Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] JDG brings out his inner Bigot: 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of homosexual relationships will increase the number of these in-between people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be an insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend. So you would deny civil-rights to those who are predisposed (genetically and partially environmentally) to being bi-sexual because those people _might_ choose something you despise. How very _BIGOTED_ of you. Once again JDG show his true colors, and they aint pretty. --- Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded project. - James Madison ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics and Motivations
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 02:17:39PM -0800, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Ashcroft has done any significant abrogation of the basic rights of citizens, and he has _never_ claimed that everyone who disagrees with him is un-american. Gautam, they called their anti-rights law Patriot Act. That certainly carries the message that you are unAmerican if you oppose it. and think that anti-terrorism legislation should be strong and enforced without wanting to restrict basic rights. Who cares whether you WANT to restrict basic rights -- if you support legislation that restricts the basic rights, then you are imposing your cowardice on others. You know Gautam, I believe that people like you are a big danger to America's freedom, and people like you should be locked up without access to a lawyer and without a trial. You deserve to be held for years until we can get you to reveal everything you know about other evildoers like you, until the danger you pose to American's freedom has ended, until we have won the war against anti-freedom cowards. Amen! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Star Trek Politics
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Star Trek Politics Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:31:41 + I don't think the Federation is that much democratic. It seems that Earth has a kind of dominance over the other planets of the Federation. Alberto Monteiro You mean like the way Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia have dominance over the other Canadian Provinces? -Travis yet it still goes by the name of democracy Edmunds _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:21:41 -0500 (EST) Travis Edmunds wrote: Ever hear any Niccolo Paganini? Heard of, yes. Heard, I don't think so, though if memory serves, Malmsteen used to fancy himself Paganini's musical descendant. Yup, that's pretty much the gist of it. Yngwie patterns his playing after the violin, and good ole Niccolo is his favorite player. I saw him open for Maiden at the Philadelphia Spectrum back in...late '86 or early '87. Pretty good stuff, though his ego was *enormous*. I can imagine, seeing as how one can all but see him strutting around whilst listening to one of his albums. What was Maiden like? how about Vivaldi One of my favorite Foxtrot strips ever had a Vivaldi joke. :) Jim Really? -Travis care to tell it? Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Star Trek Politics
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Star Trek Politics Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 14:07:24 -0500 There's some quote I hear on TV cop shows, but can't remember exactly now. Something like three coincidences make a conspiracy? A forum I read had a thread about star trek and politics. It was close but the majority rejected the idea of a socialist democracy, what I would call it more than democratic communism. I've tried to jump start that discussion here a few times. I think star trek has altruism and transparency as two foundations. There may be whole groups that live at sustenance levels, just with food/clothing/shelter without supporting themselves, but as soon as they ask for more they are told to work for it. Think about Tasha Yar's homeworld. If I recall correctly, an earth colony that fell into decades of chaos. The people stopped being altruistic. And if the government on Earth was truly communism I doubt the downfall would last as long as it did. It seems that the time between Kirk and Picard was a golden age. The Romulans went into hiding, the Klingons were uneasy allies. Was the Cardasian war really that big? So why did the federation turn a blind eye to her planet? Kevin T. - VRWC Glad to talk about something important Those are some interesting insights. Along the same rough lines of my own thinking as well. -Travis just loves conjecturing about Star Trek, and scanning for little lifeforms Edmunds _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Star Trek Politics
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Star Trek Politics Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:08:11 -0500 (EST) What political/economic model do you feel most closely resembles the UFP? Jim Ah...a monarchy? -Travis did I get it right? Edmunds _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Irregulars Question: OpenGL
