The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We agree substantially here. The point of my post is to answer the question > of "what is the assumption." JDG, of course, can correct me if I'm wrong. The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, "was assumed bod and soul into heavenly glory." ;-) JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Mauro Diotallevi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Several years ago I had the pleasure of attending a presentation in Kansas > City made by an archeologist who had been doing research in Chaco Canyon. > His theory was that there were major religious festivals between one and > three times per year, and that the canyon was eventually abandoned, but > instead of heading north to Mesa Verde as in the theory you mention, JDG, he > suggested there was a major split in the civilization with some going north > but many, perhaps a majority, heading south, perhaps a few hundred miles or > more south. > > It was a long time ago, but I remember him presenting some evidence that > trade with cultures in what we now call Mexico had been on the rise, and he > suggested that might have caused a cultural rift. I think he may have also > suggested that the Mesa Verde people might have actually come from farther > north and interbred with people of the Chaco Canyon civilization, so you > have this culture in the middle -- whether they lived or just worshipped in > Chaco Canyon -- caught between a "northernizing" of their culture on the one > hand and a "southernizing" on the other. Thanks Mauro - this was very interesting. The National Park Service did emphasize that there is a lot that we don't know. Additionally, it was also pointed out that while Mesa Verde rose in importance after Chaco Canyon declined in importance, it almost certainly wasn't a simple matter of the Chacoans moving to Mesa Verde (especially since Chaco Canyon was most likely a religious/ceremonial/trading center rather than a population center), as Mesa Verde was already well-inhabited during the Chaco Canyon years - but a matter of shifting influence. I often think that a good analogy could be the shift in importance from a city like Buffalo (which hosted the Pan-American Exposition in 1903) to a city like Phoenix or Austin-San Antonio. I sometimes wonder what the shift must have been like. For example, who was the last person at Chaco Canyon to "turn the lights out"? Was there declining attendance at the main festival over the years - until finally the ceremonial leaders just gave up? Or did the crowds "pass by acclamation" one year a motion to next year meet somewhere else? Anyhow, your theory of cultural split from Chaco Canyon is very interesting. It was definitely presented that the southern-area pueblos and Mesa Verdes were all descended culturally from Chaco Canyon, but it was more presented as Mesa Verde first rising in influence, and then the southern-area pueblos rising in influence after the abandonment of Mesa Verde and the surounding "Canyons of the Ancients" areas. Thanks for contributing! JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Oy.
Julia Thompson wrote: >Jim Sharkey wrote: >>Julia Thompson wrote: >>>Victoria's Secret is selling "Uplift Jeans". >>Why should boobs and dolphins be the only things that benefit from >>technology? >I didn't know my butt needed it as badly as my boobs do. :) My wife said something fairly similar about what parts could use a boost versus others. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weekly Chat Reminder
As Steve said, "The Brin-L weekly chat has been a list tradition for over six years. Way back on 27 May, 1998, Marco Maisenhelder first set up a chatroom for the list, and on the next day, he established a weekly chat time. We've been through several servers, chat technologies, and even casts of regulars over the years, but the chat goes on... and we want more recruits! Whether you're an active poster or a lurker, whether you've been a member of the list from the beginning or just joined today, we would really like for you to join us. We have less politics, more Uplift talk, and more light-hearted discussion. We're non-fattening and 100% environmentally friendly... -(_() Though sometimes marshmallows do get thrown. The Weekly Brin-L chat is scheduled for Wednesday 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM Greenwich time. There's usually somebody there to talk to for at least eight hours after the start time. If you want to attend, it's really easy now. All you have to do is send your web browser to: http://wtgab.demon.co.uk/~brinl/mud/ ..And you can connect directly from William's new web interface! My instruction page tells you how to log on, and how to talk when you get in: http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html It also gives a list of commands to use when you're in there. In addition, it tells you how to connect through a MUD client, which is more complicated to set up initially, but easier and more reliable than the web interface once you do get it set up." -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ "This message was sent automatically using launchd. But even if WTG is away on holiday, at least it shows the server is still up." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Folks, Each week on Wednesday morning, Nick and I and a couple of guys named Pat and Patrick have breakfast together. There's a nice senior citizen type who also dines at the Carrow's restaurant on Wednesday mornings, and we've become friendly with her. From time to time, she sends me little things about patriotism, faith, and general curiosity. I don't always agree with them, but I appreciate the spirit in which they're sent. A couple of weeks ago, she sent me the following, which sums up some thoughts I've ben having lately about what's wrong with the current administration's approach to terrorism -- it gives the terrorists just what they want: for us to be afraid. For us to lose our freedoms in the name of a little illusory safety. For us to be _not_ US. These times don't call for a swaggering chicken-hawk, they call for an American Winston Churchill. Don't be afraid. In a generation, I want the bravery and stout-heartedness that this generation showed in the face of sneaky, underhanded devils to cause them to say, "This was America's finest hour." Dave Begin forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: September 14, 2006 2:21:11 PM PDT Subject: Fwd: Someone Must Tell Them It's a given fact there are those who dislike America and Americans. This isn't the first time in history the free world has been assaulted by hate-mongers. During World War II, Mr. Hitler was plain about taking over the world. Nazi tactics were quite simple: create fear and terror, slaughter and enslave. After the first year or so of Nazi conquests, the only piece of free Europe remaining was the tiny island of England. She stood isolated and alone, only a few miles across a narrow channel of water separating her from Nazi-occupied France. Mr. Hitler intended to bomb and burn England into submission. The Nazi Air Force began bombing England every night. The British Air Force was outnumbered by at least three to one. British supply ships were being sunk right and left by German submarines. London burned out of control, the water pipes being too badly damaged to put out the fires. People huddled in subways for protection. The English people were being beaten down by bombs, starved by sinking ships, and surrounded by a maniacal gang of thugs. Mr. Hitler bragged that it was only a matter of a few short weeks before he had rung England's neck like that of a chicken. He was already planning victory marches and speeches. The English had a different idea. They intended to not only survive but to win. While travelling across America, I met a woman with a strong British accent. I asked: "Where were you in 1940?" She said: "London." "What was it like being bombed 90 nights in a row?" "It was frightening at first. Sirens went off constantly. Explosions happened at all hours. Buildings wouldn't quit burning. But after a week or so, we all figured out life had to go on. We figured out that until it was one's time to go, then one was safe. And when it was one's time to go, then nothing could be done to protect oneself. Prime Minister Churchill walked through the streets during air raids, shaking his fist at the planes. Some people said he was crazy, but we loved him for it. Mr. Churchill reminded us of our bravery. He told us nothing could defeat the English spirit. We believed him." This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then she said: "You know, I've lived in America since shortly after World War II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk so much about the dangers of terrorists, and talk so little about what Americans are made of. Someone needs to talk to Americans about finding their own bravery, and about getting on with life without being constantly frightened by every little thing. What allowed us in England to hang on during the war was not our military force, but the spirit of the people. Americans have this same spirit, but no one talks about it. That's a shame, because it is the best protection we've got. Someone must tell them." ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, "was assumed bod and soul into heavenly glory." I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone ever referring to the "bod" of Mary. For all we know, it was even a bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... ;-) I'm curious about this wink. Are you not fully on-board with the doctrine of the assumption? It's not terribly important to me either way, though I am inclined to think that it is a Churchly creation intended to exalt Mary, rather than a historical fact. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
