Tink says:
===============
If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.
=================

Tink, I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives. I'm willing to accept those
elments of his philosophy which don't have a basis in mythology.

I'll read philosophers of all stripes. I'll reject any and all
references to dieties except as intellectual curiousities.

frtzw906

Tink says:
==============
Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result is
the same!
==============

Translate please. Who/what is the "nuclear bomb"? Are you making
reference to a "god"? If so, are you again giving me some vengeful
version of your faith?

Tink, for guys like me, this religion stuff just won't fly if it's
always wrapped up in dire messages of doom and vengeful acts. Who buys
into that stuff?! Where's the attraction?! Tales of the boogeyman
worked for my Mom when she wanted me to behave, but I outgrew such
silly notions.

frtzw906

Tink says:
===============
Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause, and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about.
=====================

OK, Tink, pardon my ignorance. I thought the OT was the boogeyman stuff
and the NT was the cool, new-age stuff. Are you telling me it's the
other way around? If so, please give me a few, better-known examples.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
If He is who He says He is, then you have to be prepared to deal with
God, if you are going to talk about dealing with Jesus.
=================

Tink, I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives. I'm willing to accept
those
elments of his philosophy which don't have a basis in mythology.

I'll read philosophers of all stripes. I'll reject any and all
references to dieties except as intellectual curiousities.

frtzw906

Then I assume that JC would be of no interest to you, and what He would
do regarding current political issues and concerns, of no importance or
interest as well. Game over! TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense. They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
==============
Only someone with silly notions plays hot-patato with a nuclear bomb!
If you are naieve, you may do so in bliss, but the inevitable result
is
the same!
==============

Translate please. Who/what is the "nuclear bomb"? Are you making
reference to a "god"? If so, are you again giving me some vengeful
version of your faith?

Tink, for guys like me, this religion stuff just won't fly if it's
always wrapped up in dire messages of doom and vengeful acts. Who
buys
into that stuff?! Where's the attraction?! Tales of the boogeyman
worked for my Mom when she wanted me to behave, but I outgrew such
silly notions.

frtzw906

Sorry about that, Game on, I should have read all your post before I
assumed game over.

A nuclear bomb is any idea or concept that should not be taken lightly.
You would not take paying your house insurance premium lightly, if
there was a fire, you could lose everything. That does not mean you do
not pay your premium because you can deal with the terror of the
consequence if you don't pay!

If He is who He says He is, then it can never be a casual philosopical
dispute to talk about JC. It is not the hazards that necessarily draw
us to boat in deep water, it is the sheer joy of exploration and
discovery, though some may be even attracted to the hazard.

If you out grew such silly notions of God as being the Boogey Man, then
you would know that He is not the Boogey Man. To live a crippled life
claiming He is not the Boogey Man, but acting as if He is, may appear
enlightened, but the fact is, your life is still crippled to the range
of motion allowed by this particular crippling disease, and your scope
of vision to that of someone who is blind. There is no enlightenment in
this, and in fact, you apparently have not out grown the idea at all
despite your claims. TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:51 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:35 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not
belong
to
a member of a police force.

Just because you haven't seen them doesn't mean they don¹t exist. In
fact,
gun ownership in Canada is quite high on a per-capita basis.

I know they exist.

This is my point, it is not a gun culture.

Sure it is.

No, it isn't. We don't talk about guns, unless it's a conversation
about
"that idiot with the gun who shot those people in Texas" or something
like
that. We don't love guns and talk about the right to have a gun as
though it
is more important than oxygen. It's not a gun culture.

Just because YOU don't talk about it doesn't mean other people don't.
Clearly you don't know everybody in Canada. Besides, your definition of
"gun
culture" is specious.

I wasn't talk about all of Canada.

Evasion. Now you're trying to backpedal again.

No backpedal. I wasn't. There are parts of Canada that do have a gun
culture.

And yes, one could write books and books about what constitutes a gun
culture, but I know I am not in one. People here are more interested in
identifying bird species than they are in guns.

And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation
in
Canada simultaneously? Your megalomania is showing.

I'm not talking about all of Canada. It's a big place with many extremely
diverse communities, a number of which likely have a gun culture.

I trust that we don't need to shoot each other.

Which is true, until it's not.

I should probably carry a machine gun waiting for that special day when
it's
not, and yet, I manage to carry on happily each day without it.

Well, a compact handgun is probably adequate...

What if it's not! I'll be underprepared!

What do you think the registry is intended to do?

It's intended to facilitate the confiscation of guns. It can have no
other
purpose, because no other purported purpose, particularly the ostensible
one
of reducing criminal access to guns, can possibly be accomplished by a
gun
registration program. You see, criminals don't register their guns
because
it's already illegal for them to possess them. The only people who
register
guns are law-abiding citizens, and there is absolutely no purpose
whatsoever
for having law-abiding citizens register guns except as a precursor to
eventual bans and confiscations.

The gun registry has the same intent as an automobile registry.

Not hardly.

Exactly.

Automobile registries are for collecting taxes and providing
information to police about a specific vehicle on the highway that may be
breaking the law.

Right.

Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.

It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.

It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?


How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?

The government has no intention of confiscating cars.

Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.

Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.

Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!

Are you fighting against that at present?

Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.

The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You
can
buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum.

That is a flat-out lie. It's entirely untrue, and you know it.

What's so hard about acquiring an assault weapon in the USA?

Why don't you do some research and get back to me.

Done. They sell them in stores. You can buy them there.

Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"

There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.

Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

ROFL. I was not lying. I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.

It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of
humour regarding the gum.

I like to live in a place where people don't get shot.

Who wouldn't.

Then perhaps we have little to argue about.

Problem is that your plan actually gets MORE people shot, and
victimized by violent criminals.

What plan?

I think the only concrete change I've advocated in any of these gun
threads
is the elimination of assault weapons.

Other than that, what plan have I put forth?

That'll do.

Why are assault weapons needed?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault
weapons"
are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one
of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole
populace is armed with military-capable arms.

Why are assault weapons needed?

You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

No, I just think that I'm not going to turn the other cheek, and I'm
going
to defend myself using reasonable and necessary physical force when
it's
required.

