BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
Religion by its nature, tends to find alot of comfort in the
Status Quo, and the political right, has said that it to is
interested
in the same.
=============

Hmmmm... are you sure that's correct? JC was hardly an advocate for
the
status quo (and what about those Latin American Catholic priests who
bucked the pope and the entire Catholic bureaucracy?).

But, OK, for the sake of this discussion, we'll go with your premise.

Ok, but see that I said "tend", some times they go off and do something
totally unexpected, which makes them very difficult political
bedfellows to endure for long, as I said, don't look for logic!

Tink says:
============
Jimmy Carter. He was held up as
the next best thing to the Messiah, he was "born-again." Well he left
office in disgrace, and was a terrible embarassment to the religious,
for political reasons.
===============

How was he an embarassment. I would think that his current charitable
work would be a credit to any regigious group.

Granted, he has gone out and redeemed his image, but when he left
office, the religious were embarrassed. I do not know what truly
motivates him, so I don't know whether they would be embarassed now. He
could just be interested in building his legacy, which is self serving,
and not really philantrophic, and certainly not Christian! He seems to
me to relish the camera and spotlight to much to convince me that there
are not ulterior motives.

Tink says:
==============
Then came Reagan, who again, was born-again, and the friend of the
religious right.
==================

Do you believe that about Reagan? About being born-again, I mean. I
suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to
befriend the religious right.

I did not again personally know Reagan to make any sort of specific
judgement, though as a politician, I suspect that there was some
political opportunism going on as with Carter.


Tink:
=============
But now Bill was a "born again christian", and we all
remember where that got us, basically today.
=================

Do you believe that about Clinton? About being born-again, I mean. I
suspect he was more of a political opportunist who used religion to
get
votes in the South

Ditto!

Tink says:
=================
The fact that certain apparently rabid Christians are on board the
Lollypop, means absolutely nothing about what you can assume about
their faith, and that they even believe the part about "God Loves
you."
Usually that is just some cosmetic they put on just before they run
over you, run off with your wife, run off with your money, and likely
all three! And certainly do not expect them to correlate any further
what else they say they believe religiously and what they say they
believe politically. Don't be so naiive to think logic has anything
to
do with it, or that being a true Christian has anything to do with it
either.
================

Tink, I think you've made a very cogent argument. Perhaps you're
right.

I'll stew on that for a bit.

Cheers,
frtzw906

Don't burn the stew! TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink thinks:
=============
I was also thinking that it is a symbiotic relationship. They both
get
something out of it. The politicians obviously get the votes they
want;
the religious, get to feel like they are on the winning side. And
everyone know that if your god is worth a hoot, he should be able to
pick the winning side.
=============

Again, I think you've made some cogent points. What it points to, if
you're correct, is some fairly shallow commitments to Christianity on
the parts of many fundamentalist, born-agains. Upon reflection, I
ought
not to be surpised because, as you point out, many of these people do
follow like so many sheep.

Bingo!

Sadly, this does not reflect positively on the Republicans, nor the
religious right.

Ditto!

Tink asks:
=================
I was curious though, would you feel better if the religious were on
your side?
===================

I want critical thinkers on my side, but I'll reveal my prejudice.
Overt expressions of religiousity -- whether from a right or
left-wing
politician -- will generally ensure my vote going to another
candidate.


Fortunately, in Canada, politicians do not feel the need to add a
gratuitous "God bless Canada." to the end of every speech or to
attand
church on Sunday. In fact, overt expressions of religiousity are, I
think, a political liability in Canada.

frtzw906

In this country, where the political scene is limited to basically two
political parties, it is very subject to a large SIG voting block, and
what larger, more pliable and motivated group is there than the
religious. A large percentage of whom will get up off the couch to go
to church on Sunday at least. Most couch potatoes won't go out to vote,
unless they get really motivated by something like 9/11. Then they
quickly go back to their couch, where they don't want to be disturbed
from their pretzels and beer. Now that is unfortunate! TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink, in reference to humanism:
================
You talk about blind faith, this is dumb blind faith!
=====================

And how is this different from the dumb blind faith of a religious
person?

Tink:
==============
This is like the old metaphysicist trying to conjure gold out of
clay,
or lead, or crap. Still does not work!
=======================

Sorry, lead -- gold has been achieved many times. Here in Vancouver,
for example, at TRIUMF - Tri University Meson Facility.