Dave said: A couple of weeks ago, she sent me the following, which sums up some thoughts I've ben having lately about what's wrong with the current administration's approach to terrorism -- it gives the terrorists just what they want: for us to be afraid. For us to lose our freedoms in the name of a little illusory safety. For us to be _not_ US. One of the most striking things about the July 7 attacks was how utterly unterrified we all were. I know people who were very close to the bombing attacks and their response was uniformly calm and practical. In fact, those attacks seemed to cause more anxiety and fear on the other side of the Atlantic than they did here. I think a positive first step would be switching nomenclature from "terrorist" to "idiot", for calling them terrorists tends to suggest that we're terrified of them or at least potentially so. Besides, news stories that start "A group of idiots demonstrated their stupidity by blowing themselves up..." are so much less glamorous from their point of view. Rich ROU Global War On Idiocy ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
On 27 Sep 2006, at 4:20AM, Dan Minette wrote: 1) Global Warming Our understanding of global warming is still incomplete. We have not verified our climactic models the way, for example, we have verified numerical models that predict responses of electromagnetic systems. The various models have assumptions built in. Different models have different results because they are based on slightly different assumption sets. 'One degree and we're done for' http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns? id=mg19125713.300&feedId=online-news_rss20 ""Further global warming of 1 °C defines a critical threshold. Beyond that we will likely see changes that make Earth a different planet than the one we know." So says Jim Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. Hansen and colleagues have analysed global temperature records and found that surface temperatures have been increasing by an average of 0.2 °C every decade for the past 30 years. Warming is greatest in the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere, particularly in the sub-Arctic boreal forests of Siberia and North America. Here the melting of ice and snow is exposing darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, creating a positive feedback. Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288)." [...] -- 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: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
Didn't have time to finish this yesterday, so am completing it first thing- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Dan Minette wrote: >> > > Behalf Of Nick Arnett >> > > Assuming that a large number of people can't be > > wrong about something >> > > because they are smart and well-connected is a > > tautology. > > > I think that you are still missing the point, so > > >let me try it again. In particular, when > > >one's own area of expertise is involved, > > >using that expertise to understand is all but > > >instinctive... > >I have absolutely no experience in structural > >engineeringbut > >I'm just going to toss out one medical example of > >well-educated folk in the field being wrong: > _Helicobactor pylori_ infection and relation to > >peptic ulcer disease. One researcher > >studied this; the vast majority of > >gastroenterologists disagreed completely -- until it > >was finally shown to be true. Took years. > >My gut > >about this administration is that it spins 'truth' > >like a top, and is utterly untrustworthy. About the > >towers, I really don't know; about cabals within our > >government manufacturing crises: Gulf of Tonkin(g?). > But this is a different situation. The discovery > that ulcers were caused by helicobactor was a > typical breakthough > in medicine and science where previously held > beliefs are found to be incorrect and an old theory is > replaced by a new and better theory (think Einstein > and Newton). >The point being made in this case > is not that there is faulty science but that the > facts that exist cannot be explained with the > theory that the buildings that were brought down by > a the planes. People with both knowledge and > experience in such matters see no significant > inconsistencies and as far as I can tell those that > exist are of the type that are always present in > complex real life circumstances Except that some _do_ find discrepancies, according to what has been written on-List; I'm not saying I accept their views, but I'm keeping the possibility in mind. A conspiracy involving thousands is exceedingly unlikely, I agree. What I think has me 'smelling something rotten' are the various other oddities and discrepancies (as others have already listed, frex the Saudis flying out unquestioned AFAIK); I think it is far more likely that 'the conspiracy' (instead of our gov't. actually setting up the towers to be blown) will turn out to be deliberate ignoring of and/or covering up of pre-Day intel that such a terror attack was imminant. IOW, lying. 'There are no secret prisons for terror suspects.' 'No one connected with this administration had anything to do with outing a CIA agent.' And so forth. Debbi I Do Not Trust Them, Sam-I-Am Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