I must be doing something _really_ stupid, but why I can't draw even a simple tetrahedron with OpenGL? One of the faces does not show :-/ Is there any magic word that I must utter before it works? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] JDG brings out his inner Bigot: 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of homosexual relationships will increase the number of these in-between people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be an insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend. So you would deny civil-rights to those who are predisposed (genetically and partially environmentally) to being bi-sexual because those people _might_ choose something you despise. How very _BIGOTED_ of you. Once again JDG show his true colors, and they aint pretty. sarcasmGee Fool, do you think you could be any more subtle?/sarcasm Michael Harney - Flies with vinigar Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: OpenGL
Alberto Monteiro wrote: I must be doing something _really_ stupid, but why I can't draw even a simple tetrahedron with OpenGL? One of the faces does not show :-/ Is there any magic word that I must utter before it works? I have two guesses: 1) Could OpenGL be culling the back-facing polygons? Try changing GL_FRONT to GL_FRONT_AND_BACK in various places, and see if that fixes it. 2) How are you drawing the tetrahedron? Are you using GL_TRIANGLES, or more complicated approaches like GL_TRIANGLE_STRIP or GL_TRIANGLE_FAN? If it's one of the latter two, you may be defining your points in the wrong order, which could either cause some triangles not to draw at all, or to flip the normal on one or more of the triangles, so they look like back-facing polygons (see (1)). __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment)
Jeffrey Miller asked: Are we as a population representative in terms of sexuality distribution? Does Brin-L have any openly GLBT members (excepting myself, of course)? *raises hand way back in the corner* Right here. Bi. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://aclipscomb.blogspot.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment
From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] JDG brings out his inner Bigot: 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of homosexual relationships will increase the number of these in-between people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be an insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend. So you would deny civil-rights to those who are predisposed (genetically and partially environmentally) to being bi-sexual because those people _might_ choose something you despise. How very _BIGOTED_ of you. Once again JDG show his true colors, and they aint pretty. sarcasmGee Fool, do you think you could be any more subtle?/sarcasm There is a place for all things. This wasn't the place. Mr. JDG's comment is offensive, and outrageous. Every person who fights for civil-rights, equality, and freedom, should be disgusted with the mendacity's uttered by Mr. JDG. He has a right to say it (until HimmlerCroft takes away that right anyway). I may be straight, but that doesn't mean that I will sit by and do nothing when Mr. JDG unjustly denigrates and attacks the rights of a segment of the population. I know gay people, and bi-sexual people, and I can't imagine that Mr. JDG's extremist views should be forced on them or anyone. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment
There is a place for all things. This wasn't the place. Mr. JDG's comment is offensive, and outrageous. Every person As if you've never said anything offensive... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment
- Original Message - From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 12:58 PM Subject: Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment I know gay people, and bi-sexual people, and I can't imagine that Mr. JDG's extremist views should be forced on them or anyone. If JDG is an extremist, where do you place the midpoint? Are your opinions the measure of everyone else's? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] sarcasmGee Fool, do you think you could be any more subtle?/sarcasm There is a place for all things. This wasn't the place. Mr. JDG's comment is offensive, and outrageous. Every person who fights for civil-rights, equality, and freedom, should be disgusted with the mendacity's uttered by Mr. JDG. He has a right to say it (until HimmlerCroft takes away that right anyway). I may be straight, but that doesn't mean that I will sit by and do nothing when Mr. JDG unjustly denigrates and attacks the rights of a segment of the population. I know gay people, and bi-sexual people, and I can't imagine that Mr. JDG's extremist views should be forced on them or anyone. That may be so, but you are not going to win converts to your cause by insulting them, in fact, you are far more likely to just solidify their resolve. If you want people to listen to your point of view, then you must first be willing to listen to theirs, even if you strongly disagree with it. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Julius Schwartz, 1915-2004
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: JULIUS SCHWARTZ DEAD AT 88 I hadn't heard this. Truly a bummer; Julie was one of the great ones. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment)
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. [...] Are we as a population representative in terms of sexuality distribution? Does Brin-L have any openly GLBT members (excepting myself, of course)? I would be very surprised if the list were representative of the overall population. This group tends to be more intelligent and more liberal than the overall population, and, as consequence, it is far more likely that people here will be more open to the posibility of an alternative lifestyle. Myself, I would say I'm bisexual with a strong leaning towards heterosexual. I also must admit that if homosexuality were more accepted, I would probably be bisexual with only a slight lean towards heterosexual. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: There are a number of laws and concepts that I don't heartily agree with that I also do not oppose, since I realize any difficulties with it are my problem. A*** comes immediately to mind. It's not something I think everyone ought to be doing in place of smarter alternatives, but I support the rights of others to do it. Adultery? *chuckle* Oh, no. You won't get me to speak of that which will only lead to another flame war here. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: OpenGL
Steve Sloan II [I knew you would be the fist to jump :-)] wrote: I must be doing something _really_ stupid, but why I can't draw even a simple tetrahedron with OpenGL? One of the faces does not show :-/ Is there any magic word that I must utter before it works? I have two guesses: 1) Could OpenGL be culling the back-facing polygons? Try changing GL_FRONT to GL_FRONT_AND_BACK in various places, and see if that fixes it. No, the program behaved even more strangely with this. 2) How are you drawing the tetrahedron? Are you using GL_TRIANGLES, Yes. The program is as simple as possible, and all but the first triangle appear correctly. The first triangle, however, is invisible. Essentially, this is the OpenGL part of the program: glLoadIdentity(); glTranslatef(0.0f,0.0f,-15.0f); glRotated(m_angulo, m_x, m_y, m_z); glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES);// Draw Triangles glNormal3f(1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f);// should be the yellow face, but is invisible glColor3f(1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); glColor3f(0.5f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glColor3f(0.0f, 0.5f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); glColor3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.5f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glEnd(); glLoadIdentity(); // Reset The interesting thing is that, if I begin with the Red Face, then the Yellow Face becomes visible and the Red Face becomes invisible. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: OpenGL
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] The program is as simple as possible, and all but the first triangle appear correctly. The first triangle, however, is invisible. Essentially, this is the OpenGL part of the program: glLoadIdentity(); glTranslatef(0.0f,0.0f,-15.0f); glRotated(m_angulo, m_x, m_y, m_z); glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES); // Draw Triangles glNormal3f(1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f);// should be the yellow face, but is invisible glColor3f(1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); glColor3f(0.5f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glColor3f(0.0f, 0.5f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); glColor3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.5f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glEnd(); glLoadIdentity(); // Reset The interesting thing is that, if I begin with the Red Face, then the Yellow Face becomes visible and the Red Face becomes invisible. Alberto Monteiro I'm not familiar with OpenGL programming, but have used 3D programs and am familiar with vector mathematics. The only thing I can think of trying is to try reversing the point order on the first triangle (which should flip the normal vector) and see if that fixes the problem. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 10:35 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment) Jeffrey Miller asked: Are we as a population representative in terms of sexuality distribution? Does Brin-L have any openly GLBT members (excepting myself, of course)? *raises hand way back in the corner* Right here. Bi. Glad you could make it to the party ^_^ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Harney Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11:33 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment) From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. [...] Are we as a population representative in terms of sexuality distribution? Does Brin-L have any openly GLBT members (excepting myself, of course)? I would be very surprised if the list were representative of the overall population. This group tends to be more intelligent and more liberal than the overall population, and, as consequence, it is far more likely that people here will be more open to the posibility of an alternative lifestyle. I really AM curious about people's arrangments.. I don't talk much about my life, but many people seem to be (happily) married with kids (but then, I tend to think the whole world is like that ^_^) Myself, I would say I'm bisexual with a strong leaning towards heterosexual. I also must admit that if homosexuality were more accepted, I would probably be bisexual with only a slight lean towards heterosexual. *nod* Thanks for phoning in :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: OpenGL
On Tuesday 2004-02-17 06:57, Alberto Monteiro wrote: I must be doing something _really_ stupid, but why I can't draw even a simple tetrahedron with OpenGL? One of the faces does not show :-/ Is there any magic word that I must utter before it works? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l Dunno. Try: http://plug.phoenix.az.us/index.php Perhaps join: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before escalating to an OpenGL discussion group. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Democrats secular?
More important than any of those is secularism, in my opinion. The Democratic Party has a remarkable ability to have leaders who are fairly secular (Mondale, Dukakis) or actively disdain religion (Dean, if he wins the nomination). Americans are, on the whole, quite religious. Lower middle class whites are _really_ religious. Bill Clinton, who spoke the language of faith well, was able to neutralize much of the traditional Republican advantage on this issue, do fairly well among lower middle class whites and, not by coincidence, win the election. Other Democrats have been unable or unwilling to do this, and paid the appropriate penalty for that. I've thought about this for a while, and I think it is a bit off the mark. There is an element of truth to it, the language of the Democrats is at odds with the feelings of a number of religious people. I know a great number of them in the Woodlands. Its curious that you list Mondale as secular. He is the son of a Methodist minister that spoke of his faith in a debate with Ronald Reagan. I remember hearing it and, at the time, finding it amazing that the non church attending Hollywood Reagan who was married to a women who became pregnant during an adulterous relationship with him would be considered more acceptable on religious grounds than the church going son of a Methodist minister who had been married to the same woman for about 30 years. As a liberal, I'm not condemning Reagan for his past; he and Nancy seemed to have a good marriage. But, I know that the folks who supported him routinely condemned Hollywood actors for doing the same thing; and tended to like church going preacher kids who stayed married. So, what gives? The answer, I think, was in their replies to a question about public expressions of Christianity. I vaguely remember Reagan giving an answer supporting prayer in schools. I strongly remember Mondale giving a heartfelt answer that America was the most religious country in the West because the government was out of religion: it was a private affair. So, that's not really an secular answer; its an answer that a secular government allows for the flourishing of religious beliefs because of the freedom of religion it involves. Unfortunately, this sounded like being wishy-washy at best to a number of people. The last two Democratic presidents were Baptists. They talked like born-again Christians. Christian fundamentalists, even those who are not Baptists, have a comfort level with this type of talk. More liberal Christians are far less likely to talk like this, because it sounds to them like being judgmental of other faiths. People, like me, who think that a devout Hindu could do a better job of actually accepting Jesus (according to Matt. 25) than someone who has proclaimed that he has accepted Jesus into his heart, are often treated as though we just said the moon is made of ice cream by our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. Let me give you a few examples of this from here. We lost most of our literalist church members because we hosted a muli-faith Thanksgiving observance in which Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, and people of other faiths could all thank God for our blessings together. The second was the last memorial for 9-11, which split our community. Several Fundamentalist churches had secured the Woodlands Pavilion (which seats 13,000) for a Christian day of remembrance very early. They said that Hindus and Muslims and Jews were more than welcome to come and be involved with the Christian program. They were not welcome, of course, to offer any non-Christian prayers or thanksgivings. The liberals had a separate observation, where the people of other faiths and who were not religious could offer meditations and prayers for those lost on 9-11. It was, of course, a much smaller gathering, only 1,000 compared to the 6,000 who went to the other ones. As one of my more open minded fundamentalist friends said I didn't feel that I needed to hear people talking about false gods when I was troubled, I needed to hear about the Lord Jesus. He was one of the few fundamentalists who did not leave the church when we let non-Christians pray at our church. The third example is the choice of music at our public schools. It is about 25% classical sacred music, 50% modern Christian music, and about 25% non-Christian music. I certainly can understand why choirs would sing old masses, there is no way to undo history. But, there are plenty of modern choral pieces that are not Christian, and we do have people of other faiths in our schools. What do these examples show to me? 1) They depict a group of people who are sure that they know the truth. Their faith is right, and those of other religions are worshiping false gods. (Jews get a bye on the last one, but they really should know to accept Christ.) 2) This view represents the prevailing mood of the community. They are not the extremists. (The extremists do things
RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment)
Top-post -- Of **course** we're not average! We're clearly all _above average_! ;D Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I really AM curious about people's arrangments.. I don't talk much about my life, but many people seem to be (happily) married with kids (but then, I tend to think the whole world is like that ^_^) Hetero here, (if you want me to put myself on a chart, I'll guess ~ 95%, since I'm allowing that if I'd grown up in a radically different society I might not be 100%), single yet looking, 2 children-in-fur, 3 surrogate children-on-the-hoof... Debbi Shades of Lake Woebegone? Maru ;) __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment)
- Original Message - From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 3:23 PM Subject: RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment) Hetero here, (if you want me to put myself on a chart, I'll guess ~ 95%, since I'm allowing that if I'd grown up in a radically different society I might not be 100%), single yet looking, 2 children-in-fur, 3 surrogate children-on-the-hoof... So, you bought fur coats for two biological children and have sent 3 foster children on a horse back ride for the afternoon? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige Amendment
Robert Seeberger wrote: Are we going to recognise marriages made in (FREX) France if France legalises Gay Marriage? The courts will not allow discrimination in that regard and France WILL retaliate. How about shipboard weddings? Are those legally recognised? (Law Of The Sea?) I really don't see any way it could be stopped if Gay people are determined. Actually the Dutch state allows same sex mariages. Even grants registered partners (same sex and others) the same status as officially maried couples, with the same benefits and disadvantages. Afaik same sex partners are normally allowed to adopt each others children or other children if they are elsewise suitable parents. Nothing hypothetical, rare or freekish about that. Sonja GCU: Very fortunate to live in a liberal and tolerant country ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democrats secular?
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only way for Democrats to win in the South is to win a good portion of these folks over. This can be done by emphasizing the economic issues and I basically agree with everything you wrote (I think - I read it fairly quickly). I think it's more than just the South, though. As a rule of thumb, outside of party registration, the easiest way to find out how a white person votes is to ask how often they go to church. More than once a month, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican (African-Americans, of course, are very devout and heavily Democratic). Less than once a month and they vote Democratic. To first order, that's the dominating factor - which is one of the reasons I think social issues are much more racial ones in explaining the modern (as opposed to 1970s) Republican dominance in the South. Mondale was quite religious, of course, but he gave off an aura of secularism (which is fine, I'm obviously in favor of a fairly secular government) but, even more than that, many of his most prominent allies in the Democratic Party seem to radiate hostility to religion. Are people necessarily aware of who edits The Nation? No, not at all - but the tenor that they create is perceived by the very perceptive American public. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment)
--- Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hetero here, (if you want me to put myself on a chart, I'll guess ~ 95%, since I'm allowing that if I'd grown up in a radically different society I might not be 100%), single yet looking, 2 children-in-fur, 3 surrogate children-on-the-hoof... Debbi Single as well. One of my best friends (gay) once described me as the straightest human being who has ever lived. I don't think he meant it as a compliment, but he's probably right :-) = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Irregulars Question: OpenGL
Alberto Monteiro wrote: The program is as simple as possible, and all but the first triangle appear correctly. The first triangle, however, is invisible. Essentially, this is the OpenGL part of the program: glLoadIdentity(); glTranslatef(0.0f,0.0f,-15.0f); glRotated(m_angulo, m_x, m_y, m_z); glBegin(GL_TRIANGLES); // Draw Triangles glNormal3f(1.0f, 1.0f, 1.0f); // should be the yellow face, but is invisible glColor3f(1.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(1.0f, 0.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 1.0f, 0.0f); glVertex3f(0.0f, 0.0f, 1.0f); I think you should get rid of the glNormal statement. It's not the correct normal for a flat triangle with the vertices you've given. If the object you want to create has perfectly flat faces, you should avoid specifying normals at all. Just let OpenGL automatically generate the correct normal. You should only specify normals if you're trying to create a smoothly curving object. __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama = [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Science Fiction-themed online store . http://www.sloan3d.com/store Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: education bias
Kevin Tarr wrote: snipped some First questions: can a school make a kid smart? I think if she's a good enough parent the school shouldn't matter. I'm sure we could come up with a 3 x 3 truth table with good/medium/bad parents vs good/medium/bad schools and have percentages to see what matters more. Good parents and good schools won't also produce a smart kid but it will happen more often than bad parents and bad schools. It just sounded like she expected the school to do the work. You should be interested in the millenium babies project by the Beeb. This is just one of the questions they are attempting to answer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/parenting/childofourtime/archive.shtml Sonja :o) GCU: Beeb docs rule ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic]Amendment)
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hetero here, (if you want me to put myself on a chart, I'll guess ~ 95%, since I'm allowing that if I'd grown up in a radically different society I might not be 100%), single yet looking, 2 children-in-fur, 3 surrogate children-on-the-hoof... So, you bought fur coats for two biological children and have sent 3 foster children on a horse back ride for the afternoon? Aarrrgh! Fur coats for humans (in non-aboriginal settings) are evil and must be eliminated! [And you made my kitties cough up some hairballs with this comment... ;) ] And only one student for this afternoon (hurrah! We finally get to ride! We've had nothin' but ice on the trail for weeks!). ...Where All The Children Are Above Average Maru :D __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democrats secular?