Maybe in some super clean nuclear lab, but still not in the
metaphysicist caldron. The gnostics like Tom Harpur have been plying
there poison since the first century, and have not come up with
anything new. Any modern gnostic however noble, is limited to his
output; Garbage in, Garbage out!

Tink:
===============
A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful
through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our
intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who
differ from us.

More hogwash! If this life is an end in itself, all the history and
artistic achievments will be trash on the next generations dung heap!
Ask HST!
===================

What ARE you talking about. Secular humanists create (art, music,
teach, coach, etc) so as to leave a lasting impression. For us, it's
the only chance we've got.

We're not like crazed religious nuts who would fly planes into
buildings because there is some damned after-life.

There is NO after-life. That's why humanists do the best they can
while
they're here. They're the pacifists. The teachers. The artists. The
scientists. They're the ones who give a damn about making THIS life
better!

There are plenty of us who care about the here and hereafter! There are
Christian pacifist, Christian teachers, Christian artist, Christian
scientist, that care plenty, but also believe that there is God, and we
acknowledge Him in all we do, and look forward to.

But you are right on this point, it comes down to this; There is, or
there is no after-life. If you are wrong about there being no
after-life, and there is, you could be in for a few surprise! If I am
wrong, and there is not, then the worst that could happen, is that my
dungheap would be near yours, and if we could speak, you could say, I
told you so forever! But since you would not be able to speak, I will
not worry about it, and there won't be any surprises either!

And your logic about their art being trash on a dung-heap escapes me.

My after-life, insofar as there'll be one, exists in the impression I
leave behind. My after life rests entirely - solely - on my
achievements.

On this point, Tink, you haven't a clue!

frtzw906

So if you take all your artwork, and noble projects, and ideas, and go
out to the local landfill and decorate it so that it looks nicer, like
Cristo in Central Park. Invite in all the media, and take pictures and
write stories. Maybe get some sort of metal from congress for your
contribution to mankind. 100 years from now, shoot 30 years from now
for most of us, and it will just be a landfill. Not what I would want
to stake my reputation on, besides my eternal destiny, but then you
don't believe in the Eternal Destiny thing anyway. How comforting, and
encouraging to all those other fellow travelers marching in a row to
the dump. TnT

Tink:
==========
So if you take all your artwork, and noble projects, and ideas, and go
out to the local landfill and decorate it so that it looks nicer, like
Cristo in Central Park. Invite in all the media, and take pictures and
write stories. Maybe get some sort of metal from congress for your
contribution to mankind. 100 years from now, shoot 30 years from now
for most of us, and it will just be a landfill.
=============

Like I said, you haven't a clue. My legacy lives in so many ways, some
of which are material. Most importantly, through my interactions with
my fellow humans shall I be known (WOW! real biblical ring to that, eh?
GRIN). And, if I do a good job through my interactions with fellow
beings, I'll still be around (the essence of what I teach, anyway) for
decades to come. What more could one ask for? [Why do I think you'll
tell me?]

frtzw906

On 10-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Thus biometry is an aspect of morphology. One measures the relative sizes of
the form and structure of organisms. Without the form and structure of the
organism, there is nothing to measure, and biometry is pointless. Thus,
morphology inherently includes size as a component of form and structure.

Weiser meets a scientist:

Scientist: Here we have categorized the specimens according to morphological
similarities. These two, for example, are similar as they are both spherical.

Weiser: They can't both be spherical - they aren't the same size!

Scientist: Er... Now these specimens are all similar due to their conical
shape.

Weiser: They can't all be conical - they aren't the same size!

Scientist: Hmm... finally, the remainder of these specimens are similar
in that they are all cylindrical.

Weiser: They can't all be cylindrical - THEY AREN'T THE SAME SIZE.

Scientist: Security... SECURITY

You are both a bull****ter and an idiot.


I have no interest in tracking down an
obscure textbook just to satisfy you.

You have no interest in the facts. You are only interested in lying and
bull****.

Hm. Amusing but uninteresting display of ignorance. How about Ardipithecus
ramidus and australopithecus anamensis and australopithecus afarensis and
australopithecus africanus and australopithecus garhi and paranthropus
aethiopicus and paranthropus boisei and paranthropus robustus and homo
rudolfensis and homo heidelbergensis and homo erectus and homo habilis and
homo ergaster and homo neanderthalensis?
"

They are hominids - human ancestors, early humans not human beings. It
says so in the web page.