> Dan Minette wrote: > Peer review is based on the > assumption that the scientific > community does not operate on an inherently dogmatic > or political basis. > While new ideas may not initially get all the credit > they might objectively > deserve, the fact that additional data tends to > support the correct theory > results in the consensus shifting towards good new > ideas. Which can take years or even decades. Another example from medicine that I am hard put to explain, except to think that no one _wanted_ to believe such a thing was so widespread, is something that I was still taught in the mid '80s: Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted disease, except that in some cases where children must be sharing bathwater or toweling with infected adult(s), they can become infected. Talk about denial... > I think it might be helpful to look at several > examples before reapplying > this principal to the 9-11 conspiracy theories. > These examples will be > listed in increasing confidence in the scientific > consensus. They are: > > 1) Global Warming > 2) Cold Fusion > 3) Young Earth Except that I think global warming is worse than you accept - but as you note, differences of opinion and interpretation are quite legitimate, not mean-spirited. > Looking at this progression, I see the 9-11 > conspiracy theories matching > best with cold fusion. Both require deliberate > blindness to the obvious by > a wide range of professionals > This doesn't mean that we know exactly what > happened, BTW. There is still > enough room in the data for a scenario that we are > not thinking about to be > the one that...after all is said and done...to be > considered the best model Heck, I should have read this before finishing my post, then I could have just said "Ditto" to that last. Debbi I Do Not Like Them In A Box, I Do Not Want Them Via Fox Maru ;) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fwd: "Someone Must Tell Them"
> Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote & forwarded: > ...These times don't call for a swaggering > chicken-hawk, they call for an > American Winston Churchill. Don't be afraid. In a > generation, I want > the bravery and stout-heartedness that this > generation showed in the > face of sneaky, underhanded devils to cause them to > say, "This was America's finest hour." Hear, hear! > Begin forwarded message: > > The English people were being beaten down by > bombs, starved by sinking > > ships, and surrounded by a maniacal gang of thugs. > > > > Mr. Hitler bragged that it was only a matter of a > few short weeks before > > he had rung England's neck like that of a chicken. > He was already planning victory marches and speeches. > > > > The English had a different idea. They intended to > not only survive but to win. > > This beautiful [British] woman in her early 80's > > said: "You know, I've lived in America since > shortly after World War > > II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk > so much about the > > dangers of terrorists, and talk so little about > what Americans are made > > of What allowed us in England to > hang on during the war > > was not our military force, but the spirit of the > people. Americans have > > this same spirit, but no one talks about it. > That's a shame, because it > > is the best protection we've got. Someone must > tell them." Concurrances: Two days ago I watched a National Geographic DVD 'Lord of the Rings, Beyond the Movie,' in which some of the occurances in Middle Earth were compared to similar situations in our world; the fortitude and, for lack of a better word, pure pluckiness of the Brits during the Blitz was one (compared to Minas Tirith as the Ringwraiths arrived). [The DVDs would be a good jump-off point for getting children to delve into history and how myth/legend/"truth" intertwine, but are a little simplistic for educated adults. Still, I learned a few things about Finland and the _Kalevala_ (sp?).] I just finished _Three Cups Of Tea_, about Greg Mortensen and his initially-one-man-but-became-many-more war on ignorance in Pakistan and Afghanistan, by building schools for girls and boys, and expanding into programs for starting up small businesses for adults. Talk about "what Americans are made of" and "the spirit of the people..." The man probably qualifies for a DSMIV diagnosis, but his results are impressive, and underline the concept that those who have something to live for are far less susceptible to being schnookered by jihadist con-artists. And henceforth I shall refer to madrassa 'graduates' as idiots, per Rich's notion. Debbi Timely Synchronicity Maru :) __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon
I've got to head out for a lesson, but will respond at least partially- > jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyhow, by now the pattern of Diamond's narrative is > becoming > clear. Prehistoric human civilization flourishes. > Over time, > prehistoric human civilization overpopulates and > degrades its > environment causing it to retreat from its former > glory. Actually, he said that was his initial premise, but he realized that things were much more complex than just environmental problems. He lists 5 factors (which somebody posted earlier, but I'll repeat here: -damage people inflict on their environment -climate change outside human influence -hostile neighbors -loss of supporting or helpful neighbors -response of the society to problems I think he subsets under that last that the society must first perceive their problems in order to respond to them. [in the Prologue] > As I noted earlier, my first objection to this > Chapter is his use of > the term "Anasazi" for the people of Chaco Canyon. > "Anasazi" is > believed to have its origins in a Navajo word for > "ancient enemy..." True, yet most Americans have an inkling of what Anasazi means, while Ancient Puebloan will leave many scratching their heads; parentheses might have been useful to educate readers.I shall add that 'Navajo' is also a tacked-onto-the-people label, as they call themselves Dineh', and their homeland Dineh'tah. > Now while Diamond does in fact point out that > modern-day Puebloans > are indeed descendants of the people of Chaco Canyon > and Mesa Verde, > I can't help but feel that he brushes over that > fact. After all, > if the Chaco Canyon people continue to thrive to > this day, then they > don't make a very good type-example of "collapse"! On page 155, he states "It took many centuries to discover that, among those economies [Mimbres, Chaco, Mesa Verde, Hohokam, Mongollon, etc.], only the Pueblo economy was sustainable "in the long run," i.e. for at least a thousand years." He pointed out that while deforestation was a problem for the Anasazi/APs, it was not for the Hohokam, who didn't use wooden beams for their houses. So I don't think he ignores their descent from the APs. More in future, must go now! Debbi who is suspender-bustin' proud of her instructor's praise for Cezanne's progress :D __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)
On 28/09/2006, at 7:24 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote: What I think has me 'smelling something rotten' are the various other oddities and discrepancies (as others have already listed, frex the Saudis flying out unquestioned AFAIK); I think it is far more likely that 'the conspiracy' (instead of our gov't. actually setting up the towers to be blown) will turn out to be deliberate ignoring of and/or covering up of pre-Day intel that such a terror attack was imminant. IOW, lying. Or just sheer opportunism. As the case of Jo Moore showed (it's "a good day to bury bad news"). The hypocrisy with regards to Saudi is ongoing and has been a feature of Western politics of all stripes for years, and I am no longer surprised by the blatant and tasteless cynicism of many of those with power. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fwd: "Someone Must Tell Them"
On 27 Sep 2006 at 15:20, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote & forwarded: > > > > ...These times don't call for a swaggering > > chicken-hawk, they call for an > > American Winston Churchill. Don't be afraid. In a > > generation, I want > > the bravery and stout-heartedness that this > > generation showed in the > > face of sneaky, underhanded devils to cause them to > > say, "This was America's finest hour." > > Hear, hear! Mmrp. England certainly prevaricated enough under Chamberlin. The British people didn't WANT war. But in the, end, well a song from the play "40 Years On": (In Parliament, Chamberlin has just spoken of apeasement. The head of the opposition, Arthur Greenwood, rose to speak...) "Oh speak for England Arthur, for 20 years years of shame. They wriggled out at Munich, they'll wriggle out again. We're pledged to fight for Poland, the time for talking's passed. He [Chamberlin] can take that scrap of paper, and stick it up his ass." [counterpoint] "Lord Halifax is ready, to take off for Berlin. And if we give them Danzig, we might just save our skins. Why should we do the fighting, the Jews will stand to gain. We are the ones who'll suffer, if England fights again." [/counterpoint] "There is no peace with honor, their is no other way There is no faith in Chamberlain the dog has had his day Oh speak for England, Arthur, the night of shame is done Oh speak for England, Arthur, Soon Churchhill's day will come." AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote: This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then she said: "You know, I've lived in America since shortly after World War II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk so much about the dangers of terrorists, and talk so little about what Americans are made of. Someone needs to talk to Americans about finding their own bravery, and about getting on with life without being constantly frightened by every little thing. What allowed us in England to hang on during the war was not our military force, but the spirit of the people. Americans have this same spirit, but no one talks about it. That's a shame, because it is the best protection we've got. Someone must tell them." This is something I and others were saying in late 2001/early 2002. The panic from the world's most powerful people was baffling. It was like watching a giant weightlifter get bitten by a tiny ant and acting as if a shark had taken his leg. Yes, it was a spectacular and horrific attack with a terrible loss of life. But it was the indignity of the response that disappointed. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: "Someone Must Tell Them"
On 9/27/2006 2:01:04 PM, Richard Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Dave said: > > > A couple of weeks ago, she sent me the following, which sums up > > some > > thoughts I've been having lately about what's wrong with the > > current > > > administration's approach to terrorism -- it gives the terrorists > just > > what they want: for us to be afraid. For us to lose our freedoms > > in > > the name of a little illusory safety. For us to be _not_ US. > > One of the most striking things about the July 7 attacks was how > utterly unterrified we all were. I know people who were very close > to > the bombing attacks and their response was uniformly calm and > practical. In fact, those attacks seemed to cause more anxiety and > fear on the other side of the Atlantic than they did here. > > I think a positive first step would be switching nomenclature from > "terrorist" to "idiot", for calling them terrorists tends to suggest > that we're > terrified of them or at least potentially so. Besides, > news stories that start > "A group of idiots demonstrated their > stupidity by blowing themselves up..." > are so much less glamorous > from their point of view. > > Rich > ROU Global War On Idiocy I don't know how it may appear from over there, but on 9/11 I was angry. Heck I was angry on July 7 and after Madrid and Bali too. I think the only times I felt much in the way of fear was in regard to the Anthrax cases and the sniper case, those things just seemed more likely to grow where it could harm people I knew and cared about. I don't think I actually can remember anyone who was frightened, but I do remember lots of folks who were royally pissed off. Perhaps it was different in other parts of the country, but even if Americans do not uniformly project calm I would suggest that the fear that was sensed was coming from the administration and the news media's attempts to whip up a frenzy of ad sales. Overall I agree that we should change the nomenclature. Perhaps we should stop calling that group Al Qaeda and start calling them Al Kato. (After Clousseau's sparring partner) xponent The Only Thing We Have to Fear Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
On 9/27/06, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: > The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of > her > earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, "was assumed bod and soul into > heavenly glory." I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone ever referring to the "bod" of Mary. For all we know, it was even a bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... > ;-) I'm curious about this wink. Are you not fully on-board with the doctrine of the assumption? It's not terribly important to me either way, though I am inclined to think that it is a Churchly creation intended to exalt Mary, rather than a historical fact. My grandmother used to say two things about this depending on her mood; either "Catholic heirarchy created this reverence of Mary because she's the most submissive role model those guys in Rome could find" or "Do you see any documentation? I don't see any documentation. The Assumption is an assumption." Ahh, I miss Gramma. Well, at least sometimes. She could be funny and pithy, but sometimes we just didn't get along. At all. For long periods of time. -- 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: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
- Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies > On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: > >> The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of >> her >> earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, "was assumed bod and soul into >> heavenly glory." > > I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone > ever referring to the "bod" of Mary. For all we know, it was even a > bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... > Bodacious??? Bodacious??? My God man! She gave birth to GOD! She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! xponent Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon
On 9/27/06, jdiebremse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thanks for contributing! Heck, it's just nice to have something to say and the time to be able to say it, both at the same time! -- 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: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper
On 9/21/06, Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you're having gastrointestinal issues, try just a BRAT diet until you're doing better. I work at a school now. Trust me, if we tried to eat any of the little brats, our gastrointestinal issues would be *much* worse... -- 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: "Someone Must Tell Them"
