ah, kinda missing my point, Charlie. It's not to do with that, but rather that they haven't been able to get creationism taught as science, so this is just another shot at the pie. Ah, I see what you mean. I thought you were making the very European mistake that assumes that ID *is* theistic evolution and therefore can't understand all the fuss... :-) I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. This here is theistic evolution, not ID. Theistic evolution is indistinguishable from secular evolution at the level of science. It's only a matter of whether one is a believer in God or gods or not, not whether one thinks evolution happened or not. Yes. Gets back to the book _Genesis and the Big Bang_. The Gerald Shroeder book? If so, that has big problems too, by trying to tie the science too closely to the Genesis order of things. In fact, most of the ancient history of the biblical texts is archaeologically and scientifically dubious, there's a fair bit of myth in there. Which I don't think any reasonable person should have a problem with, as it's not supposed to be a history text any more than stories of the Lightning Man or the halls of Valhalla are. They're stories that bind a people culturally, that provide an anchor to their identity. Conflict? WHAT conflict? The conflict is between people who think science should be science and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers through revelation. Again yes...I'm saying that as a Jew, I don't see the conflict. "those who think that studying it is anathema" ...are not Jews. Judaism has allways had a strong scientific tradition, and no theory is thrown out purely because it "conflicts religious beliefs". To do so it so limit what G-d can do. Precisely the reasoning I have used when arguing that ID creationism is not only bad science, it's rotten theology too. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
'Crocodile Hunter' Steve Irwin dies
Naturalist, 44, killed by stingray on diving trip, Australian media report http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14663786/ There's got to be a comment somewhere that contains the word "crikey", but I've got nothing ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
I don't know if you know who Billy Graham is, Charlie. He's the most famous American evangelical preacher of the last 50 years. ...and I've seen him evangelise. A friend of mine is sending me an email quoting Billy stating that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible He falls in the first category. I always thought he was a fundamentalist, but its clear now that he isn't. No, he's just an evangelical. And he seems to have avoid the power and money traps so many evangelists fall into (along with the fundamentalist leanings that are so easy to use in that "us vs them" way that the real greedmongers and loopers do. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could disprove is that they were in the past also. Since it's a clear pattern of ongoing behaviour that's documented for the past half century or so as victims have begun to come forward you'd have to come up with some reason that pattern *shouldn't* be expected to continue further back into the past. Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. William-- I half-way agree with you about the burden of proof here. I don't think you've actually established that the Catholic Church is a "pedophile organization". All you can get most of us to agree with is that there were/are pedophile priests, and that the Church used to be fairly systematic about covering this up. Reliable figures on incidence may be hard to get... I do agree that it's a fair assumption that the Church was at least as supportive of pedophilia in the past five centuries as it was in the last 50 years, and that if anyone wants to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on them. ---David Suffer the little children, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
re: Religious freedom, but not that stupid argument
Dan Minette wrote: ... Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a religion. If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks its members from another. : ) ... From an empirical point of view, it would be fairly easy to look at the operating differences between, say, the Catholic church and Scientology. Inside or outside of these organizations, a sociologist could easily point out how they differ. The only problem is if one has a different set of beliefs, and assume that they are facts...while other sets are nonsense. Dan-- I'm still not convinced. The easy way to tell that Scientology is not a real religion is to notice that it's devoid of spirituality. But doing so is not really Sociology, is it? As for the rest of the differences, they seem to me to be more differences of degree, rather than kind. : ) ... William-- You, sir, are trolling. I don't think he is a troll in the classic sense of not believing what he writes. It is impossible, of course, for me to prove this, but his persistence over at least 5 years indicates to me that he sincerely believes in the evil of certain belief sets that are inconsistent with his own. He certainly uses inflammatory language to try to get a reaction. Doesn't that count as trolling? Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase "Faith school" already sounds pretty bad to me, as it indicates that nothing of substance is taught. Maru. While I have disdain for this particular use of Jesus' namefinding it blasphemous, actually.I'm not sure about how you make such a separation. For example, are all seminaries "not real schools?" Sorry, Dan, I don't see any mention of a certain Nazarene here. I guess I snipped too much? My point is that calling seminaries "faith schools" is already not a nice name for them. Here's a snippet from a random seminary I found online: The Master of Divinity (MDiv) is a professional degree designed to prepare students for pastoral ministry, as well as other ordained and non-ordained ministries, and offers students the greatest vocational flexibility. The MDiv is Covenant Seminary's primary and largest degree program, shaping the overall seminary environment. The curriculum may be completed in three years, although many students take four years due to family, church, and job responsibilities. Available MDiv concentrations include: Biblical Studies; Theology; Christianity and Contemporary Culture; Christian Education; Counseling; World Mission; Youth Ministry; or Church Planting, Growth, and Renewal. While not my cup of tea, they do seem to have a range of topics. I imagine there's some meat in there someplace... A real "faith school" might be one where a student actually learns very little, possibly just memorizing holy books, but where their faith is strengthened. ---David Not that memorizing holy books is bad per se, but is it worth college credit? Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Andrew Crystall wrote: ... Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be "overcome" by an educator. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. Andrew-- Sorry about my "Scientototology" joke a couple days ago. On the other hand, why exactly can't you put things through a spell-checker? It won't catch everything, but it would have caught "Scientotology"... ---David "Rounding to the nearest word", Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: They are Here
Nick Arnett wrote: > We went to the San Jose Flea Market today... a large affair, > with all sorts of vendors... including a photogaphy studio... > where They Have Appeared. I got a picture with my camera phone. > > And dang it, they're not teal. > http://www.mccmedia.com/pink_unicorn/ Sigh. No, they are not teal. But they aren't real either. The wheels protruding from the beast in that photo are a good hint... I think it is time I stepped in sorted out this confusion. After all, the Bearer of Truth can do no less: Unicorns do not exist, not as a separate species anyway. What happens is that people with bad eye-sights, or faulty cameras, look at rhinocereses and see unicorns. And the the fight about colour? Well, that is a side-effect of the fact that the rhinos love Holi and each year a few of them get caught in the near-permanent dye solutions. So different people, at different times, have seen pink, blue, green, teal, and red 'unicorns'. Ritu GCU Myth Buster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Maru Dubshinki wrote: > > Clearly that the pink unicorn is actually an Invisible Pink Unicorn, > as no one can see it. > It surprised me that so many of you believe in this Pink Unicorn Myth. The ammount of people that believe in this is a strong evidence that They(tm) didn't disable the Orbital Mind Laser Satellites, who are active in creating those illusions for all that don't wear an alluminium helmet. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:38, maru dubshinki wrote: > On 9/2/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's just the best link again: http://www.xenu.net > > > > And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's > > Christians and Jews. > > > > AndrewC > > Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to learn that. Yes, there's allways the odd one. But in my experience, the people opposing Scientology are in the ratio of arround 20:1 theists:atheists. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/2/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 11:49PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several >> times >> over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem >> trimmings. > > > I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink > unicorns. > Perhaps the pink unicorn is actually the elephant in the room that nobody talks about? Perhaps a pink elephant. Or an elephantine unicorn? Or some strange hybrid of unicorn and elephant? Perhaps an indeterminate number of them are performing a gavotte on the head of a pin? After all, nobody can prove a negative and it's all just a theory anyway... Third Policeman Maru -- William T Goodall Clearly that the pink unicorn is actually an Invisible Pink Unicorn, as no one can see it. ph34r t3h |_||\|1C0rN's |-|00\/3s! ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:30, maru dubshinki wrote: > Could you elaborate on this? I'm kind of curious since I don't think > computer building has been discussed on list, and I've been > contemplating building a PC for some time now (following the template Not really - it's a catch 22, I'm not buying anything for probably a year despite the fact my PC is aging because a lot depends on which platform the tools I use continue on (DX9 or DX10/Vista) and the first generation DX10 cards this Christmas are NOT going to be useable for a lot of DX10 functions in actual speed so that's not a consideration and it'll be summer at the earliest for the second gen ones which will be useful. In an ideal world the tools I'd use would go to OpenGL2, but they won't because of creator preferences and priorities. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/2/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here's just the best link again: http://www.xenu.net And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's Christians and Jews. AndrewC Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to learn that. ~maru http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Henson#Henson_versus_Scientology ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:33, William T Goodall wrote:
> > In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in
> > the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance
> > terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer.