Yup, and every moron with a cache of assault weapons in that special
hole
in
the floorboards thinks they are capable of deciding what is resonable
and
necessary and when it is required, but what actually happens is
children,
wives, and husbands end up dead in their own house, shot by a member
of
their own family.

Not very often at all

Extremely often.

How often, exactly?

I note you cannot answer this question.

I not that you cannot answer this question.



particularly when compared to the number of times
that those same firearms are used to thwart a crime.

What is the ratio of gun deaths in the US where the dead person was a
relative or friend of the shooter vs a stranger committing a crime?

You made the claim, so you tell me.

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in an unintentional
shooting, a criminal assault or homicide, or an attempted or completed
suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

You're parroting debunked gun-banner propaganda.

Prove it.

What happened to the police? And the armed forces?

Well, in a disarmed society, they most often become tyrants.

You have a tyrant now.

How so?

A ruler who exercises power in a harsh, cruel manner...sounds like Duhbyuh
to me!

Really eh? According to the Journal of Trauma (1998) a gun in the home
is 22
times more likely to be used in an unintentional shooting, criminal
assault
or homicide, or an attempted or completed suicide than to be used in
self-defense.

22 times more likely.

Which is a long-debunked and biased report based on cooked books.

Somehow I thought you would say that.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

Your truth almost always causes pain to intelligent people.

But you sit down there in your safe room with your cache of weapons
waiting
for the stranger to pop out of the bush.

Nah, I'll just go about my daily life while carrying a handgun.

Sad.

No, happy. And free. And unafraid to walk down the street after dark.

If you were not afraid you would not need to carry a gun.

You have that exactly backwards. It is because I carry a gun that I am
unafraid. Walking through Capitol Hill at night without a gun is a pretty
scary proposition.

Right. As I said. You carry a gun because you are afraid.

Mhm. And most people don't seem capable of managing a credit card or
even
keep their shoes tied.

My, do you have a dim view of your fellow man.

Just the facts. Take a look at the state of personal debt in north
america.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic
tasks
in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking
around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone
else's
brains out.

Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is
that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very
small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally
aren't issued CCW permits.

I'm not talking about clinically impaired.

I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at
an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt
(other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.)

I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.


It makes me more than a little nervous that they are
carrying around concealed weapons.

Your paranoia is of but little interest. Get used to it because the
chances
are that one or more of the people you were around today was carrying
a
gun.
Most likely, up in Canada, it was a criminal. At least down here, it's
most
likely to be a law-abiding citizen.

LOL. Also known as a criminal in waiting. Carrying a gun around allows
a
law-abiding citizen to turn into a murderer quite easily.

So does driving a car, only more so.

Check your statistics. There's a lot of cars out there. Not too many of
them
get used as murder weapons. Not so for guns.

The issue is not the numbers, it's the potential.

The issue is the reality.

Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.

Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?

The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.

An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.

Your wife has a vagina, which allows
her to turn into a prostitute quite easily.

ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina.

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but
again you miss the point.

The point was stupid.


Should we therefore concludethat she is a prostitute?

No, we should conclude that you are a blithering idiot, LOL.

Evasion.

Accuracy.

Dissing people who have courage only proves you a coward.

What is courageous about carrying a gun around?

It's not the carrying, it's the willingness to use it

Oh, that's just beautiful!

Particularly when you're waiting for someone to shoot you dead in the
Luby's
cafeteria and you don't have a gun.


, at significant risk
to one's own safety, to protect others that's courageous.

Man, you can't WAIT for the chance to play hero and kill somebody, can
you?
Really, be honest...you just can't WAIT!

I can wait.

But you WANT it. Bad.

I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need

It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.
A big part of my life has been doing just that, it's pretty much a daily
return. I just think of it as part of being human.

whereas I'm
willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those
who
cannot protect themselves.

I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand
delusions about being a gun-toting superhero.

You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this.

What's cowardly is refusing to take responsibility for either your own
safety or show any concern for the safety of others. By refusing to
provide
for your own safety, you put off your responsibilities onto the police,
or
on other armed citizens who aren't going to inquire about how much you
deserve to be protected (or not) at their risk before they put their
safety
on the line to save your pathetic, cowardly ass. That's immoral and evil
and
cowardly.

I've actually devoted most of the last ten years of my life to supporting
some of the most vulnerable people in our community, and doing my best to
ensure their safety has had nothing to do with carrying a gun.

Good for you. Too bad you're wrong, and too bad that you can't "ensure"
anything, and too bad that people believe your claptrap...it might get
them
killed.

Too bad I do good every day while you walk around dreaming of the day you
get to kill someone.

Not everyone
has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous.

Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible
is
when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When
you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete
safety,
and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament,
their blood is on your hands.

I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.

I don't like gun culture.

I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.

But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen
to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't
need to have one and should not have the option.

The police here
don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all
carry
weapons around.

What the police feel about is is not relevant.

The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair
by expecting them to do all the gun work for me.

They are public servants, and
if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens
may be armed, so be it.

LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns. I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.

Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.

The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.

In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk
were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts
like
you.

Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that
full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are
trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians.

There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because
they know it makes the community more dangerous.

Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW"
argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie.

The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours.

I warrant that you, faced with the situation Wilson faced, would fall to
the
ground, cower in fear and **** your pants, all the while hoping that
someone, anyone with a gun would stand up and save your life.

The irony is that the vast majority of armed citizens would do exactly
that,
for you

If you are representative of the vast majority of armed citizens, that's
because you spend much (if not most) of your day fantasizing out getting
the
opportunity to kill someone with your gun.

I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are
just
trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll
respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself.

I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh?

one who can do nothing but denigrate and demean the gallant
sacrifice of someone who had no legal duty to intervene, but did so
because
it was the right thing to do. And he got killed for his altruism. Pity
you
weren't in his place, because he deserves life far more than someone
like
you does. People like you are a festering boil on the ass of society.
You
take from others and expect them to do for you that which you are
unwilling
to do for yourself, and then you insult them when one of them makes the
ultimate sacrifice for others. Despicable.

Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun.

No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like
me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when
they
make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others.

They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what
they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the
corner keeping them out of hell.

I guess to you the bravest
person in the world is the drug dealer that shoots up the local park.

Yes, that would be your guess.

By the way, were you by any chance kicked out of the police academy for
being too trigger-happy?