At 06:44 PM Wednesday 9/27/2006, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: On 9/27/2006 2:01:04 PM, Richard Baker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Dave said: > > > A couple of weeks ago, she sent me the following, which sums up > > some > > thoughts I've been having lately about what's wrong with the > > current > > > administration's approach to terrorism -- it gives the terrorists > just > > what they want: for us to be afraid. For us to lose our freedoms > > in > > the name of a little illusory safety. For us to be _not_ US. > > One of the most striking things about the July 7 attacks was how > utterly unterrified we all were. I know people who were very close > to > the bombing attacks and their response was uniformly calm and > practical. In fact, those attacks seemed to cause more anxiety and > fear on the other side of the Atlantic than they did here. > > I think a positive first step would be switching nomenclature from > "terrorist" to "idiot", for calling them terrorists tends to suggest > that we're > terrified of them or at least potentially so. Besides, > news stories that start > "A group of idiots demonstrated their > stupidity by blowing themselves up..." > are so much less glamorous > from their point of view. > > Rich > ROU Global War On Idiocy If you thought a war on "terror" was unwinnable . . . I don't know how it may appear from over there, but on 9/11 I was angry. Me, too.* Heck I was angry on July 7 and after Madrid and Bali too. I think the only times I felt much in the way of fear was in regard to the Anthrax cases and the sniper case, those things just seemed more likely to grow where it could harm people I knew and cared about. I don't think I actually can remember anyone who was frightened, but I do remember lots of folks who were royally pissed off. Me, too, at all of it. Perhaps it was different in other parts of the country, but even if Americans do not uniformly project calm I would suggest that the fear that was sensed was coming from the administration and the news media's attempts to whip up a frenzy of ad sales. Overall I agree that we should change the nomenclature. If the nomenclature were changed to what many people would think appropriate, it could not be printed in the newspaper or said on television. Perhaps we should stop calling that group Al Qaeda and start calling them Al Kato. (After Clousseau's sparring partner) I thought maybe you meant O.J.'s house guest . . . _ *Interestingly, when I expressed it by starting to use the following .sig, it was someone on this list who made a disparaging remark about being "a born-again patriot" . . . -- Ronn! :) God bless America, Land that I love! Stand beside her, and guide her Thru the night with a light from above. From the mountains, to the prairies, To the oceans, white with foam God bless America! My home, sweet home. -- Irving Berlin (1888-1989) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
At 01:11 PM Wednesday 9/27/2006, Dave Land wrote: On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of her earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, "was assumed bod and soul into heavenly glory." I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone ever referring to the "bod" of Mary. For all we know, it was even a bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... I thought it might have been a typo . . . Fumble Fingered Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
At 07:59 PM Wednesday 9/27/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: "Dave Land" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:11 PM Subject: Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies > On Sep 27, 2006, at 4:28 AM, jdiebremse wrote: > >> The Assumption: The dogma of the Catholic Church that at the end of >> her >> earthly life, Mary, mother of Jesus, "was assumed bod and soul into >> heavenly glory." > > I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church, and do not recall anyone > ever referring to the "bod" of Mary. For all we know, it was even a > bodacious bod, but I really don't think it's appropriate... > Bodacious??? Bodacious??? My God man! She gave birth to GOD! She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! Not if God is a spirit, in which case He could presumably ooze through any opening without having to stretch anything. Or maybe even pass through solid matter, as many think he apparently did in Luke 24:36 . . . xponent Admit It, You Were Thinking It Too! Maru Perhaps amazingly, no. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Assumption Re: 9/11 conspiracies
On Sep 27, 2006, at 7:47 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 07:59 PM Wednesday 9/27/2006, Robert Seeberger wrote: She gave birth to GOD! She must have been stretch marks from the neck down! Not if God is a spirit, in which case He could presumably ooze through any opening without having to stretch anything. Or maybe even pass through solid matter, as many think he apparently did in Luke 24:36... Actually, this brings up another ancient doctrine: Jesus was held by some Gnostics to have passed through Mary's body as light passes through a window. This both preserved Mary's virginity _and_ prevented any "taint" from the womb corrupting Jesus. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Collapse Chapter 4 - Chaco Canyon