>
> So by non-technophile you don't mean somebody who doesn't build their
> own PC or run Linux. OK, so what do the technophiles do then?
I build my own PC because when I was first doing it ('92) that was
the only realistic option. It remains far cheaper and I can ensure
build quality.
And I have Linux...I just don't use it as my primary OS.
That wasn't what I meant, however. That's just your take on what I
typed, running a post of multiple parts into one.
And yes, I despite blue LED's. My case sits beside my desk. Its a
utilitarian grey and pale blue, and its best features are the power
button is on the top front and it has a carry handle on top.
AndrewC
Could you elaborate on this? I'm kind of curious since I don't think
computer building has been discussed on list, and I've been
contemplating building a PC for some time now (following the template
of Ars Technica's Hot Rod
(http://arstechnica.com/guides/buyer/system-guide-200608.ars/3),
although I'd probably wait for a decent AMD replacement for the Core 2
Duo processors they reccomend - I just plain don't like Intel.
Something about them bugs me.)
~maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Congrats, Charlie and Claire...
Just wanted to add my belated felicitations. I hope you're enjoying your honeymoon in Cyprus. May you have a long and exceedingly happy marriage! -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: >> >>> A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a >> >> In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows >> PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, >> etc. >> > Here in Brazil it's even worse. A Mac costs about twice as much > as the equivalent PC-cum-Windoze. > But that's a short sighted view. The Mac is much cheaper in the long term. I recently retired an old Mac still in working order, that was nearly ten years old. Ten years of useful life! Reliable technical sources available on the internet confirm that a Windows PC connected to the internet is filled with backdoors, trojans, key-loggers and other malware in ten minutes. Ten minutes of useful life! Thus even if a Mac cost $100,000 and a PC only $1 over the course of ten years the Mac would work out cheaper! Still only $100,000 whereas you'd need over $500,000 worth of PCs! Comparisons Maru -- William T Goodall Oh, how I wish PCs cost only $1... I'd buy a couple dozen and stick Linux on them; even accounting for the time to set up OpenMosix and a networked file system (to cope with those darn PCs dying on you every few years), I'd still be ahead by scores of thousands of dollars. ~maru /I hear the PDP-11 equivalent today would be less than $1... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 3 Sep 2006 at 20:01, Dave Land wrote: > On the contrary, there may well be better words for it, such as "better > informed about the current state of the Macintosh line than you seem to > be." Or, "not just shooting his mouth off without being in possession of > the facts." Okay, you're supporting the direct comparison of component lifetime vs unprotected time connected to the internet without catching nastyware? Just to be clear. > From the page: > > The brilliantly redesigned Mac Pro enclosure accommodates up to > four drives and 2TB of storage; offers 8 DIMM slots to fill with > up to 16GB of RAM; provides up to two SuperDrives. You also have > four PCI Express slots, and more I/O ports - including two > additional ports up front. That's nice. I can't change the motherboard, there are seriously limited drivers avaliable for graphics cards, sound cards...forget it, and so on. And when I upgrade, I can't take much of it with me, with a Mac, compared to a PC. There are no options just to get a new Motherboard and RAM, if everything else would still be useful. > Marketing hype aside, I think if you actually look, you'll see that > not only > do Macs come equipped with a lot that you'd have to _add_ to most > PCs, Like what? Remember I build my own PC's, so that's not something I'm bothered about. The premium for pre-assembly is a direct strike against Mac's for me. > And > you'll > find that opening up a Mac and accessing all that expandability is a > darn > sight easier than most PCs: Entirely based on case choice. My case is very well designed and I have no issues working with it. > > Blithering. Retard. > > Don't be so hard on yourself: lots of Windows users are uninformed > about how > far the Mac has progressed. Yes, it's only 60% more expensive, as I said. Only. Given another, what, twenty years, it might even become avaliable for sale in a form I'd consider buying - one that dosn't tying me to a specific base box. And "hard on myself", right. I'm REALLY enthused about getting a mac when all its zealots seem unable to stop themselves from taking cheap potshots about the superiority of their machines when I have zero dogma and are interested in precisely what they do - and how friendly and helpful the community are (which is why I picked SuSe Linux over Red Hat, for reference). Given a lot of the professional programs I run are DirectX/.NET based, and will not run on a Mac without installing Windows (and no, I'm not a good coder and am not prepared to port them), there is absolutely no reason for me to consider one. And no, I'm not changing profession just so I can use a Mac. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On Sep 3, 2006, at 7:05 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 2:49, William T Goodall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, etc. Here in Brazil it's even worse. A Mac costs about twice as much as the equivalent PC-cum-Windoze. But that's a short sighted view. The Mac is much cheaper in the long term. I recently retired an old Mac still in working order, that was nearly ten years old. Ten years of useful life! Reliable technical sources available on the internet confirm that a Windows PC connected to the internet is filled with backdoors, trojans, key-loggers and other malware in ten minutes. Ten minutes of useful life! Thus even if a Mac cost $100,000 and a PC only $1 over the course of ten years the Mac would work out cheaper! Still only $100,000 whereas you'd need over $500,000 worth of PCs! Comparisons Maru Yes, if you're a blithering retard, as apparently you are. There are no other words for it. On the contrary, there may well be better words for it, such as "better informed about the current state of the Macintosh line than you seem to be." Or, "not just shooting his mouth off without being in possession of the facts." Let's see, on one hand you're comparing the length a machine can run without breaking down, which is based largely on build quality. Moreover, that mac largely is a sealed box, and you can't upgrade parts, etc. Oh. My. Gawd. That old line? It's only been 19 years since that was true. Here's a nice, short URL that might help: http://www.apple.com/macpro/ From the page: The brilliantly redesigned Mac Pro enclosure accommodates up to four drives and 2TB of storage; offers 8 DIMM slots to fill with up to 16GB of RAM; provides up to two SuperDrives. You also have four PCI Express slots, and more I/O ports — including two additional ports up front. Marketing hype aside, I think if you actually look, you'll see that not only do Macs come equipped with a lot that you'd have to _add_ to most PCs, they have all the expandability that most people could possibly want. And you'll find that opening up a Mac and accessing all that expandability is a darn sight easier than most PCs: it's like Apple actually _expected_ that people might want to expand their machines, so the made it easy and pleasant to do. Sealed box my achin' arse. Blithering. Retard. Don't be so hard on yourself: lots of Windows users are uninformed about how far the Mac has progressed. Peace, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 4 Sep 2006 at 5:36, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the > > universe... > > ...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various > times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who Ah, kinda missing my point, Charlie. It's not to do with that, but rather that they haven't been able to get creationism taught as science, so this is just another shot at the pie. > > I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and > > set in chain the process which lead to Man. > > This here is theistic evolution, not ID. Theistic evolution is > indistinguishable from secular evolution at the level of science. > It's only a matter of whether one is a believer in God or gods or > not, not whether one thinks evolution happened or not. Yes. Gets back to the book _Genesis and the Big Bang_. > > Conflict? WHAT conflict? > > The conflict is between people who think science should be science > and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can > understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that > studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers > through revelation. Again yes...I'm saying that as a Jew, I don't see the conflict. "those who think that studying it is anathema" ...are not Jews. Judaism has allways had a strong scientific tradition, and no theory is thrown out purely because it "conflicts religious beliefs". To do so it so limit what G-d can do. One considers scientific facts seperately from religious ones. I have no fondness for any form of fanatic, especially ones pushing religious and philosophical arguments as scientific theories. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 9:36 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design > > The conflict is between people who think science should be science > and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can > understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that > studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers > through revelation. > > Charlie I don't know if you know who Billy Graham is, Charlie. He's the most famous American evangelical preacher of the last 50 years. A friend of mine is sending me an email quoting Billy stating that evolution and Christianity are fully compatible. He falls in the first category. I always thought he was a fundamentalist, but its clear now that he isn't. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design