Again? When have I misquoted you? Provide proof, dickhead.

You still haven't shown where I have misquoted you.

You still haven't addressed your bull**** about Galileo and Newton -
We can safely assume that you haven't got the guts to admit you are
wrong. You still haven't got the guts to try to prove the bull****
you post. You still think that you can post bull**** and get away
with it.

Mike

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink:
==========
So if you take all your artwork, and noble projects, and ideas, and
go
out to the local landfill and decorate it so that it looks nicer,
like
Cristo in Central Park. Invite in all the media, and take pictures
and
write stories. Maybe get some sort of metal from congress for your
contribution to mankind. 100 years from now, shoot 30 years from now
for most of us, and it will just be a landfill.
=============

Like I said, you haven't a clue. My legacy lives in so many ways,
some
of which are material. Most importantly, through my interactions with
my fellow humans shall I be known (WOW! real biblical ring to that,
eh?
GRIN). And, if I do a good job through my interactions with fellow
beings, I'll still be around (the essence of what I teach, anyway)
for
decades to come. What more could one ask for? [Why do I think you'll
tell me?]

frtzw906

So clue me in to this legacy that will live. I have gotten to know you
a little, and I expect that you have been holding some cards close to
your chest. Show me your hand, I call you! TnT

Tink challenges:
=============
So clue me in to this legacy that will live. I have gotten to know you
a little, and I expect that you have been holding some cards close to
your chest. Show me your hand, I call you! TnT
===============

Tink, my interactions with fellow humans are vast. Let me give you
insight into non-work related stuff. I coach 4 different teams: 1
soccer and 3 field hockey (2 girls & one womens). If, a decade or two
from now, one of my players, perhaps coaching a team of her own, passes
on something that I taught or models some behavior, that's awesome. I
can't ask for more.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

It seems to me that the ACLU will go to bat for a right wing nut (perhaps
just like yourself) to defend freedom and rights.

Not hardly. The ACLU is a far-left, socialist shill that carefully picks
it's battles, and two of the things they have never fought for are gun
rights or religious freedom.

Hm. I'm pretty sure you'll fine that the ACLU has done such bizarre things
as to support the right of Nazis to march, and taken up other such causes
that could hardly be termed far-left.

Incorrect. Yes the ACLU has defended the right of neo-nazis to march, but
you have to look more closely at their entire agenda to see why it is that
they are a radical leftist organization. The neo-nazis are a fringe group of
kooks who have no real power and pose no real threat to the ACLU's leftist
agenda. It gives the ACLU the opportunity to appear to be centrist while
actually defending the rights of other leftist-socialists to likewise march.

However, when it comes to defending conservative causes, such as the right
of religious students to pray in school, or defense of individual landowners
property rights against unlawful seizure of their land by the government, or
the rights of gun owners to keep and bear arms, or the rights of the unborn
and virtually any other conservative cause that is opposed to their leftist
agenda, the ACLU is conspicuously silent.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

What's particularly silly here is the idea that I would try to "fool" Scotty
"Gun Nut" Weiser regarding the process of purchasing a gun. Obviously
(OBVIOUSLY) I knew that Scotty would be familiar with what it takes to buy a
gun, since he brags about his own guns on a routine basis. I was must
pulling his chain about how easy it is to get a gun (and it IS pretty damned
easy!) by comparing it to buying gum. It's more like renting a tuxedo ;-)

The question is not what I know, it's what he knows. It's hardly uncommon
for know-nothing hoplophobes to spout anti-gun rhetoric and cite specious
anti-gun information without actually having a clue. It's commonplace for
such people to actually believe the line of crap they are fed by HCI and
other anti-gun groups.

It's my policy to challenge such specious claims whenever I see them,
because it's the best way to fight the "Big Lie" tactic of repeating a lie
often enough that it takes on the patina of truth.

But it's still a lie.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Given the fact that I'm both a professional journalist and
an editor, I'd submit that I know a good deal more about
copyright law than you do.

You'd be wrong.

Evidently not. Feel free to cite US copyright law if you like.

You claim to be the expert, go right ahead and cite the
appropriate case law.

Nah.

IOW, you aren't such an expert.

Oh, I am.

So prove it, big boy.

So far you're just flopping around like a Jonah.

Sorry, but I'm under no obligation to prove anything.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser