Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

mister b wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:15:14 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:

snip

that's some pretty funny stuff there...not only are you full of star
spangled horse****, you're as dumb as a bag of hammers.


Translation: "You kicked my ass so bad I have to fling insults instead
of trying to argue effectively."

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Because it's not all about me or you or likely anyone who's on this
newsgroup.
Then why did you ask if I like the way things have gone the last eight
years? I personally have absolutely nothing to complain about and
apparently neither do you.

So, you don't mind if people suffer. Got it.

Nope, you missed it. Seems you don't want to understand another point of
view. In case I'm wrong about that: We each have to look around at our
own environment as a major part of how we evaluate how the world is
going. This evaluation is the only one not relying on second hand
information and the only one we are direct witness to, hence is the most
reliable. You directly asked me about how I thought things have been, so
I answered with this direct evidence. Do you think this evidence from my
life and yours doesn't matter?

It's about the suffering going on due to Bush's insolence and corruption.
I'm sick of his pandering to the right-wing religious nuts who want gov't
to stay out of their lives, but who want to turn this into a
religious/fascist/fundamentalist state of their own design, but not that
dissimilar to the Taliban.
Haven't seen a bit of this. Has the govt been getting more into your life
lately? This struggle has gone on at the fringes for as long as I can
remember. Nothing new.

In your mind, nothing is new. Got it.

In my life as an American citizen there has been no more interference
than ever. This also holds true for all my friends and anyone I know who
I've questioned, including you, apparently.

I'm sick of him starting and then perpetuating a war of choice (Iraq) vs.
one of necessity (Afganistan) and lying about it the whole time.
Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, not just Bush. There was no lying.

BS. He lied, Cheney lied, and Powel went along with it. Everyone? Really?

Well, the vote in Congress was, what, 400 to 1 to go to war? Close enough.

I'm sick of him ignoring and being so out of touch with what's going on
in this country that he thinks everything is just fine with the economy,
the lack of affordable healthcare for those worse off than people like me
and you, and ignoring the people in desperate situations (e.g., New
Orleans).
Again, nothing new here. The economy goes up and down. We don't have
socialized medicine. What's new? I can't remember it ever being any
different, can you? Bush isn't to blame for any of it.

Again, you don't care. Got it. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth or yours I
suppose.

Didn't say a word about caring or not. I said I can't remember the
economy not going up and down. Can you? We've also never had more
socialized medicine ever. How do you blame Bush for that? Did you change
the subject because these points are obvious and you don't want to admit it?

Don't think I'm absolving the formerly Republican controlled Congress
either. They are at least complicit. The Republicans are holding fast
even though the Dems are not in charge, basically preventing anything
meaningful to get done, because it's an election year. And, don't think
I'm absolving the Dem leadership in Congress either. I'm not happy that
Pelosi refused to consider impeachment. It was just fine to put the
country through an impeachment trial because Clinton lied about a
blowjob, but it's not ok to put the country through an impeachment trial
because Bush/Cheney lied about an unnecessary war? Absolutely
unbelievable. Even one of our own Senators (Feinstein), a supposed
liberal, refuses to consider it.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You know that, right? And even
Bush's former press secretary who wrote the tell all book said he wasn't
lying about WMD's, just giving the information he had.

Bush lied repeatedly to the US public. He and his cronies have been lying
for the last seven years.

Any facts or evidence to support this?

The gov't in this country is spying on its citizens, detaining people
without trial (not just foreigners, but it's own citizens), and generally
trashing our civil rights.
Nah. There have been some changes due to the war on terrorists. It's a new
type of war requiring a new type of surveillance. No new president will
change that. If they do, *they* should be impeached.

Like I said, it's a slippery slope. I know you don't mind being on it. I do.
Overseas, even with the grudging funding of HIV programs in Africa by the
Bush Administration, there are so many strings attached that countries
are barred from using their own money to promote safer sex with condoms
if they want to receive money from the US.... all of this due to the
religio-fascists who have a strangle hold on that jerk in office.
I'm not very fond of the idea of giving money to governments for AIDs when
there is no accountability about where the money goes. Why do lefties
always think dumping more money into a problem is the best solution? I
wouldn't mind so much if it was their money they wanted to dump, but in
fact they always want it to be someone else's money, not theirs. That's a
big part of why it's wrong.

Sure. They should all die. Got it.

Again, you are ignoring what I'm actually saying. Maybe you can read it
again and see if you can answer instead of me spelling everything out
for you. Here's a hint: Why do you think it's good to force others to
pay more for AIDs research? How much have you paid? How much more are
you willing to pay? Have all diseases been cured when more money was
paid for finding cures?

As for Obama vs McCain, I'm relatively ambivalent. Obama doesn't seem
stupid enough to change course in Iraq, no matter what he says. When he
continues the war on terror, as he must, more people will understand that
Bush isn't to blame for Islamic extremists and even gentle liberal lefties
need to wipe them off the face of the earth before they do the same to us.

Bush and Condi were warned about 9/11. They went on vacation.

Again, you have failed to address my point. A clear sign that you have
no answer for what I'm saying. Maybe you were just in a hurry when you
wrote this? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying again.

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:18:18 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


that Bush isn't to blame for Islamic extremists and even gentle liberal
lefties need to wipe them off the face of the earth before they do the
same to us.

Stephen

I am confused.

When Americans state "In God we trust", which God are they referring
to? Obviously not the Christian God. Sounds more like Camaxtli, the
Aztec god of war.

Do you propose that the Christian extremists get the same treatment?

Of course. All extremists of any type who threaten and carry out
violence targeting innocents should be investigated and stopped by any
means necessary.

What about the gun-totting, survivalist, anti-government extremists of
places such as Montana?

Well, cultists and extremists should be and have been caught and stopped
from hurting people.

Do you propose to invade China, Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan (suggested
by some at present) and any other country that you consider poses a
threat to US interests? What about Cuba? Oh, I forgot. You tried that
once and lost.

We should remain somewhat lackadaisical about those who only threaten
and never seem to be willing or able to carry it out, like we did with
the Islamic extremists; but once they show the willingness or ability to
hurt people we should rain holy hell down on them, just like we did with
Al Qaida.

Your response is unreasoned, abusive and blustering, typical of
someone who cannot accept Vail criticism and who has no other means of
refuting the statements.

The only abuse I level at people is toward those who level it at me
first. There has been none toward you so far, has there? You should not
consider demolition of your arguments as "abuse."

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Because it's not all about me or you or likely anyone who's on this
newsgroup.
Then why did you ask if I like the way things have gone the last eight
years? I personally have absolutely nothing to complain about and
apparently neither do you.

So, you don't mind if people suffer. Got it.

Nope, you missed it. Seems you don't want to understand another point of
view. In case I'm wrong about that: We each have to look around at our own
environment as a major part of how we evaluate how the world is going.
This evaluation is the only one not relying on second hand information and
the only one we are direct witness to, hence is the most reliable. You
directly asked me about how I thought things have been, so I answered with
this direct evidence. Do you think this evidence from my life and yours
doesn't matter?

Nope. Didn't miss it. You missed it. You're relatively privilaged. People
who aren't are suffering and you don't care. This is the point. I know it's
difficult for you, so don't sweat it.


It's about the suffering going on due to Bush's insolence and
corruption. I'm sick of his pandering to the right-wing religious nuts
who want gov't to stay out of their lives, but who want to turn this
into a religious/fascist/fundamentalist state of their own design, but
not that dissimilar to the Taliban.
Haven't seen a bit of this. Has the govt been getting more into your
life lately? This struggle has gone on at the fringes for as long as I
can remember. Nothing new.

In your mind, nothing is new. Got it.

In my life as an American citizen there has been no more interference than
ever. This also holds true for all my friends and anyone I know who I've
questioned, including you, apparently.

I guess you never fly or drive or use the phone or use the Internet. And,
best of all, neither do your friends! LOL


I'm sick of him starting and then perpetuating a war of choice (Iraq)
vs. one of necessity (Afganistan) and lying about it the whole time.
Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, not just Bush. There was no lying.

BS. He lied, Cheney lied, and Powel went along with it. Everyone? Really?

Well, the vote in Congress was, what, 400 to 1 to go to war? Close enough.

Congress? Really? I thought it was the Senate... 77 to 23. Get your facts
straight. You look foolish when you make things up and you're not Dick
Cheney. Well, he looks pretty foolish too!

I'm sick of him ignoring and being so out of touch with what's going on
in this country that he thinks everything is just fine with the
economy, the lack of affordable healthcare for those worse off than
people like me and you, and ignoring the people in desperate situations
(e.g., New Orleans).
Again, nothing new here. The economy goes up and down. We don't have
socialized medicine. What's new? I can't remember it ever being any
different, can you? Bush isn't to blame for any of it.

Again, you don't care. Got it. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth or yours
I suppose.

Didn't say a word about caring or not. I said I can't remember the economy
not going up and down. Can you? We've also never had more socialized
medicine ever. How do you blame Bush for that? Did you change the subject
because these points are obvious and you don't want to admit it?

What are you blathering about? The economy is in shambles, in a large
measure because of the cost of the war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove
Federal funding from just about every program including Social Security and
Medicare.

Don't think I'm absolving the formerly Republican controlled Congress
either. They are at least complicit. The Republicans are holding fast
even though the Dems are not in charge, basically preventing anything
meaningful to get done, because it's an election year. And, don't think
I'm absolving the Dem leadership in Congress either. I'm not happy that
Pelosi refused to consider impeachment. It was just fine to put the
country through an impeachment trial because Clinton lied about a
blowjob, but it's not ok to put the country through an impeachment
trial because Bush/Cheney lied about an unnecessary war? Absolutely
unbelievable. Even one of our own Senators (Feinstein), a supposed
liberal, refuses to consider it.
Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. You know that, right? And
even Bush's former press secretary who wrote the tell all book said he
wasn't lying about WMD's, just giving the information he had.

Bush lied repeatedly to the US public. He and his cronies have been lying
for the last seven years.

Any facts or evidence to support this?

If you can't find them, you've got a lot more problems than I can solve by
pointing you to them.

The gov't in this country is spying on its citizens, detaining people
without trial (not just foreigners, but it's own citizens), and
generally trashing our civil rights.
Nah. There have been some changes due to the war on terrorists. It's a
new type of war requiring a new type of surveillance. No new president
will change that. If they do, *they* should be impeached.

Like I said, it's a slippery slope. I know you don't mind being on it. I
do.
Overseas, even with the grudging funding of HIV programs in Africa by
the Bush Administration, there are so many strings attached that
countries are barred from using their own money to promote safer sex
with condoms if they want to receive money from the US.... all of this
due to the religio-fascists who have a strangle hold on that jerk in
office.
I'm not very fond of the idea of giving money to governments for AIDs
when there is no accountability about where the money goes. Why do
lefties always think dumping more money into a problem is the best
solution? I wouldn't mind so much if it was their money they wanted to
dump, but in fact they always want it to be someone else's money, not
theirs. That's a big part of why it's wrong.

Sure. They should all die. Got it.

Again, you are ignoring what I'm actually saying. Maybe you can read it
again and see if you can answer instead of me spelling everything out for
you. Here's a hint: Why do you think it's good to force others to pay more
for AIDs research? How much have you paid? How much more are you willing
to pay? Have all diseases been cured when more money was paid for finding
cures?

Sounds like a rant to me. I think I'll pass. You don't care about people
with aids and you think that we really shouldn't be spending money to help
them. You didn't address one of the points I made, then accuse me of doing
that. Sounds like a right-wingnut methodology to me!

As for Obama vs McCain, I'm relatively ambivalent. Obama doesn't seem
stupid enough to change course in Iraq, no matter what he says. When he
continues the war on terror, as he must, more people will understand
that Bush isn't to blame for Islamic extremists and even gentle liberal
lefties need to wipe them off the face of the earth before they do the
same to us.

Bush and Condi were warned about 9/11. They went on vacation.

Again, you have failed to address my point. A clear sign that you have no
answer for what I'm saying. Maybe you were just in a hurry when you wrote
this? I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and trying again.

Maybe if you say it five more times you'll feel better.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:18:18 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


that Bush isn't to blame for Islamic extremists and even gentle liberal
lefties need to wipe them off the face of the earth before they do the
same to us.

Stephen

I am confused.

When Americans state "In God we trust", which God are they referring
to? Obviously not the Christian God. Sounds more like Camaxtli, the
Aztec god of war.

Do you propose that the Christian extremists get the same treatment?

Of course. All extremists of any type who threaten and carry out violence
targeting innocents should be investigated and stopped by any means
necessary.

What about the gun-totting, survivalist, anti-government extremists of
places such as Montana?

Well, cultists and extremists should be and have been caught and stopped
from hurting people.

Do you propose to invade China, Russia, Venezuela, Pakistan (suggested
by some at present) and any other country that you consider poses a
threat to US interests? What about Cuba? Oh, I forgot. You tried that
once and lost.

We should remain somewhat lackadaisical about those who only threaten and
never seem to be willing or able to carry it out, like we did with the
Islamic extremists; but once they show the willingness or ability to hurt
people we should rain holy hell down on them, just like we did with Al
Qaida.

Your response is unreasoned, abusive and blustering, typical of
someone who cannot accept Vail criticism and who has no other means of
refuting the statements.

The only abuse I level at people is toward those who level it at me first.
There has been none toward you so far, has there? You should not consider
demolition of your arguments as "abuse."

Stephen


Yeah, we "rain holy hell down on them" like with did with bin laden... a guy
trailing 300lbs of dialysis equipment over hill and dale. But, we sure "got
them" in Iraq, except they're all movin to Afganistan thanks to George and
Dick.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Because it's not all about me or you or likely anyone who's on this
newsgroup.
Then why did you ask if I like the way things have gone the last eight
years? I personally have absolutely nothing to complain about and
apparently neither do you.

So, you don't mind if people suffer. Got it.

Nope, you missed it. Seems you don't want to understand another point of
view. In case I'm wrong about that: We each have to look around at our
own environment as a major part of how we evaluate how the world is
going. This evaluation is the only one not relying on second hand
information and the only one we are direct witness to, hence is the most
reliable. You directly asked me about how I thought things have been, so
I answered with this direct evidence. Do you think this evidence from my
life and yours doesn't matter?

Nope. Didn't miss it. You missed it. You're relatively privilaged. People
who aren't are suffering and you don't care. This is the point. I know
it's difficult for you, so don't sweat it.


It's about the suffering going on due to Bush's insolence and
corruption. I'm sick of his pandering to the right-wing religious nuts
who want gov't to stay out of their lives, but who want to turn this
into a religious/fascist/fundamentalist state of their own design, but
not that dissimilar to the Taliban.
Haven't seen a bit of this. Has the govt been getting more into your
life lately? This struggle has gone on at the fringes for as long as I
can remember. Nothing new.

In your mind, nothing is new. Got it.

In my life as an American citizen there has been no more interference
than ever. This also holds true for all my friends and anyone I know who
I've questioned, including you, apparently.

I guess you never fly or drive or use the phone or use the Internet. And,
best of all, neither do your friends! LOL


I'm sick of him starting and then perpetuating a war of choice (Iraq)
vs. one of necessity (Afganistan) and lying about it the whole time.
Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, not just Bush. There was no lying.

BS. He lied, Cheney lied, and Powel went along with it. Everyone?
Really?

Well, the vote in Congress was, what, 400 to 1 to go to war? Close
enough.

Congress? Really? I thought it was the Senate... 77 to 23. Get your facts
straight. You look foolish when you make things up and you're not Dick
Cheney. Well, he looks pretty foolish too!


I forgot about the House... they approved the identical resolution 296 to
133. Not exactly 400 to 1 is it. So I guess at least a few people weren't
fooled by Bu****.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

I love this part:

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said the United States needs to move before
Saddam can develop a more advanced arsenal.
"Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for
war on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that
will only grow as his power to achieve them grows," McCain said.

I guess his vast foreign policy experience didn't help him this time....


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:32:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:49:52 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


we should rain holy hell down on them


Stevie boy has exposed himself as just another religious extremist who believes,
like the Islamic extremists he abhors, that he is under orders from God to
eliminate that anyone who opposes HIS religion, and they must be eliminated in
the name of God.



The really silly thing abut the whole mid-east affair is that they all
worship the same god - The God of Abraham. Says so in the Koran, the
Bible and the Torah. You'd think they would all be bosom buds,
wouldn't you?

Just goes to show you that politics is more powerful the religion.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:45:31 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
areasolutions...
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
Because it's not all about me or you or likely anyone who's on this
newsgroup.
Then why did you ask if I like the way things have gone the last
eight
years? I personally have absolutely nothing to complain about and
apparently neither do you.

So, you don't mind if people suffer. Got it.

Nope, you missed it. Seems you don't want to understand another point
of
view. In case I'm wrong about that: We each have to look around at our
own environment as a major part of how we evaluate how the world is
going. This evaluation is the only one not relying on second hand
information and the only one we are direct witness to, hence is the
most
reliable. You directly asked me about how I thought things have been,
so
I answered with this direct evidence. Do you think this evidence from
my
life and yours doesn't matter?

Nope. Didn't miss it. You missed it. You're relatively privilaged.
People
who aren't are suffering and you don't care. This is the point. I know
it's difficult for you, so don't sweat it.


It's about the suffering going on due to Bush's insolence and
corruption. I'm sick of his pandering to the right-wing religious
nuts
who want gov't to stay out of their lives, but who want to turn this
into a religious/fascist/fundamentalist state of their own design,
but
not that dissimilar to the Taliban.
Haven't seen a bit of this. Has the govt been getting more into your
life lately? This struggle has gone on at the fringes for as long as
I
can remember. Nothing new.

In your mind, nothing is new. Got it.

In my life as an American citizen there has been no more interference
than ever. This also holds true for all my friends and anyone I know
who
I've questioned, including you, apparently.

I guess you never fly or drive or use the phone or use the Internet.
And,
best of all, neither do your friends! LOL


I'm sick of him starting and then perpetuating a war of choice
(Iraq)
vs. one of necessity (Afganistan) and lying about it the whole time.
Everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, not just Bush. There was no lying.

BS. He lied, Cheney lied, and Powel went along with it. Everyone?
Really?

Well, the vote in Congress was, what, 400 to 1 to go to war? Close
enough.

Congress? Really? I thought it was the Senate... 77 to 23. Get your
facts
straight. You look foolish when you make things up and you're not Dick
Cheney. Well, he looks pretty foolish too!


I forgot about the House... they approved the identical resolution 296 to
133. Not exactly 400 to 1 is it. So I guess at least a few people weren't
fooled by Bu****.

Don't overlook what happened in the next election following that vote. So
many
of the idiots who voted for the war were sent packing, it changed the
balance of
Congress, which had been tightly held by the Republicans for quite some
time.
Apparently a majority of THE PEOPLE who own the joint, disagreed with that
vote.




True, but unfortunately, the new people are much like the old people. Sounds
like a Who concert.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:37:32 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

agenda to remove
Federal funding from just about every program including Social Security
and
Medicare.

That new drug plan really took a bite out of Medicare, right?


The one that costs seniors even more and relies on the Alzheimer patients to
make it cost effective because they can't figure out what they should do?
Yes, that one! LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 06:32:33 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:49:52 -0700, Stephen Trapani

wrote:


we should rain holy hell down on them


Stevie boy has exposed himself as just another religious extremist who
believes,
like the Islamic extremists he abhors, that he is under orders from God to
eliminate that anyone who opposes HIS religion, and they must be
eliminated in
the name of God.



The really silly thing abut the whole mid-east affair is that they all
worship the same god - The God of Abraham. Says so in the Koran, the
Bible and the Torah. You'd think they would all be bosom buds,
wouldn't you?

Just goes to show you that politics is more powerful the religion.

Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)


Politics is more powerful and, I think, a force for good. Most people would
rather attack each other via politics and words rather than with bombs and
guns. There are a few on both sides (politics and religion) that prefer
bombs and guns. On one side, we have religious fundamentalist extremists and
on the other we have the Bush/Cheney crowd. But, I repeat myself.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:07:40 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

I'm an atheist.

Got a feather handy? I figure that's what it would take to knock Jon over
right now.


Not a chance. I believe in God. Keep that feather handy for Dave. LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

wrote in message
...
On 29 Jul 2008 13:07:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:05:28 -0400, said:

I'm an atheist.

Got a feather handy? I figure that's what it would take to knock Jon
over
right now.

I guess that means you believe he's an atheist because he said so.
Glad you are not MY lawyer, Dave!

I have no reason to disbelieve him.

VERY glad you are not MY lawyer.

I understand, however, that if you're
accustomed to putting people into neat little pigeon holes on the basis
that
if they believe X then they must also believe Y and Z, Steve's assertion
might be difficult for you to accept.

You also assume that he's a competent atheist who doesn't have an
underlying subconscious belief in god whether he wants it or not. He's
the one who used the phrase "holy hell". Odd choice of words for
someone who claims to be an atheist.

That's why I suggested the likely
effect of applying a feather to Jon.

I think you just want to tickle Jon. I don't think you are his type.


I assure you... Dave is NOT my type! LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

Again, nothing new here. The economy goes up and down. We don't have
socialized medicine. What's new? I can't remember it ever being any
different, can you? Bush isn't to blame for any of it.
Again, you don't care. Got it. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth or yours
I suppose.
Didn't say a word about caring or not. I said I can't remember the economy
not going up and down. Can you? We've also never had more socialized
medicine ever. How do you blame Bush for that? Did you change the subject
because these points are obvious and you don't want to admit it?

What are you blathering about?

I thought you were old enough to remember that the economy goes up and
down. Remember the seventies? There were way worse than now. You're old
enough, you just don't want to remember, I guess.

The economy is in shambles, in a large
measure because of the cost of the war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove
Federal funding from just about every program including Social Security and
Medicare.

Hilarious! So, every war in US history has boosted the economy except
this one. And if there were more federal funding for Social Security,
Medicare and the like, the economy would be in better shape! Wow, hard
to argue with someone so far off the mark!

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

Again, nothing new here. The economy goes up and down. We don't have
socialized medicine. What's new? I can't remember it ever being any
different, can you? Bush isn't to blame for any of it.
Again, you don't care. Got it. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth or
yours I suppose.
Didn't say a word about caring or not. I said I can't remember the
economy not going up and down. Can you? We've also never had more
socialized medicine ever. How do you blame Bush for that? Did you change
the subject because these points are obvious and you don't want to admit
it?

What are you blathering about?

I thought you were old enough to remember that the economy goes up and
down. Remember the seventies? There were way worse than now. You're old
enough, you just don't want to remember, I guess.

So, what you're saying is that because the 70s were worse, then everything
is ok now. That makes a lot of sense to you I guess.

The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost of the
war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just about
every program including Social Security and Medicare.

Hilarious! So, every war in US history has boosted the economy except this
one. And if there were more federal funding for Social Security, Medicare
and the like, the economy would be in better shape! Wow, hard to argue
with someone so far off the mark!

Huh? Where did I say that? What I said was that we're spending $12B a month
on a war that didn't need to be fought, that we were lied to about, instead
of helping people in this country. The neo-con agenda is pretty clear and
self-stated.

Here's a nice link for you, since you're an avowed athiest...

http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=205




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 29 Jul 2008 13:52:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:31:34 -0400, said:

"holy hell". Odd choice of words for
someone who claims to be an atheist.
And would you apply the same reasoning to someone who exclaims "holy
****?"

I might if the person had said other things that pointed in a
particular direction. I think Steve knew he was outed, and claiming to
be an atheist was his feeble attempt at shocking people into taking
his views more seriously. It didn't work, except on a gullible layer
or two.

You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any
Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet
argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a higher
sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right to harm
innocents.

Stephen



A higher sort. That's rich. Someone who really doesn't care about other
people, especially those who are dying.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:09:18 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

The economy is in shambles, in a large
measure because of the cost of the war and Bushco's stated agenda to
remove
Federal funding from just about every program including Social Security
and
Medicare.

Hilarious!

Jon's been saying the economy is in shambles constantly since 2001. Why
should he change now?


So, you think things are better now than in say 1998?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

wrote in message
...
On 29 Jul 2008 16:34:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a
higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right
to harm innocents.

Jeez, Steve, you didn't have to give up religion for that. There are
plenty
around that do not include a right to harm innocents in their catechism.

Steve has a very special and narrow view as to whom he considers
"innoncents". I
imagine it at least includes the Keating Five, and does not include
minority
children in poor surroundings.




Hey! Don't slam McCain. He only used "poor judgement," according to the
Ethics Committee.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...scandals_stir/

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
Again, nothing new here. The economy goes up and down. We don't have
socialized medicine. What's new? I can't remember it ever being any
different, can you? Bush isn't to blame for any of it.
Again, you don't care. Got it. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth or
yours I suppose.
Didn't say a word about caring or not. I said I can't remember the
economy not going up and down. Can you? We've also never had more
socialized medicine ever. How do you blame Bush for that? Did you change
the subject because these points are obvious and you don't want to admit
it?
What are you blathering about?
I thought you were old enough to remember that the economy goes up and
down. Remember the seventies? There were way worse than now. You're old
enough, you just don't want to remember, I guess.

So, what you're saying is that because the 70s were worse, then everything
is ok now. That makes a lot of sense to you I guess.

No, what I'm saying is that the economy has been going up and down for
as long as I can remember and it seems there is little any president can
ever do about it.

The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost of the
war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just about
every program including Social Security and Medicare.
Hilarious! So, every war in US history has boosted the economy except this
one. And if there were more federal funding for Social Security, Medicare
and the like, the economy would be in better shape! Wow, hard to argue
with someone so far off the mark!

Huh? Where did I say that?

The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost
of the
war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just
about
every program including Social Security and Medicare.

What I said was that we're spending $12B a month
on a war that didn't need to be fought,

But wars have always boosted the US economy. Why is this one any different?

that we were lied to about, instead
of helping people in this country. The neo-con agenda is pretty clear and
self-stated.

Here's a nice link for you, since you're an avowed athiest...

http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=205

We should dominate any culture who seeks to prevent economic, cultural,
social and religious freedoms. We should dominate them only to the
extent that they can't *impose* their values on anyone. At the least,
let them talk about it and promote it all they want in a free speech
setting and the foolishness of their ideas will be illuminated. At the
most blow them to kingdom come if they won't stop their aggression
against innocents.

We should also fight these evil forces within our own society with
similar standars, including Christians who seek to impose their
stupidity (like creationism) on the rest of us.

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 29 Jul 2008 13:52:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:31:34 -0400, said:

"holy hell". Odd choice of words for
someone who claims to be an atheist.
And would you apply the same reasoning to someone who exclaims "holy
****?"
I might if the person had said other things that pointed in a
particular direction. I think Steve knew he was outed, and claiming to
be an atheist was his feeble attempt at shocking people into taking
his views more seriously. It didn't work, except on a gullible layer
or two.
You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any
Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet
argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a higher
sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right to harm
innocents.

Stephen



A higher sort. That's rich. Someone who really doesn't care about other
people, especially those who are dying.

Who are you talking about? I care about people. I just don't think that
stealing money by force from people and giving it to someone else is the
way to solve peoples' problems.

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a
higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right
to harm innocents.

Jeez, Steve, you didn't have to give up religion for that. There are plenty
around that do not include a right to harm innocents in their catechism.

I gave up religious theories because I think they are false.

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:



You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any
Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet
argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a
higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right
to harm innocents.

Stephen

Sounds like a 'religious' philosophy to me. Perhaps not a religion but
at least a religious belief.

Peter

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:36:36 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:



A higher sort. That's rich. Someone who really doesn't care about other
people, especially those who are dying.

Who are you talking about? I care about people. I just don't think that
stealing money by force from people and giving it to someone else is the
way to solve peoples' problems.

Stephen

Stephen,

Rosseau's statement that "all taxation is theft" and its underlying
arguments does not apply in this age and has been largely discredited.
If you wish to belong to a particular herd and claim protection and
hearth warmth from that herd then you must pay the piper.

That is why you elect the people who decide how much the membership
fees are and how it is spent.

Apart from any moral or empathetic reasons that come with a supposedly
highly developed civilisation, to me it makes economic sense to
financially try to help one's less fortunate citizens.

There is also the law of economic returns and the money-go-round of a
one dollar note given to a beggar. Its spending power is amplified
many fold as it gets passed along and eventually reaches your pocket.

I give money away, not because I am enjoined to give away 10% by my
religion, but because I feel a moral duty and have a desire to help
some other poor sod who may not be the maker of his own misfortunes. I
also have the realisation that I could have been and still could be,
in that boat.

In history, even from the time of the 18th century BC Hammurabi,
societies have been judged by how well and how justly they treated
their citizens, including their disadvantaged such as children,
slaves, the infirm and widows.

As a New Zealander, a large proportion of my taxes goes on free public
education (including university if you cannot afford it), reasonable
welfare payments and health care. I who do not need these things, am
more than happy to pay as I believe in the morality of a safety net
for all.

Peter

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any
Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet
argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a
higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right
to harm innocents.

Stephen

Sounds like a 'religious' philosophy to me. Perhaps not a religion but
at least a religious belief.

Morality is not exclusive to religion. My morality is based upon reason,
not because someone said it in a book. Religion is based upon faith.

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Yes, that must be very frustrating for you. Nobody thinks what you say
has any gravitas. Maybe if you stamp your feet and hold your breath
someone will pretend to pay attention to your nonsense.

No, reason is always the first best answer for ignorance and falsehood.
I'll continue with that. I'm sure that even though you couldn't
understand it, there were plenty that read it here who could.

Stephen

My God! I am obviously not as perceptive and intelligent as I thought
I was. Thanks for making me feel an intellectual fraud.

I tried hard, but I could see no substance or reasoned truths in any
of your arguments. Just sounded like not very good rhetoric to me.

regards
Peter

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:36:36 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


A higher sort. That's rich. Someone who really doesn't care about other
people, especially those who are dying.
Who are you talking about? I care about people. I just don't think that
stealing money by force from people and giving it to someone else is the
way to solve peoples' problems.

Stephen

Stephen,

Rosseau's statement that "all taxation is theft" and its underlying
arguments does not apply in this age and has been largely discredited.
If you wish to belong to a particular herd and claim protection and
hearth warmth from that herd then you must pay the piper.

That is why you elect the people who decide how much the membership
fees are and how it is spent.

Apart from any moral or empathetic reasons that come with a supposedly
highly developed civilisation, to me it makes economic sense to
financially try to help one's less fortunate citizens.
[...]

A more moral and effective way to help less fortunate citizens is with
better forms of voluntary private donation. A more moral and efficient
way to fund public services is with private companies competing in the
marketplace to provide them instead of dumping money into government
organizations with little to no accountability for how effectively they
use that money.

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:42:12 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any
Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet
argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a
higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right
to harm innocents.

Stephen

Sounds like a 'religious' philosophy to me. Perhaps not a religion but
at least a religious belief.

Morality is not exclusive to religion. My morality is based upon reason,
not because someone said it in a book. Religion is based upon faith.

Stephen

Forgive me for contradicting you but that is not true.

If you do a Google on such as Averroes and (Saint) Thomas Aquinas and
(Saint) Albert Magnus you will see that there was at the time, and had
been for a long while, much discussion about belief by faith or by
reason. Europe never developed the Japanese concept of "Mu" and thus
there was a lot of conflict on the matter.

At the time (12 century CE) there was much intercourse between the
scholars and theologians of Islamic Spain and medieval Europe.
Averroes the Moslem came up with the answer and it was included as a
cornerstone of Catholic doctrine by Thomas Aquinas. That is why a
Moslem philosopher/theologian is included in the painting by Raphael
of "The school of Athens" that was painted on a wall of the then
Pope's bedroom.

I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's
writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best
theological author - he was not merely a mathematician.

regards
Peter

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:42:12 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any
Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet
argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a
higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right
to harm innocents.

Stephen
Sounds like a 'religious' philosophy to me. Perhaps not a religion but
at least a religious belief.
Morality is not exclusive to religion. My morality is based upon reason,
not because someone said it in a book. Religion is based upon faith.

Stephen

Forgive me for contradicting you but that is not true.

If you do a Google on such as Averroes and (Saint) Thomas Aquinas and
(Saint) Albert Magnus you will see that there was at the time, and had
been for a long while, much discussion about belief by faith or by
reason. Europe never developed the Japanese concept of "Mu" and thus
there was a lot of conflict on the matter.

At the time (12 century CE) there was much intercourse between the
scholars and theologians of Islamic Spain and medieval Europe.
Averroes the Moslem came up with the answer and it was included as a
cornerstone of Catholic doctrine by Thomas Aquinas. That is why a
Moslem philosopher/theologian is included in the painting by Raphael
of "The school of Athens" that was painted on a wall of the then
Pope's bedroom.

I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's
writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best
theological author - he was not merely a mathematician.

Pascal rightly believed that reason had no place in religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

There is insufficient evidence or argument for the existence of God and
all the religions I am familiar with acknowledge this and claim that one
can only come to God via faith.

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message

Again, nothing new here. The economy goes up and down. We don't have
socialized medicine. What's new? I can't remember it ever being any
different, can you? Bush isn't to blame for any of it.
Again, you don't care. Got it. Butter wouldn't melt in his mouth or
yours I suppose.
Didn't say a word about caring or not. I said I can't remember the
economy not going up and down. Can you? We've also never had more
socialized medicine ever. How do you blame Bush for that? Did you change
the subject because these points are obvious and you don't want to admit
it?

What are you blathering about?

I thought you were old enough to remember that the economy goes up and
down. Remember the seventies? There were way worse than now. You're old
enough, you just don't want to remember, I guess.

Drugs such as LSD have been known to do that

The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost of the
war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just about
every program including Social Security and Medicare.

Hilarious! So, every war in US history has boosted the economy except this
one. And if there were more federal funding for Social Security, Medicare
and the like, the economy would be in better shape! Wow, hard to argue
with someone so far off the mark!

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...

No, what I'm saying is that the economy has been going up and down for as
long as I can remember and it seems there is little any president can ever
do about it.

I guess the president is just a figurehead with no power to affect the
economy. Right.

The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost of
the war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just
about every program including Social Security and Medicare.
Hilarious! So, every war in US history has boosted the economy except
this one. And if there were more federal funding for Social Security,
Medicare and the like, the economy would be in better shape! Wow, hard
to argue with someone so far off the mark!

Huh? Where did I say that?

The economy is in shambles, in a large measure because of the cost
of the
war and Bushco's stated agenda to remove Federal funding from just
about
every program including Social Security and Medicare.

What I said was that we're spending $12B a month on a war that didn't
need to be fought,

But wars have always boosted the US economy. Why is this one any
different?

Perhaps because after 9/11 Bushco told us to go shopping. $12B a month and
poor people are homeless, kids don't get health insurance, vets don't get
decent benefits or a "GI"-like bill, according to war hero McCain anyway.
It's a pretty long list....


that we were lied to about, instead of helping people in this country.
The neo-con agenda is pretty clear and self-stated.

Here's a nice link for you, since you're an avowed athiest...

http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=205

We should dominate any culture who seeks to prevent economic, cultural,
social and religious freedoms. We should dominate them only to the extent
that they can't *impose* their values on anyone. At the least, let them
talk about it and promote it all they want in a free speech setting and
the foolishness of their ideas will be illuminated. At the most blow them
to kingdom come if they won't stop their aggression against innocents.

So we should go to war against all those in power who are bad? That's a
pretty long list. Why did we start with Iraq when we had bigger fish to fry?
Because Watson, Bush was part of the neocon revolution.

We should also fight these evil forces within our own society with similar
standars, including Christians who seek to impose their stupidity (like
creationism) on the rest of us.

Who decides who's evil? Bush? You? I don't disagree, but I'd like to know
who gets to decide. I sure don't want that responsibility.



--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Capt. JG wrote:
"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 29 Jul 2008 13:52:02 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:31:34 -0400, said:

"holy hell". Odd choice of words for
someone who claims to be an atheist.
And would you apply the same reasoning to someone who exclaims "holy
****?"
I might if the person had said other things that pointed in a
particular direction. I think Steve knew he was outed, and claiming to
be an atheist was his feeble attempt at shocking people into taking
his views more seriously. It didn't work, except on a gullible layer
or two.
You might trying thinking for a few seconds or so. Do you know any
Christians who would disavow their belief for the sake of a silly usenet
argument? No, I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a
higher sort. The sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right
to harm innocents.

Stephen



A higher sort. That's rich. Someone who really doesn't care about other
people, especially those who are dying.

Who are you talking about? I care about people. I just don't think that
stealing money by force from people and giving it to someone else is the
way to solve peoples' problems.

Stephen


Someone is stealing from you? I agree! That would be the Republicans.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Herodotus wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:36:36 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


A higher sort. That's rich. Someone who really doesn't care about other
people, especially those who are dying.
Who are you talking about? I care about people. I just don't think that
stealing money by force from people and giving it to someone else is the
way to solve peoples' problems.

Stephen

Stephen,

Rosseau's statement that "all taxation is theft" and its underlying
arguments does not apply in this age and has been largely discredited.
If you wish to belong to a particular herd and claim protection and
hearth warmth from that herd then you must pay the piper.

That is why you elect the people who decide how much the membership
fees are and how it is spent.

Apart from any moral or empathetic reasons that come with a supposedly
highly developed civilisation, to me it makes economic sense to
financially try to help one's less fortunate citizens.
[...]

A more moral and effective way to help less fortunate citizens is with
better forms of voluntary private donation. A more moral and efficient way
to fund public services is with private companies competing in the
marketplace to provide them instead of dumping money into government
organizations with little to no accountability for how effectively they
use that money.

Stephen


Not a chance. It doesn't work well enough without gov't guidance. The
private sector is only mostly interested in the share price of their stock.
You're talking about having huge fluctuations in the economy if a
free-market system is left to itself. It's a Chicago School of Economics
policy that started in the '50s. It doesn't work.

It's very easy to claim that someone is "dumping" money, but it isn't the
case. Clinton proved that when he reduced the welfare rolls while he was in
office, along with putting us into positive territory with the deficit (now
about $1/2 TRILLION thanks to Bush's policies).

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:13:20 -0700, Stephen Trapani
said:

I'm an atheist. And one who believes in morality of a higher sort. The
sort where no religious belief gives anyone the right to harm innocents.

Jeez, Steve, you didn't have to give up religion for that. There are
plenty
around that do not include a right to harm innocents in their catechism.

I gave up religious theories because I think they are false.

Stephen


I believe in God because it's obvious when you're sailing on a beautiful
day.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's
writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best
theological author - he was not merely a mathematician.

Pascal rightly believed that reason had no place in religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

There is insufficient evidence or argument for the existence of God and
all the religions I am familiar with acknowledge this and claim that one
can only come to God via faith.

Stephen

Not quite correct Stephen,

He made no such direct statement that I can remember though I
acknowledge that it is some time since I read his writings.

What most people refer to is known as Pascal's Wager in which he
stated that it is better to believe in a God as ""If you win you win
everything, if you lose you lose nothing."

What he did acknowledge is that nobody can positively know for certain
that there is or is not a God, therefore faith must come into play as
it does with most things we do in life. This is where people assume
that he meant that only by faith alone can anyone believe in a God.
He has never taken that simplistic stand. He did reason that there is
very little in this world that we can know for absolute certainty.
Prior to DNA testing nobody could be certain who one's father was. We
have to have faith that when we go to sleep at night we will awaken in
the morning, that the bus will arrive and that the pilot of the plane
we travel on is neither a terrorist nor a fraud who does not know how
to land the thing.

Personally I do not know whether there is or is not a God. I cannot
even conceive of what God is if there is one. To me it is of little
consequence at all but I am not an atheist.

The same goes for your assertion that you are an avowed atheist and do
not have any religious beliefs. Surely it follows that your adamant
belief that there is no God is a religious belief in itself,
regardless of what other associated concepts your Godlessness is
allied with. Therefore, ipso facto, you Sir do have a religion.

If you had said agnostic, it might be a little different.

regards
Peter

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

Herodotus wrote:

I suggest that, if you doubt me on this matter, that you read Pascal's
writings on the matter. He is regarded as probably the best
theological author - he was not merely a mathematician.
Pascal rightly believed that reason had no place in religion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

There is insufficient evidence or argument for the existence of God and
all the religions I am familiar with acknowledge this and claim that one
can only come to God via faith.

Stephen

Not quite correct Stephen,

He made no such direct statement that I can remember though I
acknowledge that it is some time since I read his writings.

What most people refer to is known as Pascal's Wager in which he
stated that it is better to believe in a God as ""If you win you win
everything, if you lose you lose nothing."

What he did acknowledge is that nobody can positively know for certain
that there is or is not a God, therefore faith must come into play as
it does with most things we do in life. This is where people assume
that he meant that only by faith alone can anyone believe in a God.
He has never taken that simplistic stand. He did reason that there is
very little in this world that we can know for absolute certainty.
Prior to DNA testing nobody could be certain who one's father was. We
have to have faith that when we go to sleep at night we will awaken in
the morning, that the bus will arrive and that the pilot of the plane
we travel on is neither a terrorist nor a fraud who does not know how
to land the thing.

Personally I do not know whether there is or is not a God. I cannot
even conceive of what God is if there is one. To me it is of little
consequence at all but I am not an atheist.

The same goes for your assertion that you are an avowed atheist and do
not have any religious beliefs. Surely it follows that your adamant
belief that there is no God is a religious belief in itself,
regardless of what other associated concepts your Godlessness is
allied with. Therefore, ipso facto, you Sir do have a religion.

If you had said agnostic, it might be a little different.

*All* of my best theories about the nature of the world are held
tentatively, which is the best anyone can hold any theory, as you
implied. I used to call myself agnostic for the very reason you state,
but the truth is that my best guess on the matter is that there is no God.

Since everything that I (and you) know is a best-guess, it is a non
sequitur to call it all "faith." In reality everything I know, I know
because it I have rejected all the alternative theories as either
falsified or inferior in some manner.

This system is called critical rationalism. You can find out more about
it at:

http://www.geocities.com/criticalrationalist/

or

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_rationalism

Stephen

Advice on refridgeration unit please
 

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:10:41 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Jon's been saying the economy is in shambles constantly since 2001. Why
should he change now?


So, you think things are better now than in say 1998?

I think you have an incredible ability to believe fairy tales.


Perhaps, but you didn't answer the question I noticed.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com