Nope, I graduated and was certified and went to work as a police officer
for
many years.

Ah...I figured some involvement in law enforcement. What happened? Is that
why you are so angry and want to shoot someone?

That would explain a lot, particularly your latest
furious outburst.

What, you don't like being called a coward and a despicable piece of human
flotsam? Why ever not? You richly deserve it.

LOL. Doesn't bother me a bit, I live my life every day helping others in
real ways, not carrying a gun hoping I can shoot someone.

Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.

===============

And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause,
and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about.
=====================

OK, Tink, pardon my ignorance. I thought the OT was the boogeyman
stuff
and the NT was the cool, new-age stuff. Are you telling me it's the
other way around? If so, please give me a few, better-known examples.

frtzw906

Bingo! Some light are coming on!

We briefly have discussed that the high mark of the Old Testament was "
Thou shalt love your neighbor as your self." Actually this statement
was the second part of His summary, He preceded this statement in his
summary with the first part which said, "Thou shalt love the Lord your
God, with all your heart, soul, and strength!" Still all Old Testament!

He followed the summary of the Old Testament, with the Intro to the
New, " Thou shalt love one another, as I have loved you and given
myself for you."

Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New, and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.

I do not mean to say this to be mean, but do you understand then why I
suggested that some of your notions are a bit silly, in light of this
current Revelation? TnT

"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article 1110340422.0f166db598e207fc9e839e738f0d5c7b@terane ws, Nisarel
at
wrote on 3/8/05 10:53 PM:

Scott Weiser wrote:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

But it cannot step one inch outside the
boundary we the people have established.

Patriot Act.

It's leaped way outside it.

Really? How, specifically? Can you name specific instances where
enforcements under the Patriot Act have illegally infringed on
protected rights?

You're that ignorant?

I find it interesting the the New York City Council (that's the city
where
most of the people in 9/11 actually perished) want the Patriot Act
revoked.

Many liberal twits (like most New York City Council members) want it
repealed (not revoked...you repeal a law). Who cares what they want? They
are liberal twits.

Hm.

Well, you might need to define "liberal twits" as that's obviously some sort
of sophisticated term of yours that few people are capable of understanding
at your level.

What I do know is they represent the very same municipality where the most
people perised on 9/11. It sure is ironic that those deaths resulted in
anti-rights legislation that is opposed by the very population that were the
main target of the event.

The ACLU is right at the top of the liberal twit-list in objecting to
virtually every government program to fight terrorists both within and
outside the US. They don't even want the FBI and INS to be able to inform
local police agencies about the identities of known illegal aliens, some
of
whom are certainly terrorist infiltrators.

Now, the ACLU is positively dangerous, and is likely to get more Americans
killed by terrorists.

They obviously aren't as informed as Scott Weiser, but they seem to feel
rather strongly that it infringes on fundamental rights and liberties.

Like most liberal twits, they are full of crap. Nor can they cite any
examples.


I find the most recent version of their resolution quite well written.

http://www.nycbordc.org/resolution0389-2004.html

Even the American Library Association is getting radical!

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Sect...=/ContentManag
ement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891

A search on

Patriot Act infringe on rights

or some such combination will give you a plethora of links to hundreds of
organizations that have come forward (at obvious risk) to stand up
against
the anti-freedom (aka Patriot Act) act.

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights.

It's easy to spout leftist/liberal anti-Bush propaganda, but it's somewhat
harder to actually prove that the Patriot Act reduces freedoms. Still,
there
is a war on. Get over it.

Oh, right. There's a war on. In a way that differs from...?

Talking about having a tyrant.

Just declare that you are at war and then do as you please.

There's your tyrant.

It's so ironic that at the very same time as US troops are fighting on
foreign soil - according to their President's revised mission to secure
freedom for the Iraqi people - freedoms in the USA are at one of the
lowest
points in decades.

Funny, I haven't noticed any substantial impairment to my freedoms. Have
you? What, specifically, has happened to you that impairs your freedoms?
Nothing, I bet.

I don't live in the United States. Plus I am a white male.

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
ups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
Now many "Christians" try to live, according to this noble clause,
and
noble indeed it is. But please understand that in so doing, they are
showing they do not have the foggiest idea about the New Testament
which Jesus spoke about.
=====================

OK, Tink, pardon my ignorance. I thought the OT was the boogeyman
stuff
and the NT was the cool, new-age stuff. Are you telling me it's the
other way around? If so, please give me a few, better-known examples.

frtzw906

Bingo! Some light are coming on!

We briefly have discussed that the high mark of the Old Testament was "
Thou shalt love your neighbor as your self." Actually this statement
was the second part of His summary, He preceded this statement in his
summary with the first part which said, "Thou shalt love the Lord your
God, with all your heart, soul, and strength!" Still all Old Testament!

He followed the summary of the Old Testament, with the Intro to the
New, " Thou shalt love one another, as I have loved you and given
myself for you."

Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New, and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.

I do not mean to say this to be mean, but do you understand then why I
suggested that some of your notions are a bit silly, in light of this
current Revelation? TnT

This isn't even funny now. It's like giving too much catnip to a tabby.

Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New, and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty. So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are forewarned, I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical deity on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

KMAN:
================
This isn't even funny now. It's like giving too much catnip to a tabby.
==================

Here kitty, Kitty....

OK, I'm off to look at some sprayskirts. CU

frtzw906

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.

Given your lack of evidence to support your bull****, evasion
seems to be your specialty.

I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size. You don't understand that and are using the
term incorrectly. When you discuss sizes, you are entering into
the realm of biometry. Something you would know nothing about,
since you know virtually nothing about science.

You want a reference - here's one from the first book I grabbed
off my bookshelves. It discusses the use of morphology and biometry
specifically in the context of paleoanthropology.

Johanson, Donald, and Edey, Maitland A., "Lucy, The Beginnings of
Humankind", Simon and Schuster, 1981, pp74-75. ISBN 0-671-25036-1

Now how about you providing the references to back up your ridiculous
claims? Here's the bull**** you're trying to avoid. Go ahead,
dickhead, put yout money where your mouth is. Prove your ridiculous
assertions. Cut the bull**** and post some facts for a change.


Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus.

Really? Have you personally interviewed all of their peers?

Have you? You made the claim - you have to back it up. You have not
been able to do so. I have studied a lot about the history of science
and can tell you that there is nothing that suggests that Galileo was
not well respected. Ditto Newton.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. In fact is
is a myth that most people believed the earth was flat. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Nah. I'm quite certain that my use falls squarely within the Fair Use
exception.

Evasion instead of proof. More bull**** from the weiner.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights.

Then there should not be any reason for a constitutional guarantee for
a right to bear arms. After all, it doesn't matter what the law is
as long as you aren't affected.

BTW dickhead, there are amerikans that have been held without resort to
legal counsel and without charge for years. Jose Padilla has been
detained in a military brig in South Carolina for three years. A federal
court judge just ordered the Bush administration to either charge or
release Padilla within 45 days.

There's a fact for you. Choke on it.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And you know this because you personally listen in on every conversation in
Canada simultaneously?

He knows this because studies have been done on what Canadians' interests
are. Some of these studies have been used by demographers for decades.
David Foot's "Boom, Bust and Echo" is a simple example. You see,
dickhead, not everyone is as stupid as you are.

Mike

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I didn't suggest there was such a thing, so I need not define it, because
it's a rhetorical nullity that doesn't exist.

More evasion and bull****.

Mike

Michael says:
===================
He knows this because studies have been done on what Canadians'
interests
are. Some of these studies have been used by demographers for decades.
David Foot's "Boom, Bust and Echo" is a simple example. You see,
dickhead, not everyone is as stupid as you are.
==============

Or try "Fire and Ice" by Michael Adams which explore the many ways in
which Canada differs from the USA and, further, how those differences
are growing more pronounced with each year.

frtzw906

On 9-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:

I'm going to acknowledge that there likely existed, some 2000
years ago, a fellow named JC, who had some pretty enlightened ideas
about how people ought to live their lives.

Just to throw gas on the fire - check into Rev. Tom Harpur's writings
on the New Testament. Much of what is written is simply copied from
older, pre-Christian religions. There is virtually no evidence that
JC actually existed.

Mike

Michael says:
================
Just to throw gas on the fire - check into Rev. Tom Harpur's writings
on the New Testament. Much of what is written is simply copied from
older, pre-Christian religions. There is virtually no evidence that
JC actually existed.
============

Of course, I can live with that too, as I have absolutely nothing
invested in any of this stuff.

Every now and then, when I get an itch in the direction of the
"fellowship" of like-minded souls, I look at the Unitarians. I attended
a Unitarian memorial service recently and have to say it was by far the
most respectful (of the deceased) service I've ever been to. The
INclusivity was what impressed me as well.

Anyway, I'll take a look at your source.

Cheers,
frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

--
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

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:30 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


"Scott Weiser" wrote in message
...
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 4:07 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/8/05 12:39 AM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

Leave it to Fox to find someone who could turn a multiple victim
public
shooting stemming from a custody dispute resulting in the murder of
two
people and the wounding of four others into a pro-gun piece of
claptrap.

Well, a gun started it, and guns were the only thing that stopped it.
And
it's clear that Wilson saved lives by distracting the shooter, at the
cost
of his own life.

Only a complete asshole would denigrate this bravery and sacrifice.

Which would be, evidently, you.

The asshole(s) are those who are capable of such bizarre thinking as to
turn
that incident into a pro-gun platform. Amazing.

And yet you cannot refute the inescapable fact that without guns, nobody
would have been able to stop the killer.

Guns are merely inanimate objects
and tools that can be used for both good and ill. Most of the time, they
are
used for good. Only relatively rarely are they used for ill.

They are never used for good. They are only used for different degrees of
ill.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. The vast majority of the time, guns
are used to provide pleasure, and the only thing "harmed" is a piece of
paper or a tin can.

But your assertion utterly ignores the obvious fact that guns can be, and
very frequently are used to protect the innocent against violent attack.
That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you
have lost touch with reality.

Take a pill.

Get off whatever pills you are taking.

People (normal people) don't feel good after they act in self-defense.

No one but you suggested anything of the kind.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."


They
wish they never had to do it in the first place. Find a cop that doesn't
describe using his gun as a "necessary evil" and I'll find you a cop that
should be off the force.

Your statement is non sequitur.

Not at all.

You said:

"That you would classify self-defense as a "degree of ill" indicates that
you have lost touch with reality."

I am saying that good police officers (which is most of them) view using
their guns as a necessary evil.

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.

It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.

It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?

I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the
data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually
accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety?
How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What,
precisely, is its purpose?



How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?

The government has no intention of confiscating cars.

Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.

Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.

Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!

Are you fighting against that at present?

No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of
the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have
a higher level of protection against government interference.


Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.

The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.

For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun?
What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as
I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government
objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to
provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like
is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere.

I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this
information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good
enough.

Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"

There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.

Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

ROFL. I was not lying.

Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it?

I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.

Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon
like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie.


It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of
humour regarding the gum.

Backpedaling evasion.



Why are assault weapons needed?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault
weapons"
are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one
of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole
populace is armed with military-capable arms.

Why are assault weapons needed?

Asked and answered.


I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic
tasks
in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking
around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone
else's
brains out.

Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is
that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very
small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally
aren't issued CCW permits.

I'm not talking about clinically impaired.

I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at
an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt
(other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.)

I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.

Once again, this is specious claptrap. You presume wrongly that merely
because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk
killers. Problem is that you're just wrong. The vast majority of people
would no sooner randomly and for no reason shoot someone than they would
randomly and for no reason deliberately drive their car into a crowd
standing at a bus stop.

Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.

Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?

Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate
negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do,
and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are
convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing
someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for
shooting someone with a gun.


The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.

An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.

Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots.


Your wife has a vagina, which allows
her to turn into a prostitute quite easily.

ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina.

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but
again you miss the point.

The point was stupid.

Not at all. It just destroyed your argument, and you can't defend yourself,
so you dismiss it.
I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need

It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.

How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just
because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally.

whereas I'm
willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those
who
cannot protect themselves.

I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand
delusions about being a gun-toting superhero.

One does not preclude the other.


You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this.

Coming from the likes of you, I take it as high praise.


Not everyone
has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous.

Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible
is
when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When
you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete
safety,
and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament,
their blood is on your hands.

I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to
you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information.


I don't like gun culture.

Well, they don't like you, so I guess you're even...except that they have
guns and you do not.


I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.

The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits,
wear it.


But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen
to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't
need to have one and should not have the option.

Well, that's why you're a Canadian slave-boy and I'm a free American.


The police here
don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all
carry
weapons around.

What the police feel about is is not relevant.

The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair
by expecting them to do all the gun work for me.

Different issue.


They are public servants, and
if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens
may be armed, so be it.

LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns.

Yup.

I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.

Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish.


Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.

The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.

They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us,
we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up
there in Canada.


In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk
were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts
like
you.

Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that
full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are
trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians.

There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because
they know it makes the community more dangerous.

Except, of course, that they are wrong. They just don't like the
competition. They want to feel like they, and only they are in charge.


Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW"
argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie.

The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours.

Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American.


I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are
just
trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll
respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself.

I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh?

Don't be silly, of course not. You aren't even very annoying much less
dangerous.

Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun.

No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like
me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when
they
make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others.

They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what
they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the
corner keeping them out of hell.

You really are deranged.

--
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 BCITORGB wrote:

Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.

===============

And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.

To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
agenda.

They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
town on a rail, at the very least.

--
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

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty. So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be
like? TnT

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

It's not they, it's you that I judge to be evading.

Given your lack of evidence to support your bull****, evasion
seems to be your specialty.

I am using the term morphology correctly. It is about shape and
form, not size.

Not according to the only authoritative definition of the word posted so
far.

You don't understand that and are using the
term incorrectly.

That you claim it to be so does not prove it to be so. You refuse to cite
any credible authority that defines "morphology" differently than Websters,
so I conclude that it's you that are full of bull****.

When you discuss sizes, you are entering into
the realm of biometry. Something you would know nothing about,
since you know virtually nothing about science.

Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun

Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830

1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ñmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective

ñmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ñmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun

Size is a part of "form and structure." Without size, there is no form or
structure. Form and structure have size. Thus, you're proven wrong again.


You want a reference - here's one from the first book I grabbed
off my bookshelves. It discusses the use of morphology and biometry
specifically in the context of paleoanthropology.

Johanson, Donald, and Edey, Maitland A., "Lucy, The Beginnings of
Humankind", Simon and Schuster, 1981, pp74-75. ISBN 0-671-25036-1

I see no discussion of any of the subjects you claim. I see only a book
title.


Now how about you providing the references to back up your ridiculous
claims? Here's the bull**** you're trying to avoid. Go ahead,
dickhead, put yout money where your mouth is. Prove your ridiculous
assertions. Cut the bull**** and post some facts for a change.

Main Entry:mor£phol£o£gy
Pronunciation:m*r-*f*-l*-j*
Function:noun

Etymology:German Morphologie, from morph- + -logie -logy
Date:1830

1 a : a
branch of biology that deals with the form and structure of animals and
plants b : the form and structure of an organism or any of its parts
2 a :
a study and description of word formation (as inflection, derivation, and
compounding) in language b : the system of word-forming elements and
processes in a language
3 a : a study of structure or form b : STRUCTURE,
FORM
4 : the external structure of rocks in relation to the development of
erosional forms or topographic features
ñmor£pho£log£i£cal
\*m*r-f*-*l*-ji-k*l\ also mor£pho£log£ic \-*l*-jik\ adjective

ñmor£pho£log£i£cal£ly \-k(*-)l*\ adverb
ñmor£phol£o£gist
\m*r-*f*-l*-jist\ noun



Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus.

Sorry, but that was the prevailing belief for a very long time.

By religious nut cases - yes. By the scientists - no. In fact is
is a myth that most people believed the earth was flat. If you can
prove otherwise, do so. Otherwise it remains a bogus claim on
your part.

H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus.

Not a claim I ever made.

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

Bull**** again.

Except that you have elided the context, which clearly indicated that we
were discussing the precursors of homo sapien.


Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus

You've yet to post anything which refutes it.

Your claim - your proof required. Put up or shut up.

Um...make me.


Not a claim I made.

Want me to quote you again? More bull**** on your part.

Well, I'm sure you'd be happy to misquote me again...


It's implicit in your statements

And you choose to ignore my _explicit_ statement. You are
still full of ****.

And you still gobble it down like it was ambrosia. What does that make you?

--
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 Michael Daly wrote:

On 9-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

And yet not one of them can actually cite an incident where enforcement of
the Patriot Act has unlawfully infringed on ANYONE'S civil rights.

Then there should not be any reason for a constitutional guarantee for
a right to bear arms. After all, it doesn't matter what the law is
as long as you aren't affected.

BTW dickhead, there are amerikans that have been held without resort to
legal counsel and without charge for years.

Really? How many? Who are they?

Jose Padilla has been
detained in a military brig in South Carolina for three years. A federal
court judge just ordered the Bush administration to either charge or
release Padilla within 45 days.

There's a fact for you. Choke on it.

That a judge so ordered does not mean that he has been being held
unlawfully, unless and until the judges happen to be the Supreme Court. The
government believes that it is within its legal powers to detain Padilla as
an enemy spy and saboteur indefinitely so long as we are at war and they are
appealing the judge's order. We will find out if they are right once the
case has worked its way through the system and the Supreme Court has ruled.
If the government is eventually proven to be wrong, they will release
Padilla forthwith. Until then, the government has the authority to hold a
suspected enemy spy and saboteur under the war powers act.

So, his civil rights have not been violated because we are at war and he is
not entitled to a writ of habeus corpus.

Next.

--
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

Tink asks:
===========
You mention " a mythical deity". I am not sure what your mean, by
mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be like?
=============

Good point, Tink. Replace with either "mythical entity" or "deity".

Cheers,
frtzw906

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:56 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:


Gun registries have nothing to do with that. They have no purpose or
effect
other than to provide a mechanism for eventual confiscation. They don't
prevent crime, they don't identify criminals, they don't track the
location
of guns. They merely identify who is the putative "owner" of the gun and
where the gun might likely be located at some point. The ONLY potential
benefit to a gun registry is that it might, in the odd case, allow a
stolen
gun to be returned to its rightful owner. However, it's usually more
efficient and less costly to simply wait for an owner who has had a gun
stolen to report it to the police, whereupon the serial number and
description is entered in the national stolen property database.

It's sophistry to suggest that universal gun registration is intended only
to facilitate the return of stolen guns.

It has the same intended effect as an automobile registry. It's a list. What
more do you want it to do? Dive in front of bullets?!?

I'd like for there to be some legitimate reason to collect and retain the
data beyond providing a tool for confiscation that this list could actually
accomplish. What do you see its purpose as? How does it enhance gun safety?
How does it prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns? What,
precisely, is its purpose?

It's exactly like a car registry.

It tells you who the rightful owner is.

As with being able to match a car to who the rightful owner is, this
information can be useful for any number of purposes ranging from returning
one that is stolen to the owner, to finding a starting point for
investigating a crime.



How do you imagine it
differs from the registration of cars?

The government has no intention of confiscating cars.

Cars do get taken away from people who aren't supposed to have them, and
I
believe the fact that cars are registered enables this in many cases.

Almost never. Cars in the possession of those who aren't supposed to have
them are seized based on the direct observation of the police that the
occupant is doing something wrong.

Geezus, then I guess we should scrap the idea of registering automobiles
too!

Are you fighting against that at present?

No, because there is no constitutionally prohibition on the infringement of
the right to keep and drive a car. That's not the case with guns. They have
a higher level of protection against government interference.

LOL. I see.

Gun registries have no purpose other than giving authorities information
on
where to go to gather up gun when they are eventually banned. Nor can you
actually state a legitimate reason for gun registries. At best you can
provide specious analogies.

The purpose of a gun register is to assign a registration number to a gun
and match it up to who the owner is supposed to be.

For what purpose? Why is the government interested in who owns what gun?
What possible difference does it make if I own one gun or twenty, so long as
I do so legally? The answer is that there is no legitimate government
objective to be achieved by registering guns. The only possible reason is to
provide a tool for future confiscation and gun owner harassment, much like
is taking place in Canada, Britain, Australia and elsewhere.

I note that even you cannot explicate a rational reason for collecting this
information. Your argument boils down to "because it's there." Not good
enough.

You never asked previously, that I can remember.

Thus far I have been trying to explain to you that the gun registry is just
a list that tells you the name of the person corresponding to the serial
number on the gun.

It has not greater or lesser purpose than the registration of vehicles, a
widely accepted practice. I understand that there is a bicycle registration
available in many places. They had it here when I was a kid.

Can you buy them there like you're "buying a pack of gum?"

There are some minor inconveniences, but if you can handle opening a bank
account, you won't be dettered by the process of getting a gun.

Well, there you go. You were lying, and you've been caught lying and now
you're trying to weasel out of your lie.

ROFL. I was not lying.

Certainly you were. Or, you're just a moron. Which is it?

Neither.

I had no intent to deceive an obvious genius like
yourself, Scotty, into thinking that the purchase of guns and gum were
identical processes.

Except that precisely what you said: "You can buy a wicked assault weapon
like you are buying a pack of gum." You lie.

No, Scotty.

It's like when I say "Scott Weiser is nuttier than a fruitcake."

Even though it may be easily proven (I'm assuming this is true) that there
are more nuts in a fruitcake than may actually be found on your physical
person, few people (only those who are nuttier than a fruitcake) would
interpret this as lying.

The point of my comment was to indicate that I think it is too easy to
acquire a gun.

It's easy to buy a gun. That was the point of the obvious employment of
humour regarding the gum.

Backpedaling evasion.

No, Scotty.

Why are assault weapons needed?

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights. Besides, "assault
weapons"
are the civilian equivalent of military arms, and as I've said before, one
of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the whole
populace is armed with military-capable arms.

Why are assault weapons needed?

Asked and answered.

Evasion.

I was pointing out that a lot of people have trouble with some basic
tasks
in life, and I'm not comforted by the idea of those same people walking
around with guns making decisions on whether or not to blow someone
else's
brains out.

Your statement is patently false and deliberately defamatory. The fact is
that "a lot of people" don't have problems with daily tasks, only a very
small number do, and if they are truly mentally impaired, they generally
aren't issued CCW permits.

I'm not talking about clinically impaired.

I'm talking about the tens of millions of folks who have trouble driving at
an appropriate speed and maintaining a reasonable level of personal debt
(other examples could follow, but hopefully you get the point.)

I don't want those same people, in the middle of their cell phone
conversation while giving the finger to the driver next to them, making a
decision about blowing someone's head off.

Once again, this is specious claptrap.

No, it isn't. I really don't want those people making such decisions.

You presume wrongly that merely
because someone possesses a gun that they will inevitably become berserk
killers.

No, I assume they will be normal people, only being normal people with a
gun, instead of giving someone the finger, they might shoot someone instead.
Not good.

Problem is that you're just wrong. The vast majority of people
would no sooner randomly and for no reason shoot someone than they would
randomly and for no reason deliberately drive their car into a crowd
standing at a bus stop.

What is the ratio of deliberate shootings to deliberate "drivings?"

Cars get used to commit murder all the time. Much more frequently than
guns.

Evidence to support this bizarre assertion?!!?

Every DUI-caused death is a murder. Every crash caused by deliberate
negligence is a murder. Someone does something they aren't supposed to do,
and somebody else dies. Happens all the time in cars, and lots of people are
convicted and sentenced to prison for murder or manslaughter for killing
someone with a car, many more than are convicted and sentenced to prison for
shooting someone with a gun.

I think you are stretching the definition of "murder" pretty far there
Scotty!

I'll ask it another way.

What is the ratio of people who aimed their car at someone else with the
intent to kill them and succeeded vs the number of people who aimed their
gun at someone else with tthe intent to kill them and succeeded?

The point is, however,
that merely possessing a tool that can be used to kill does not magically
turn people into raving homicidal maniacs, as much as you might like it to
be so to suit your anti-gun agenda.

An idiot with a gun is a lot more dangerous than an idiot with a jacknife.

Which falsely presumes that the majority of people are idiots.

Since an idiot test is not required before buying the gun, your point is
moot. Remember, you managed to get one.

Your wife has a vagina, which allows
her to turn into a prostitute quite easily.

ACtually, being a prostitute has very little to do with having a vagina.

Statistically speaking, the vast majority of prostitutes are females, but
again you miss the point.

The point was stupid.

Not at all. It just destroyed your argument, and you can't defend yourself,
so you dismiss it.

No, it was just plain stupid.

I hope and pray that I'll never be called upon to draw my gun,
much less shoot someone with it. That doesn't mean that I can't or won't
if
it's necessary to do so. That's the difference between us. You are a moral
coward who wouldn't lift a finger to help someone in need

It doesn't sound like you've ever actually done much to help people in need.

How would you know? You wouldn't, but you'll be insulting anyway just
because you're intellect is not up to the task of arguing rationally.

Well Scotty, I believe you made the initial accusation that I wouldn't lift
a finger to help someone in need. It turns out I help people in need as a
daily routine.

So, apparently your intellect was not up to the task of arguing rationally,
and what's worse, when I respond to your childishness be addressing your
point and turning it back on you, you couldn't muster up anything beyond
some whining.

whereas I'm
willing to put my life on the line, just as Wilson did, to protect those
who
cannot protect themselves.

I'm willing to take daily action to help people rather than engage in grand
delusions about being a gun-toting superhero.

One does not preclude the other.

LOL. So you admit to having grand delusions about being a gun-toting
superhero? Well, at least you are honest.

You really sound like a pathetic loser when you talk about this.

Coming from the likes of you, I take it as high praise.

It isn't.

Not everyone
has to carry a gun in order to be responsible or courageous.

Quite right. Nor is anyone required to do so. What's really reprehensible
is
when you advocate PREVENTING people who wish to do so from doing so. When
you do that, you take direct moral responsibility for their complete
safety,
and if they get hurt because your advocacy supported their disarmament,
their blood is on your hands.

I'll I've asked so far is why it assault weapons are needed.

It's not a Bill of Needs, it's a Bill of Rights, and I've explained it to
you numerous times. You choose to ignore that information.

I didn't ask you about the Bill of Rights.

I asked you why assault weapons are needed.

I don't like gun culture.

Well, they don't like you, so I guess you're even...except that they have
guns and you do not.

Someone can have a gun but not be part of a gun culture.

I think gun nuts like you are scary freaks.

The only people who need to be scared of me are criminals. If the shoe fits,
wear it.

Well Scotty, I'm not a criminal, but someone who admits to having delusions
of grandeur about being a gun-toting superhero (and actually carries a gun
hoping to make the fantasy come true!) is very scary indeed.

But I haven't done a thing to try and take away your guns. Unless you happen
to have an assault rifle, in which case I think that's nutty and you don't
need to have one and should not have the option.

Well, that's why you're a Canadian slave-boy and I'm a free American.

Non sequitur.

The police here
don't feel that their safety is on the line because citizens don't all
carry
weapons around.

What the police feel about is is not relevant.

The police were relevant to you a while ago when you said I was being unfair
by expecting them to do all the gun work for me.

Different issue.

Oh, so what the police think is only relevant when Scotty says so! I should
have known.

They are public servants, and
if one of the things they have to get used to is that law-abiding citizens
may be armed, so be it.

LOL. Their lives are on the line every day, they carry guns.

Yup.

I think the
fact that they don't think having ordinary citizens like you walking around
waiting to shoot people is a good idea carries more weight with me that your
idiotic ramblings.

Whatever. Wear your chains however you wish.

No chains on me.

The cops are 100% clear that lives are endangered by goofs like you walking
around hoping to shoot someone and be a hero.

Fact is that on occasion, armed citizens come to the defense of officers
who
are being attacked and not infrequently save their lives. That's what
Wilson
did just the other day, and he died doing so.

The police here don't want that, and don't feel it makes the community
safer.

They are enamored of their own opinions. Down here, the police work for us,
we don't do obesience to them as our masters and superiors like you do up
there in Canada.

LOL. So all cops in the US want goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons?

If it would be safer here with goofs like you walking around with concealed
weapons, why wouldn't the police say so? It must be some sort of national
conspiracy, perhaps Fidel Castro is behind it.

In fact, quite the opposite, their lives are at greater risk
were they carrying out their duties in a gun culture full of gun nuts
like
you.

Nope. They are far safer, in fact. And most line cops down here know that
full well. The major objectors to CCW are police administrators who are
trying to curry favor with anti-gun politicians.

There's no such political action up here, the cops don't want it because
they know it makes the community more dangerous.

Except, of course, that they are wrong. They just don't like the
competition. They want to feel like they, and only they are in charge.

Well I suppose it does get confusing to arrive on a crime scene with 40
weapons drawn and trying to sort out which of them are criminals and which
of them are vigilantes.

Your tired "cops blood will be running in the gutters if we legalize CCW"
argument is noxiously false. It's simply a lie.

The cops don't want it. I'll go with their view over yours.

Again, that's why you're a Canadian slave and I'm a free American.

I'm free from goofs like you, which makes being Canadian even sweeter than
it already is. The more I hear from you, the more happy and grateful I am to
be Canadian.

I know you'd like to think that¹s what I think, but in reality you are
just
trying to insult me because you have no cogent argument to make. So, I'll
respond in kind, just out of principle: Go **** yourself.

I bet you'd like to pull your gun on me right now eh?

Don't be silly, of course not. You aren't even very annoying much less
dangerous.

Ooo. I'm dangerous. I don't want people to get killed. Better shoot me
before the word gets out!

Interesting. All because I don't want to walk around with a gun.

No, because you demean and denigrate those law-abiding citizens (like
me...and there are millions like me) who choose to be armed, even when
they
make the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect others.

They may have delusions of grandeur that lead them to believe that is what
they are doing but that thinking is just as nutty as the preacher on the
corner keeping them out of hell.

You really are deranged.

No, deranged is your self-appointed superhero status. All you need is tights
and a cape...or is that what you are wearing right now?

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/9/05 9:58 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Michael commenting on Weiser:
==============
Dickhead likes to pretend that he supports freedom and rights.

===============

And then, interestingly, in one of his more recent posts, he's all over
the ACLU as some sort of subversive organization. If he REALLY cared
about freedom and rights, he'd be sending them a donation.

To that bunch of leftist socialist pricks? No way. They aren't interested in
freedom and rights, they are just interested in forwarding their socialist
agenda.

They are actually a dangerous, seditious group that ought to be run out of
town on a rail, at the very least.

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.

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today, and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty. So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with understands my
perspective on deity belief.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink asks:
===========
You mention " a mythical deity". I am not sure what your mean, by
mythical? What would a non-mythical deity be like?
=============

Good point, Tink. Replace with either "mythical entity" or "deity".

Cheers,
frtzw906

So I would understand, that the issue is not mythical vs. non-mythical,
but that the concept of deity is of no interest to you? TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 11:51 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs. New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question, to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard. TnT

Well, thank you Tinkerntom, although it is probably more straightforward
than you imagine.

When I use the word "deity" I am talking about the concept of a supernatural
being.

When I used the word "mythical" I am talking of that which is imaginary in
nature.

I believe that deities are mythical. In other words, they exist only in the
imagination of those who choose to believe in them.

When I talk about my perspective on "deity belief" this does not imply that
I believe in a deity of some sort. My perspective on deity belief is that
deities exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them.

I will sometimes refer to religious organizations that are founded in "deity
belief systems" which means the wealth and power of the organization comes
from convicing followers that a deity is in fact "real" and that they
represent the deity in some way, thus allowing them to manipulate the
followers in any of a variety of ways.

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 11:51 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs.
New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament
today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question,
to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on
empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able
to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me
at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a
server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now
this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would
like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am
not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with
understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that
which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how
you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you
to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities
are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and
imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that
you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard.
TnT

Well, thank you Tinkerntom, although it is probably more
straightforward
than you imagine.

When I use the word "deity" I am talking about the concept of a
supernatural
being.

When I used the word "mythical" I am talking of that which is
imaginary in
nature.

I believe that deities are mythical. In other words, they exist only
in the
imagination of those who choose to believe in them.

When I talk about my perspective on "deity belief" this does not
imply that
I believe in a deity of some sort. My perspective on deity belief is
that
deities exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them.

I will sometimes refer to religious organizations that are founded in
"deity
belief systems" which means the wealth and power of the organization
comes
from convicing followers that a deity is in fact "real" and that they
represent the deity in some way, thus allowing them to manipulate the
followers in any of a variety of ways.

So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt

Tink asks:
===========
So I would understand, that the issue is not mythical vs. non-mythical,
but that the concept of deity is of no interest to you?
==================

Correct. I'm interested in philosophy, ethics, codes of conduct and the
like -- the religion meme. My interest in dieties extends only so far
as being intellectually curious about why people find a need to
"create" such entities.

frtzw906

Tink asks of KMAN:
=====================
So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist?
===================

Can one be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time?

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 11:51 PM:


KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/9/05 10:08 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink opines:
==============
Do you see any difference between these statements of Old vs.
New,
and
what that implies? What is the status of the Old Testament
today,
and
what is this New Testament all about! I ask the last question,
to
check
the depth of your philosophy, sort of like a dipstick on the
engine
to
check the oil. It does not change the status of the engine, but
you
have an idea of its condition.
================

I'll ignore your "dipstick" comment GRIN.

Hey, when it comes to OT, NT, Koran, et al, I'm running on
empty.
So
now that you know the status, how about some of the better-known
examples of NT boogey-man stuff (or OT warm fuzzies). I say
better-known because I'd at least like to occasionally be able
to
say,
"Hey, I've heard of that!" You're going to have to relate to me
at
a
pretty simplistic level.

But, be forewarned, just as the JW's at my doorstep are
forewarned,
I'm
not coming over to your side so long as you've got a mythical
deity
on
your squad. OK?

frtzw906

I was home for lunch, and tried posting, and still getting a
server
issue. I was never able to get posted, so I will try again now
this
PM.


As I read your post, I came up with one question that I would
like
to
address first, if we may. You mention " a mythical deity". I am
not
sure what your mean, by mythical? What would a non-mythical deity
be
like? TnT

Some people think deities are real. I myself often say "mythical
deity" just
to be sure the religified person I am corresponding with
understands
my
perspective on deity belief.

Now, in the spirit of this conversation, what is the basis of your
perspective? What is your proof? of your understanding of that
which
you would want me to understand. By this I am wanting to know how
you
arrived at this position, not that I am necessarily expecting you
to
be able to provide as "scripture and verse" proof, as often times
expected in religious studies. Anecdotal is certainly accepted.

In your first sentence, you say, that "some people think deities
are
real." You apparently do not include yourself in that group, and
imply
by that exclusion, that you think deities are not real.

First, I think we need to be sure what is meant by "real", and then
second, that definition application to the word "deity."

Are you interchanging the words, mythical and unreal? As in
Non-existant in time and space?

Then you introduce the phrase "deity belief," which implies that
you do
believe in a deity of some sort, which if I may, leaves me a little
confused, and not understanding your perspective at all.

BTW KMAN, this is very interesting, and I appreciate your input
especially, considering some of the other discussions I have heard.
TnT

Well, thank you Tinkerntom, although it is probably more
straightforward
than you imagine.

When I use the word "deity" I am talking about the concept of a
supernatural
being.

When I used the word "mythical" I am talking of that which is
imaginary in
nature.

I believe that deities are mythical. In other words, they exist only
in the
imagination of those who choose to believe in them.

When I talk about my perspective on "deity belief" this does not
imply that
I believe in a deity of some sort. My perspective on deity belief is
that
deities exist only in the imagination of those who believe in them.

I will sometimes refer to religious organizations that are founded in
"deity
belief systems" which means the wealth and power of the organization
comes
from convicing followers that a deity is in fact "real" and that they
represent the deity in some way, thus allowing them to manipulate the
followers in any of a variety of ways.

So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist? Tnt

Just sane.

"BCITORGB" wrote in message
ups.com...
Tink asks of KMAN:
=====================
So, would you describe yourself as an atheist, agnostic, humanist?
===================

Can one be an atheist and a secular humanist at the same time?

frtzw906

I think so...

What Is Secular Humanism?
Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years
to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

a.. A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether
religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each
individual and not simply accepted on faith.
b.. Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and
scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking
solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
c.. A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both
the individual and humankind in general.
d.. A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new
knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
e.. 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.
f.. A search for viable individual, social and political principles of
ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being
and individual responsibility.
g.. A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good
will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for
ourselves and our children.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/what.html