On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the universe... ...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who were convinced that pretending that there's a scientific way to discern the existence of God was the best way to further the creationist and dominionist agenda. ID has *everything* to do with belief that God created the universe. I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and set in chain the process which lead to Man. This here is theistic evolution, not ID. Theistic evolution is indistinguishable from secular evolution at the level of science. It's only a matter of whether one is a believer in God or gods or not, not whether one thinks evolution happened or not. Conflict? WHAT conflict? The conflict is between people who think science should be science and religion should be religion, and if you're religious you can understand God's universe by studying it, and those who think that studying it is anathema because we already know all the answers through revelation. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:44 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Religious freedom > > > On 04/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> > >> On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find > >>> important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove > >>> me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have > >>> to differ on the matter. > >>> > >> > >> Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and > >> dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could > > > > Okay, and given at least UK police officer was arrested in the past > > year for pedophilia, that is also an active and dangerous pedophile > > organisation. Nice reasoning. > > Did the UK police cover up his transgressions by moving him to > another station? This one, probably not. But, my wife...who's worked in sexual abuse for years, and has never been a Catholic has mentioned that denial has been typical of society. Back 30 years ago, sexual abuse of children was thought to be an extremely rare event. We now know it's quite common. Girls and boys who had the courage to speak out were, more often than not, punished for telling lies. This does not excuse the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. By protecting their own, usually by various forms of denial, they have betrayed those they have promised to nurture. That is a horrid act. But it is not a unique act. Most of the time, children are sexually abused by members of their own family. This does not support the conclusion that families are inherently evil. We know that pedophiles like to get jobs that put them in contact with youth, like church youth workers, boy scout leaders, girl guide leaders, teachers, etc. This does not make any of these organizations inherently evil. Up until recently, most of these organizations didn't believe in such accusations. Society as a whole has been in denial about these occurances. Indeed, FWIW, psychoanalysis was started by Freud's denial of the prevalent of sexual abuse of girls. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Roots of evil (was Re: Religious freedom)
Perhaps inspired by today's pink unicorn sighting, allow me mumble a bit about evil and ethics (not just a county in England, as Tom Holt says). When I arrived at Kenyon College a couple of decades ago for my freshman year, one of the rites of passage was a talk by the provost, whose name I wish I could recall. He had been a spy during World War II and interviewed Nazi scientists at Nuremburg. He told us of some of the atrocities these men had committed. The one that stuck with me was their "experiment" of placing pregnant women (from Poland) in vats of water, then heating the water to see at what temperature they aborted. They were doing horrible, awful things, for years on end. Do you know what they said when I asked they why they did these things, the provost asked us? They did not say it was for Germany. They did not say it was for the Third Reich. They did not say it was for the Fuhrer. No, they said their work was done in the name of science, of learning. Religions of all sorts warn against the danger of greed for power and money. Further, most warn that the most dangerous people are those who use religion itself to accumulate power and money. It is easy to criticize religion based on the actions of those who use it to gain power or money (as we all do sometimes, I'm sure) and turn a blind eye to the warnings and criticism within religion to avoid that constant temptation. And I am sure that those who have had religious power used against them have the most difficult time seeing any good at all in religion. I can find in myself the attitude of the Nazi scientists -- let's do this just to find out, to learn, to educate ourselves because education and knowledge are good! But my faith pulls me in another direction, one that questions my intention, assumes that I am never of one heart, never of one mind, in a constant internal tug of war between my greedy selfish self, which is measurable via behavior, economic and biological sciences, v. the compassionate, accepting self, revealed by my charity... and charity, when measured, quickly stops being charity. Keeping score gets in the way of loving my neighbor. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 4 Sep 2006 at 2:49, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > > > Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >>> A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a > >> > >> In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows > >> PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, > >> etc. > >> > > Here in Brazil it's even worse. A Mac costs about twice as much > > as the equivalent PC-cum-Windoze. > > > > But that's a short sighted view. The Mac is much cheaper in the long > term. I recently retired an old Mac still in working order, that was > nearly ten years old. Ten years of useful life! > > Reliable technical sources available on the internet confirm that a > Windows PC connected to the internet is filled with backdoors, > trojans, key-loggers and other malware in ten minutes. Ten minutes of > useful life! > > Thus even if a Mac cost $100,000 and a PC only $1 over the course of > ten years the Mac would work out cheaper! Still only $100,000 whereas > you'd need over $500,000 worth of PCs! > > Comparisons Maru Yes, if you're a blithering retard, as apparently you are. There are no other words for it. Let's see, on one hand you're comparing the length a machine can run without breaking down, which is based largely on build quality. Moreover, that mac largely is a sealed box, and you can't upgrade parts, etc. On the other hand, you're comparing the time a computer can be connected to the internet, entire unprotected, before it picks up nastyware. Which a variety of free firewalls and virus scanners protect against. Blithering. Retard. It's not even elephant vs mouse. It's a piece of paper vs the transdimensional ghost who inhabits your frontal lobes. AndrewC. Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, etc. Here in Brazil it's even worse. A Mac costs about twice as much as the equivalent PC-cum-Windoze. But that's a short sighted view. The Mac is much cheaper in the long term. I recently retired an old Mac still in working order, that was nearly ten years old. Ten years of useful life! Reliable technical sources available on the internet confirm that a Windows PC connected to the internet is filled with backdoors, trojans, key-loggers and other malware in ten minutes. Ten minutes of useful life! Thus even if a Mac cost $100,000 and a PC only $1 over the course of ten years the Mac would work out cheaper! Still only $100,000 whereas you'd need over $500,000 worth of PCs! Comparisons Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "Mac OS X is a rock-solid system that's beautifully designed. I much prefer it to Linux." - Bill Joy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 04/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could Okay, and given at least UK police officer was arrested in the past year for pedophilia, that is also an active and dangerous pedophile organisation. Nice reasoning. Did the UK police cover up his transgressions by moving him to another station? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a > > In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows > PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, > etc. > Here in Brazil it's even worse. A Mac costs about twice as much as the equivalent PC-cum-Windoze. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:51, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:28AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: > >> > >> I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who > >> couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing > >> because you had a handicap. > > > > Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not > > something which can be "overcome" by an educator. > > I guess my mother wasted her time getting those special teaching > qualifications in dyslexia then. Nothing could be done for those kids. Plenty which can be done. But someone who is dyslexic will allways make certain personally consistant spelling errors. That is not something which can be overcome, as stated. > > It is a literal > > perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. > > > > That you also link it to thinking is a another normal cheap shot you > > take, > > Thinking is a skill that needs to be trained and reading is a vital > part of that training. People with reading problems need extra help > you seem to have missed out on. Yes, and you made the assumption I had reading issues. I do not, I had a reading age of 16+ at age 7. My issues are in the fields of writing (my typing is far better than a lot of people who are not dyslexic, my handwriting is terrible) and memory (I have a memory system which works fine). > > you simply cannot pass up an opportunity to be petty and > > bigoted. > > > > You are displacing the high anxiety level caused by your cognitive > dissonance (due to your poor comprehension skills) by constantly > blaming and attacking others. You are a narrow minded bigot who assumes things about others without knowing the first thing about them (see above, no reading difficulties). Your writing style is based entirely on these assumptions, and as stated before your parents did not educate you in the least about tolerance. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:27, William T Goodall wrote: > Both my parents were teachers Maru Shame they didn't teach you the value of tolerence. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:28AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing because you had a handicap. Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be "overcome" by an educator. I guess my mother wasted her time getting those special teaching qualifications in dyslexia then. Nothing could be done for those kids. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. That you also link it to thinking is a another normal cheap shot you take, Thinking is a skill that needs to be trained and reading is a vital part of that training. People with reading problems need extra help you seem to have missed out on. you simply cannot pass up an opportunity to be petty and bigoted. You are displacing the high anxiety level caused by your cognitive dissonance (due to your poor comprehension skills) by constantly blaming and attacking others. Predictable Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:33, William T Goodall wrote:
> > In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in
> > the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance
> > terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer.
>
> So by non-technophile you don't mean somebody who doesn't build their
> own PC or run Linux. OK, so what do the technophiles do then?
I build my own PC because when I was first doing it ('92) that was
the only realistic option. It remains far cheaper and I can ensure
build quality.
And I have Linux...I just don't use it as my primary OS.
That wasn't what I meant, however. That's just your take on what I
typed, running a post of multiple parts into one.
And yes, I despite blue LED's. My case sits beside my desk. Its a
utilitarian grey and pale blue, and its best features are the power
button is on the top front and it has a carry handle on top.
AndrewC
Dawn Falcon
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells
At 01:12 PM Sunday 9/3/2006, David Hobby wrote: William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 3:32PM, David Hobby wrote: Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase "Faith school" already sounds pretty bad to me, as it indicates that nothing of substance is taught. Maru. Apart from bomb-making obviously. I figured that Bomb Making would be an after-school activity, like Drama Club or something. : ) I dunno. Some Drama Clubs produce some pretty big bombs on-campus . . . They might even do it off campus... That's where I generally did mine. Exiled To The Outside After Dad Had To Repaint The Kitchen Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
At 05:33 PM Sunday 9/3/2006, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:19PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 9/3/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent "pedophilia" scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, But the general public isn't an organisation. Not relevant. If frex we are interested in the representation of a certain minority among the employees of a business, we generally ask if the fraction of the business's employees who are members of that minority is less than, equal to, or greater than the fraction of the local community who are members of that minority. *Even if* the rate is lower in individual priests than in the public at large the CC is *still* the largest organisation that harbours and covers up for pedophiles. Unless you consider marriage as an organization as well as an "institution." Particularly re-marriage where the woman brings children from her earlier marriage(s) to the new marriage. I mean it's not something you hear about the Ford Motor Company. Even Enron didn't do it. AFAIK no one accused Ford or Enron employees in general of child abuse. For your remark to be relevant one would have to collect statistics on child abuse committed by the employees of those or other large corporations and compare it to the frequency of child abuse among the population as a whole. You do have a point in that a better comparison might be to school employees, as something schools and churches have in common (which large corporations like Ford or Enron do not) is that parents turn over their young children to both organizations for several hours at a time and generally trust that they will be properly treated and returned in as good shape as they were when they were dropped off. Small Print Maru Plain Test Only Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: They are Here
At 06:46 PM Sunday 9/3/2006, Nick Arnett wrote: We went to the San Jose Flea Market today... a large affair, with all sorts of vendors... including a photogaphy studio... where They Have Appeared. I got a picture with my camera phone. And dang it, they're not teal. They could be in the proper light. I expect that they are seldom seen in broad daylight. Blue LED Finger Lites Perhaps Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:14AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:02, William T Goodall wrote: A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, etc. In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer. So by non-technophile you don't mean somebody who doesn't build their own PC or run Linux. OK, so what do the technophiles do then? Blue LEDs in the nose Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "A bad thing done for a good cause is still a bad thing. It's why so few people slap their political opponents. That, and because slapping looks so silly." - Randy Cohen. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
"Religious Freedom" & the junk mail box
I have started deleting every post headed "religious freedom" after sampling
the endless debate and the level of debate. ("You're another!")
Two of them just showed up in my junk mail box. Dave Land and William
Goodall.
TIME< Gentlemen!
http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2006, at 12:58AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> Good spelling is polite Maru > > > > Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given > > the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. > > > > I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who > couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing > because you had a handicap. Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not something which can be "overcome" by an educator. It is a literal perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexic person. That you also link it to thinking is a another normal cheap shot you take, you simply cannot pass up an opportunity to be petty and bigoted. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:15AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More to the point, pointing out spelling mistakes and bad grammer is an indication you have nothing better to say... Some posts have nothing in them worth replying to. Both my parents were teachers Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 4 Sep 2006, at 12:58AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: Good spelling is polite Maru Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who couldn't be bothered to teach you the basics of thinking and writing because you had a handicap. Respect Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The surprising thing about the Cargo Cult Windows PC is that it works as well as a real one. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
More to the point, pointing out spelling mistakes and bad grammer is an indication you have nothing better to say... Damon, posting from his Blackberry, where I can ONLY top post... Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: "Andrew Crystall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:58:01 To:Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? > > > > It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of > spelling mistakes. That's nice. I allready know you can't be bothered to read what I write, you're more interested in your self-centered crusade against anything which you don't like under the name of religion. Another excuse in a long line of excuses. > Good spelling is polite Maru Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:02, William T Goodall wrote: > A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, etc. In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer. Here's a hint: A base price of £1000 is more than I spend on an entire PC which is considerably more powerful than the one you linked. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And I'm going to keep on using windows purely because it's what the programs I use run on, and the Mac's charge a stiff premium for their hardware. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3 "The recently released Mac Pro maintains the Apple shine in design, usability and software but also does something unexpected: It turns the old Mac versus Windows PC price equation on its head. A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a nearly identically configured Dell Precision Workstation 490. The Mac is about $947 cheaper — and the gap widens when you start piling on options such as more memory, faster processors and bigger hard drives." Best Value Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: > > > > > It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find > > important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove > > me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have > > to differ on the matter. > > > > Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and > dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could Okay, and given at least UK police officer was arrested in the past year for pedophilia, that is also an active and dangerous pedophile organisation. Nice reasoning. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? > > > > It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of > spelling mistakes. That's nice. I allready know you can't be bothered to read what I write, you're more interested in your self-centered crusade against anything which you don't like under the name of religion. Another excuse in a long line of excuses. > Good spelling is polite Maru Not criticising people for disabilities is polite, as well. But given the propaganda you spew, I can't expect politeness from you. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 4 Sep 2006 at 0:41, William T Goodall wrote: > It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people > are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of > religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. No, people are calling you a atheist zealot. There's a difference. > However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't > embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and > civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and What, bigotry, intollerance, anti-sematism and police-state mentality? Yes, you givre a great "civilised" example - of precisely why laws against fanatics of any stripe should not mention "religion", since you'd try to dodge on that basis. > written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad > hominem attacks. Like the ones you constantly make against any beliver? > I suggest those people stick their heads in a bucket of ice water > until they regain their manners. I suggest that you use a few buckets of soap to wash your mouth out. I'm certainly not going to stop pointing out your blatent lies, distortions and intollerance of anything which you define as a religion (as YOU see fit). AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
They are Here
We went to the San Jose Flea Market today... a large affair, with all sorts of vendors... including a photogaphy studio... where They Have Appeared. I got a picture with my camera phone. And dang it, they're not teal. http://www.mccmedia.com/pink_unicorn/ Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. I suggest those people stick their heads in a bucket of ice water until they regain their manners. Sincerely Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:19PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent "pedophilia" scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, and I seem recall reading somewhere else -- Time? Newsweek? -- that the rates are actually *lower* among Catholic priests than among the general public. Dan only told one side of the story (as to be expected from a dishonest religious apologist). Dan is not credible or trustworthy at all when it comes to matters of religion. He has an agenda and no interest in any facts or arguments that contradict it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_allegations "Opinion is very divided on whether there is any connection between the Catholic institution of celibacy and the incidence of child abuse, for a number of reasons: there are relatively few statistical studies on the issue of sexual abuse among the clergy; sexual abuse rates among the general population are almost impossible to determine, since 90-95%[citation needed] of instances of child molesting go unreported; and many of the parties in the discussion are trying to further their own pro- or anti-celibacy agenda, regardless of statistical or factual evidence. Therefore, no consensus can be reported here." -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Aliens Arrested at Roswell
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/newsreleases/articles/060829roswell.htm -- Mauro Diotallevi "Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now." -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:23PM, John W Redelfs wrote: On 9/3/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. I really don't see how you could disprove it actually, but good luck. I belong to a church that teaches a very strict Law of Chastity. And after my divorce when I was 23 years of age, I was celibate for 8 years while I tried desperately to find the wife that I have now been married to for 28 years. Anyone who has tried to live a perfectly chaste life after having once been sexually active, especially a young male as I was and as most priests are when they start out in their vocation, can tell you that such celibacy is extremely difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain. It is preposterous to suppose that the legions of Catholic priests are able to accomplish this. By enforcing a strict rule that Catholic priests must be celibate, the Catholic church virtually ensures that sexual hypocrisy will be the rule of the day among priests. I am dead certain that a great many of them are either misbehaving with young boys, other priests, nuns, or the wives of parishioners. Celibacy is simply too difficult to accomplish successfully for it to be effectively practiced on such a wide scale as many suppose. And since sexual abuse is generally recognised to be very significantly under-reported the true scale of this abominable religious evil can only boggle the mind! Boggled Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:33PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you have no intention of pursuing this line of thought, why are you continuing to post on it? I'll stop right now! Your other post only illustrates you want to make conclusions based on belief, not on evidence. You have mistaken me for Dan! Top posting is religious Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:19PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote: On 9/3/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent "pedophilia" scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, But the general public isn't an organisation. *Even if* the rate is lower in individual priests than in the public at large the CC is *still* the largest organisation that harbours and covers up for pedophiles. I mean it's not something you hear about the Ford Motor Company. Even Enron didn't do it. Small Print Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
If you have no intention of pursuing this line of thought, why are you continuing to post on it? Your other post only illustrates you want to make conclusions based on belief, not on evidence. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 23:15:17 To:Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:03PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Oh, I had no real expectation that you would respond in any > meaningful way, but I could not let such a statement of > intellectual vacuum lay unchallenged. Since so far you are the only > one making a statement of such belief, I can rest assured that > there is no need to prove otherwise. Irregardless, I am not the one > to prove you wrong since I was the one to challenge YOUR factless > and itellectually lazy statement. > See my other post. If nobody else has anything to add we can take it for established fact that the Catholic Church is a dangerous pedophile organisation that has been molesting children for centuries. That's apart from all the other criminal activities it is involved in. And don't get me started on nuns. History Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
John, you are a (insert inflammitory accusation here) . I do not need evidence of this, because I cannot get the evidence I need to prove it. Nonetheless, because I believe it to be so, must MAKE it so. Damon, who does not ACTUALLY believe John is a murderer, etc, but is merely trying to make a point. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: "John W Redelfs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 14:15:08 To:"Killer Bs Discussion" Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic > Church has been running a "pedophile" ring for centuries... There are many things that are true for which no evidence can be produced. In fact, I would suggest that no evidence can be produced for most of what is true. I've got two objects in my left, front pocket as I type this. What are they? You have no "evidence" at the moment to prove one way or another what I have in my left front pocket. Does that mean that nothing is there? No, it just means that there is not evidence, or at least no evidence that you have access to. This constant demand for evidence is unreasonable. It is narrow minded. A person who believes only the evidence doesn't believe much. This is especially true when it comes to religion. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 'Faith school' - hah! Why mince words - let's call it what it is, a murder school! And exactly typical of the filthy evil of religion. http://tinyurl.com/fpxc7 I've been wracking my brain to figure out who it is that you remind me of. It has been bothering me for some time now. Your almost pathological ability to use any hint of a shred of evidence to support your predetermined agenda has been bothering me for some time. I just realized that you remind me of George Bush Jr, and his belief that anything that any Arab does wrong is connected to Al Qaeda. -- Mauro Diotallevi "Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now." -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: > It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find > important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove > me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have > to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could disprove is that they were in the past also. Since it's a clear pattern of ongoing behaviour that's documented for the past half century or so as victims have begun to come forward you'd have to come up with some reason that pattern *shouldn't* be expected to continue further back into the past. Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. I really don't see how you could disprove it actually, but good luck. I belong to a church that teaches a very strict Law of Chastity. And after my divorce when I was 23 years of age, I was celibate for 8 years while I tried desperately to find the wife that I have now been married to for 28 years. Anyone who has tried to live a perfectly chaste life after having once been sexually active, especially a young male as I was and as most priests are when they start out in their vocation, can tell you that such celibacy is extremely difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain. It is preposterous to suppose that the legions of Catholic priests are able to accomplish this. By enforcing a strict rule that Catholic priests must be celibate, the Catholic church virtually ensures that sexual hypocrisy will be the rule of the day among priests. I am dead certain that a great many of them are either misbehaving with young boys, other priests, nuns, or the wives of parishioners. Celibacy is simply too difficult to accomplish successfully for it to be effectively practiced on such a wide scale as many suppose. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
WTG wrote: > >> And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? > > It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of > spelling mistakes. > Thta's rude, William. Yuo can't bunr peopel at the steak for things they are born with! Ablerto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Dan posted a very clear analysis here during the height of the recent "pedophilia" scandal that showed that rates of pedophilia among Catholic priests was no higher than in the general population at large, and I seem recall reading somewhere else -- Time? Newsweek? -- that the rates are actually *lower* among Catholic priests than among the general public. So give us a citation to back up that libel, or lose what little credibility you still have. By the way, I'm not saying that the Roman Catholic church is any better than any other church or large social organization, just that your claim is verifiably wrong and beneath even you. -- Mauro Diotallevi "Hey, Harry, you haven't done anything useful for a while -- you be the god of jello now." -- Patricia Wrede, 8/16/2006 on rasfc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
Andrew Crystall wrote: > > I do dual-boot windows 2k and linux, but I don't feel that Linux is > ready for most home users, unlike projects like OpenOffice, which > I've recommended for some years... it's a shame that I can't move > away entirely because of some of the more arcane Excel spreadsheets > used by friends of mine don't translate to Calc well. > I have dual-boot Windows XP and Linux, and Linux is increasingly more useful for my home users than Windows. For most tasks there is only Linux, and Windows is relegated to games. It's a pity that there's no way to play The Sims 2 with Linux, or I would thrash Windows completely. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 17:19, William T Goodall wrote: > I doubt that the heads of most religions believe. These are > intelligent college educated people after all. Belief is what they > use to gull money and power from the ignorant and superstitious > people that they prey on. There's only one response possible here: Heh. You are as allways assigning religions to a single block... Judaism has little hierarchy, no highly paid figures for their pastoral work alone, etc. > So you approve of and support the Mafia as well as religion? So now the Mafia are a religion as well in your view now, noted. > Or perhaps you don't mean a single thing? Well, not if you didn't read the origional, no. That would be crucial for understanding. > I write in a way which uses evidence and logic. You use neither of > these. And you can't spell either. You assume everything. Take the religious schools thread, you instantly call it a murder school. This has at least three assumptions in those words alone. And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 11:03PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, I had no real expectation that you would respond in any meaningful way, but I could not let such a statement of intellectual vacuum lay unchallenged. Since so far you are the only one making a statement of such belief, I can rest assured that there is no need to prove otherwise. Irregardless, I am not the one to prove you wrong since I was the one to challenge YOUR factless and itellectually lazy statement. See my other post. If nobody else has anything to add we can take it for established fact that the Catholic Church is a dangerous pedophile organisation that has been molesting children for centuries. That's apart from all the other criminal activities it is involved in. And don't get me started on nuns. History Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a "pedophile" ring for centuries... There are many things that are true for which no evidence can be produced. In fact, I would suggest that no evidence can be produced for most of what is true. I've got two objects in my left, front pocket as I type this. What are they? You have no "evidence" at the moment to prove one way or another what I have in my left front pocket. Does that mean that nothing is there? No, it just means that there is not evidence, or at least no evidence that you have access to. This constant demand for evidence is unreasonable. It is narrow minded. A person who believes only the evidence doesn't believe much. This is especially true when it comes to religion. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could disprove is that they were in the past also. Since it's a clear pattern of ongoing behaviour that's documented for the past half century or so as victims have begun to come forward you'd have to come up with some reason that pattern *shouldn't* be expected to continue further back into the past. Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. I really don't see how you could disprove it actually, but good luck. Smoke Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "if the bible proves the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman" - Usenet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Oh, I had no real expectation that you would respond in any meaningful way, but I could not let such a statement of intellectual vacuum lay unchallenged. Since so far you are the only one making a statement of such belief, I can rest assured that there is no need to prove otherwise. Irregardless, I am not the one to prove you wrong since I was the one to challenge YOUR factless and itellectually lazy statement. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 22:53:13 To:Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Let's put it this way: I flatly reject that it is "common > knowledge" since I have NEVER heard of a centuries old Catholic > Pedophile Ring. Irregardless, saying its "common knowledge" in no > way makes it true. > > Let me be more blunt then: William, I think your statement is bull > and I'm calling you out on it. I personally believe you are unable > to support your position, and your statement that you are "not > writing a paper" is in my opinion an excuse not to try to jusrtify > your statements with real evidence. > > And since I am challenging YOUR statement, the burden of evidence > is STILL yours. It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of spelling mistakes. Good spelling is polite Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run out of things they can do with UNIX." - Ken Olsen, President of DEC, 1984. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's put it this way: I flatly reject that it is "common knowledge" since I have NEVER heard of a centuries old Catholic Pedophile Ring. Irregardless, saying its "common knowledge" in no way makes it true. Let me be more blunt then: William, I think your statement is bull and I'm calling you out on it. I personally believe you are unable to support your position, and your statement that you are "not writing a paper" is in my opinion an excuse not to try to jusrtify your statements with real evidence. And since I am challenging YOUR statement, the burden of evidence is STILL yours. It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:01 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Jobs, not trees! (Collapse, Chapter 2) > > > > As another example, you seem to indicate that we should be sparing no > > cost in order to combat global warming. > > No. I'm saying we should make it a top priority. Can you quantify this? For example, in order to stop global warming by 2050, the costs would be overwhelming. The only quantitative estimates that I've seen are in the tens of trillions of dollars. > > We have little or no control over these phenomenon, and there is little > likelihood that even if we did spare no expense that we would be able to > do anything about them. Maybe with gamma ray bursts, but an asteroid warning/prevention system should be far less expensive than stopping global warming. > > None of which have anywhere near the potential for disaster that warming > does. Well, a brand new estimate for this century has just come up. It is given at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060902/sc_nm/environment_climate_australia_dc_1 SYDNEY (Reuters) - The world's top climate scientists are slightly less pessimistic in their latest forecasts for global warming over the next 100 years, the Australian newspaper reported on Saturday. A draft report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change obtained by the newspaper says the temperature increase could be contained to two degrees Celsius by 2100, if greenhouse gas emissions were held at current levels. A three-degree Celsius rise in the average global daily temperature is projected if no action is taken to cut emissions. The panel's Draft Fourth Assessment report narrows the band of predicted temperature rises by 2100 to 2-4.5 degrees Celsius, from 1.4-5.8 degrees in the previous assessment in 2001. Sea levels are now forecast to rise by between 14 cm (5.5 in) and 43 cm (17 in). The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program in 1988 to investigate the impact of climate change and recommend options for its mitigation. Its fourth assessment report is due to be completed in 2007. This type of change, while certainly having negative consequences, is not a catastrophe. I'd argue that the potential for disaster from an asteroid hit is far higher than from global warming. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)
On 3 Sep 2006 at 12:51, Dave Land wrote: > On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote: > > > And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not > > worthy to kiss. - David Brin > > With all the things that you and I have to disagree about, it is nice > that we > have this in common. And I'm going to keep on using windows purely because it's what the programs I use run on, and the Mac's charge a stiff premium for their hardware. I'm not a technophile, which occasionally is a hinderance in an industry of little but technophiles - I use tech-as-a-tool, and my purchasing descisions are purely based on the programs I use, many of which are DirectX/.NET dependent and have no Linux/Max equivalent. (And the pricing issue). I do dual-boot windows 2k and linux, but I don't feel that Linux is ready for most home users, unlike projects like OpenOffice, which I've recommended for some years... it's a shame that I can't move away entirely because of some of the more arcane Excel spreadsheets used by friends of mine don't translate to Calc well. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 21:45, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:28PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of > > presuppositionsespecially when one of the people is convinced > > that his > > own set is Truth. > > I'm glad you're prepared to admit it Dan! The next step is to admit > that perhaps you don't know the Truth after all. > > One step at a time Maru That's right. I'm not convinced I know the universal Truth for everyone. I'm aware of what believe, and I have no intentions of forcing my beliefs on anyone. I used the word "Crusade" for what you do quite deliberately, the real loser of each Crusade was my people, and so they would be again if you had your way. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
Let's put it this way: I flatly reject that it is "common knowledge" since I have NEVER heard of a centuries old Catholic Pedophile Ring. Irregardless, saying its "common knowledge" in no way makes it true. Let me be more blunt then: William, I think your statement is bull and I'm calling you out on it. I personally believe you are unable to support your position, and your statement that you are "not writing a paper" is in my opinion an excuse not to try to jusrtify your statements with real evidence. And since I am challenging YOUR statement, the burden of evidence is STILL yours. Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 21:48:02 To:Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:37PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The point is, If I presented a paper that, FREX, the Fyrd was a > common element of the Anglo-norman army as "common knowledge," I > can guarantee I wouldn't make it too far. > But I'm not presenting a paper. And since it is common knowledge the burden is on you to show it isn't so if you disagree . -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:09PM, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a "pedophile" ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. True, there have been hundreds of news stories about individual priests' pedophiliac predilections and their parishes and dioceses covering them up, So you agree it is common knowledge. but this does nothing to prove your point about a centuries-old Catholic "pedophile ring", How doesn't it? Haven't you just acknowledged the very definition of such a thing yourself? It's very common, it gets covered up with complicity running to high levels of authority and across countries and it's been going on for a very long time. What else would you call it? An unfortunate coincidence? The shoe fits Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas." - Fritz Stern, professor emeritus of history at Columbia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On Sep 3, 2006, at 12:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a "pedophile" ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. "It's common knowledge" was the "proof" offered by my racist father and his ilk that blacks (only he didn't use that word) were lazy and stupid. I'm all too familiar with that form of "logic" and the damage it does. It is a mental disease at least as virulent as you believe religion to be. You already show evidence of its deleterious effects: please turn away while you still can. True, there have been hundreds of news stories about individual priests' pedophiliac predilections and their parishes and dioceses covering them up, but this does nothing to prove your point about a centuries-old Catholic "pedophile ring", and does plenty to underscore your reputation as an anti- religious bigot. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On Sep 2, 2006, at 10:20 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 15:49:52 -0700, Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 9/2/06, PAT MATHEWS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. I resent that. I believe I wrote something original about pink unicorns. Stupid-face. They're not pink, they're invisible. How would you know they're pink when you can't see them? Oh, for Corns' sake, _when_ they appear to humans, which is only rarely, and then only to True Believers, they appear to be teal, due to limitations of human vision in the infraviolet and ultrared bands, as I have explained to my complete satisfaction in an earlier email. They are not invisible, they are highly _selective_ in making their appearances. They are not pink, they have monochromatic vision that makes everything appear -- to them -- in a calming shade of pink known only to them. They are not elephants, although some of them could certainly do to shed a few pounds. They do not hate you, even if you hate them and everyone who believes in them. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:37PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The point is, If I presented a paper that, FREX, the Fyrd was a common element of the Anglo-norman army as "common knowledge," I can guarantee I wouldn't make it too far. But I'm not presenting a paper. And since it is common knowledge the burden is on you to show it isn't so if you disagree . -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Every Sunday Christians congregate to drink blood in honour of their zombie master. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:28PM, Dan Minette wrote: Merging several posts on this subject: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of PAT MATHEWS TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem trimmings. IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of presuppositionsespecially when one of the people is convinced that his own set is Truth. I'm glad you're prepared to admit it Dan! The next step is to admit that perhaps you don't know the Truth after all. One step at a time Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: To the Back of the Bus!
On Sep 1, 2006, at 10:08 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Aug 26, 2006, at 11:54 PM, Dave Land wrote: Apparently, after screening and re-screening that couple of milliseconds of Janet Jackson's nipple at the 2004 Superbowl for hours on end, the geeks at the FCC have lost all sense of proportion. I know the feeling. Nipples -- especially if decorated with metallic stars -- apparently have that kind of power... Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated [was: Religious freedom]
On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote: And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin With all the things that you and I have to disagree about, it is nice that we have this in common. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
The point is, If I presented a paper that, FREX, the Fyrd was a common element of the Anglo-norman army as "common knowledge," I can guarantee I wouldn't make it too far. No, if you're going to make blanket statements, you should be prepared to back it up. I would want to see REAL evidence, analysis of this evidence, and perhaps a statistical incidence as well. ESPECIALLY regarding the statement of "centuries." Saying its "common knowledge" is a non-answer, especially from a biased source such as you... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: William T Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2006 20:18:29 To:Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Religious freedom On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the > Catholic Church has been running a "pedophile" ring for centuries... > It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Religious freedom
Merging several posts on this subject: > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of PAT MATHEWS > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:49 PM > To: brin-l@mccmedia.com > Subject: Religious freedom > > TIME! Everything's been repeated - asserted, not debated - several times > over and we're getting into battling assertions now with ad hominem > trimmings. IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of presuppositionsespecially when one of the people is convinced that his own set is Truth. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Hobby > Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:08 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Religious freedom > > > Again, per my last email absolute rubbish. Scientology is a creed, a > > UFO cult set up to milk the members of cash. It is a business, not a > > religion. >If I could step in here, I think this is part of William's point. From >the outside, it's hard to tell one group that teaches nonsense and milks >its members from another. : ) Assuming, of course, that one's own presuppositions are just common sense, while those of others are nonsense. One of the problems I see here is that William has long written as though he is convinced that _he_ is personally authorative on questions of good/evil, right/wrong, and that differing with him on chosen subjects is differing with Truth. >From an empirical point of view, it would be fairly easy to look at the operating differences between, say, the Catholic church and Scientology. Inside or outside of these organizations, a sociologist could easily point out how they differ. The only problem is if one has a different set of beliefs, and assume that they are facts...while other sets are nonsense. I'd be more than happy to rigorously investigate what is and what is not empirically based. But, I've seen little interest in that in various forums. Mostly, there is an appeal to "obvious" suppositions, and "common sense", which is a shorthand appeal to common presuppositions. Some of thee, BTW, I hold, but I try to be fairly rigorous as to what is empirically based and what isn't. David also wrote: > O.K., let's try this again: > > William-- You, sir, are trolling. I don't think he is a troll in the classic sense of not believing what he writes. It is impossible, of course, for me to prove this, but his persistence over at least 5 years indicates to me that he sincerely believes in the evil of certain belief sets that are inconsistent with his own. > Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase > "Faith school" already sounds pretty bad to > me, as it indicates that nothing of substance > is taught. Maru. While I have disdain for this particular use of Jesus' namefinding it blasphemous, actually.I'm not sure about how you make such a separation. For example, are all seminaries "not real schools?" Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 7:55PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a "pedophile" ring for centuries... It's common knowledge. There have been hundreds of news stories about the Catholic Church covering up abuse using bribes and intimidation and shuffling deviant priests around from place to place without punishing them or keeping them away from children. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a "pedophile" ring for centuries... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells
William T Goodall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 3:32PM, David Hobby wrote: Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase "Faith school" already sounds pretty bad to me, as it indicates that nothing of substance is taught. Maru. Apart from bomb-making obviously. I figured that Bomb Making would be an after-school activity, like Drama Club or something. : ) They might even do it off campus... ---David BOOM Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells
On 3 Sep 2006, at 3:32PM, David Hobby wrote: Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase "Faith school" already sounds pretty bad to me, as it indicates that nothing of substance is taught. Maru. Apart from bomb-making obviously. God loves an explosion Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not worthy to kiss. - David Brin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 3:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:31, William T Goodall wrote: Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a form of organised crime (especially in America). You are assuming that being a form of organised crime precludes it being a religion? Right, so now you introduce another form of relationship which you can use to bash religion into your email and to try and distract from the real point. You are assuming that scientology is a religion, still. It is a religion, still. I'm pointing out the error in your argument not introducing a new one. But many religions are organised and dupe people into giving them money by telling outrageous lies. What's that if it isn't organised crime? The people at the heads of a religion, BELIEVE. The heads of scientology use it as a tool to milk cash from the lower echelons. "Let´s sell these people a piece of blue sky." - L. Ron Hubbard to an associate in 1950, soon after the opening of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (Jon Atack, A PIECE OF BLUE SKY: SCIENTOLOGY, DIANETICS AND L. RON HUBBARD EXPOSED, Lyle Stuart/Carol Publishing Group. 1990) "MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384 I doubt that the heads of most religions believe. These are intelligent college educated people after all. Belief is what they use to gull money and power from the ignorant and superstitious people that they prey on. Hint: the links between the Catholic Church and the Mafia aren't an accident. The vast majority of upper echelons of the Catholic Church are believers. Also, there are far stronger Mafia links in every Italian government. Where is your rant against them? Oh, right, you're a selective biggot. So you approve of and support the Mafia as well as religion? And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. The stats really don't support that. It's more propaganda. There's a bigger one? Where? As for 'what suits the area' - Christian evangelists have a long history of representing themselves as language teachers or family planning advisors in countries where evangelism isn't welcome so I suppose that means Christianity isn't a religion by your broken definition. Try going back and reading what I typed again. For reference, no, that's YOUR broken definition which you are applying to something entire other than what I actually typed. You're reading more into what I type than what is there. I don't mean a single thing more. Or perhaps you don't mean a single thing? This is deliberate - it avoids assumptions (it is designed, and was taught to me, for dealing with people from other cultures). You write in a way which is nothing but a structure of assumptions leaping off the others words. I write in a way which uses evidence and logic. You use neither of these. And you can't spell either. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "if the bible proves the existence of god, then superman comics prove the existence of superman" - Usenet ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells
Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:54, William T Goodall wrote: 'Faith school' - hah! Why mince words - let's call it what it is, a murder school! And exactly typical of the filthy evil of religion. And let's call you a potential murder, since you follow the faith of militant atheism yourself... O.K., let's try this again: William-- You, sir, are trolling. Andrew-- And you are overreacting. ---David Look, I teach at a real school. The phrase "Faith school" already sounds pretty bad to me, as it indicates that nothing of substance is taught. Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:31, William T Goodall wrote: > > Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, > > which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of > > organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a > > form of organised crime (especially in America). > > You are assuming that being a form of organised crime precludes it > being a religion? Right, so now you introduce another form of relationship which you can use to bash religion into your email and to try and distract from the real point. You are assuming that scientology is a religion, still. > But many religions are organised and dupe people > into giving them money by telling outrageous lies. What's that if it > isn't organised crime? The people at the heads of a religion, BELIEVE. The heads of scientology use it as a tool to milk cash from the lower echelons. "Let´s sell these people a piece of blue sky." - L. Ron Hubbard to an associate in 1950, soon after the opening of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. (Jon Atack, A PIECE OF BLUE SKY: SCIENTOLOGY, DIANETICS AND L. RON HUBBARD EXPOSED, Lyle Stuart/Carol Publishing Group. 1990) "MAKE MONEY. MAKE MORE MONEY. MAKE OTHER PEOPLE PRODUCE SO AS TO MAKE MORE MONEY." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 9 March 1972, MS OEC 384 > Hint: the links between the Catholic Church > and the Mafia aren't an accident. The vast majority of upper echelons of the Catholic Church are believers. Also, there are far stronger Mafia links in every Italian government. Where is your rant against them? Oh, right, you're a selective biggot. > And the Catholic Church is the > largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and > they've been covering that up for centuries. The stats really don't support that. It's more propaganda. > As for 'what suits the area' - Christian evangelists have a long > history of representing themselves as language teachers or family > planning advisors in countries where evangelism isn't welcome so I > suppose that means Christianity isn't a religion by your broken > definition. Try going back and reading what I typed again. For reference, no, that's YOUR broken definition which you are applying to something entire other than what I actually typed. You're reading more into what I type than what is there. I don't mean a single thing more. This is deliberate - it avoids assumptions (it is designed, and was taught to me, for dealing with people from other cultures). You write in a way which is nothing but a structure of assumptions leaping off the others words. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells
On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:54, William T Goodall wrote: > 'Faith school' - hah! Why mince words - let's call it what it is, a > murder school! And exactly typical of the filthy evil of religion. And let's call you a potential murder, since you follow the faith of militant atheism yourself... > 14 men in London who are suspected of organising "suicide bomber" Suspected. Once more, you've jumped on a headline and are spewing propaganda. > Security sources told The Sunday Telegraph that the investigation was > linked to concerns that young, radicalised Muslim men were being Yep. And why are they radicalised? By foreign interests. Arab nationalism, NOT religion. Religion is simple the excuse they use to cover their fanaticism, as anti-religion is the excuse you use to cover your fanaticism. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells
'Faith school' - hah! Why mince words - let's call it what it is, a murder school! And exactly typical of the filthy evil of religion. http://tinyurl.com/fpxc7 "Anti-terrorist police were last night searching a Muslim school at the centre of an investigation into terrorist training camps being run in Britain. Officers were scouring the Jameah Islamiyah faith school, set in 54 acres of woodland near Tunbridge Wells, East Sussex, after arresting 14 men in London who are suspected of organising "suicide bomber" training camps. Anti-terrorist officers were concerned that young men were being prepared to launch attacks on busy parts of London Security sources told The Sunday Telegraph that the investigation was linked to concerns that young, radicalised Muslim men were being trained to launch suicide attacks in "crowded areas" of the capital and possibly Manchester. Shopping centres and main-line railway stations are believed to have been possible targets, although there is no suggestion that the London Underground, would be attacked." Sick puppies Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Most people have more than the average number of legs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 3:03AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Interesting. Why do you suppose you feel that way? Oh, I suppose I feel that way. Eliza Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 3 Sep 2006, at 2:30AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:53, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 10:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. "Andrew says, so it must be so" isn't a form of argument that other people will necessarily find very convincing. I've explained why. Perhaps if you explained it again with actual arguments and evidence? The kind of stuff that people who aren't you might find credible :-> Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a form of organised crime (especially in America). You are assuming that being a form of organised crime precludes it being a religion? But many religions are organised and dupe people into giving them money by telling outrageous lies. What's that if it isn't organised crime? Hint: the links between the Catholic Church and the Mafia aren't an accident. And the Catholic Church is the largest pedophile ring in the world. That's pretty criminal and they've been covering that up for centuries. As for 'what suits the area' - Christian evangelists have a long history of representing themselves as language teachers or family planning advisors in countries where evangelism isn't welcome so I suppose that means Christianity isn't a religion by your broken definition. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