John, thanks for your insight. Though I don't agree with your analysis (surprise surprise), I appreciate your POV especially as you've visited the area recently. I apologize for not answering this sooner. Among other excuses, the mail server I use is giving me problems. JDG wrote: > What's truly odd, however, is that not only does Diamond > use the term "Anasazi" exclusively, but he doesn't even acknowledge > the existence of the debate. I don't find it odd at all, really. His book isn't about the politically correct terms for the people he's writing about so why would he boar his readers with those details. Easter Island isn't called that by its natives either, should he spend several paragraphs each chapter chasing political correctness? In any case, in my opinion the awkward, hyphenated amalgam of Spanish and English words to describe a Native American culture is at least as insulting as the Native American term used by archeologists. Note also that one reason it is still used is because the Pueblo's themselves have been unable to agree upon an appropriate name for their ancestors. See the wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Pueblo_Peoples sub heading: Anasazi as a cultural label > > Now while Diamond does in fact point out that modern-day Puebloans > are indeed descendants of the people of Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde, > I can't help but feel that he brushes over that fact. After all, > if the Chaco Canyon people continue to thrive to this day, then they > don't make a very good type-example of "collapse"! Here you are misinterpreting what Diamond means by collapse. From page 3 in the trade paperback: "By collapse, I mean a drastic decrease in human population size and/ or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time" Indeed, if he had adopted a definition that meant "completely wiped out" there would have been little to write about. > Is it possible that religious and social factors > played as large a role, if not a larger role, than the environmental > factors Diamond cites particular if this is a case not of > civilizational "collapse", but civilization "transience"? Certainly we don't know exactly what function Chaco Canyon had. As Diamond implies it could have been both a population center _and_ a cultural/religious center. The point is that it was once the center of an extensive culture, and evidence suggests that it was abandoned due to environmental factors such as deforestation and drought not just in the canyon itself but in the entire surrounding area. The fact that related people founded the Mesa Verde site has no direct bearing on this idea. >Yet, according to the National Park Service, Chaco > Canyon was just reaching the height of its influence and > this "Golden Age" would last until the mid-1100's. Set against > this timeline, the connection between environmental degradation and > civilization collapse seems much weaker. Even moreso when you > consider that Mesa Verde, to the north, wouldn't be abandoned until > the 1300's. I think that you're missing the idea that Chaco Canyon was the center of a culture that encompassed a much larger area. Please refer to the paragraph (page 150 in the trade paperback) beginning "Why would outlying settlements have supported the Chaco center" > Finally, Diamond dismisses the role of hostile neighbors in collapse > here, in part because he is only concerned about Chaco Canyon. It > is interesting to note, however, that the Ancestral Puebloan > settlements at and around Mesa Verde do show evidence that the > Ancestral Puebloans were concerned about defense, particularly in > the late 1200's. This is discussed starting on page 151 of the text. Within the first paragraph: "At those Southwestern sites that outlasted Chaco and survived until after A.D. 1250 , warfare evidently became intense, as reflected in a proliferation of defensive walls and moats and towers, (etc. etc.) > So far, our three examples of "collapse", Easter, Pitcairn, and > Chaco Canyon have all shared the feature of being settled in a > marginal environment. Is a marginal environment a prerequisite > for "collapse"? > I think the next chapter might answer that question. Is anyone interested in leading that discussion? Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliab...
William wrote: > Earth is already as warm as at any time in the last 10,000 years, and > is within 1 °C of being its hottest for a million years, says > Hansen's team. Another decade of business-as-usual carbon emissions > will probably make it too late to prevent the ecosystems of the north > from triggering runaway climate change, the study concludes > (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 103, p 14288)." Even if those that predict doom and gloom in the near future, other than some (probably even more exaggerated) economic discomfort, there is very little down side to cleaning up our act. It's as if we're putting off vacuuming our house because vacuums are too expensive. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