At 04:27 PM 2/17/2004, you wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only way for Democrats to win in the South is to win a good portion of these folks over. This can be done by emphasizing the economic issues and I basically agree with everything you wrote (I think - I read it fairly quickly). I think it's more than just the South, though. As a rule of thumb, outside of party registration, the easiest way to find out how a white person votes is to ask how often they go to church. More than once a month, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican (African-Americans, of course, are very devout and heavily Democratic). Less than once a month and they vote Democratic. To first order, that's the dominating factor - Gautam Mukunda I break all the rules. Higher than average intelligence; college graduate; non-religious, only go to church for weddings and funerals, at least five years since I've been in one. I only vote democratic if there is no republican on the ticket, or the candidate is very opposite of my views. Kevin T. - VRWC Breaking the law --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)
Miller, Jeffrey wrote: I really AM curious about people's arrangments.. I don't talk much about my life, but many people seem to be (happily) married with kids (but then, I tend to think the whole world is like that ^_^) Monogamous, hetero, married, kids. Insane. (I'm told it gets easier once twins hit 12-18 months.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democrats secular?
Kevin Tarr wrote: At 04:27 PM 2/17/2004, you wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only way for Democrats to win in the South is to win a good portion of these folks over. This can be done by emphasizing the economic issues and I basically agree with everything you wrote (I think - I read it fairly quickly). I think it's more than just the South, though. As a rule of thumb, outside of party registration, the easiest way to find out how a white person votes is to ask how often they go to church. More than once a month, and they overwhelmingly vote Republican (African-Americans, of course, are very devout and heavily Democratic). Less than once a month and they vote Democratic. To first order, that's the dominating factor - Gautam Mukunda I break all the rules. Higher than average intelligence; college graduate; non-religious, only go to church for weddings and funerals, at least five years since I've been in one. I only vote democratic if there is no republican on the ticket, or the candidate is very opposite of my views. Do you vote in primaries? (I vote in Republican primaries because whatever district I'm in tends to be a lock for the Republicans and I want to have some say in who represents me.) Julia other than that, not feeling terribly affiliated with any particular party now ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)
Monogamous, hetero, married, kids. Me too! Except changed married to engaged, and kids to none... Insane. That too (but in a different way...bwahahahaha!) Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Darwin's Children
Just got my copy in the mail today. Anyone already been through it? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/12/2004 6:18:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Then there is the question of what it means to be anti-semetic. There is a teacher here localy who stated: And what are they doing with the Palestinians every day? They're killing them. They're doing the same thing that was done to them It's exactly like what Hitler did to the Jews. Thsi guy is being investigated for anti-semtic remarks and will most likely lose his job. However, how exactly can this remark be called anti-semetic. Just becouse one group has been a victem in the past does not make everything they do afterwards acceptable. Simply disagreeing with, being appaled by, or having beliefeds contradictory to a persecuted group, does not mean that one is racist, or religionist or both. It is in fact a Jewish comunity and Jewish leaders who are calling for this investigation. This sounds like these leaders are saying that all non-jews must condone everything they do, or they are ant- semetic. How is this not in it'self raceist. The statement is factualy untrue. The Nazis systematically murdered 8 million jews just for being jews. They were german citizens and then later citizens of other countries. They were not a threat; they had no arms. the elderly, the women and the children were intentionally killed along with the men. In Palestine the killings however regretable or ill-advised are the result of retaliation for suicide bombings. The Israelis do not round up all palestinians. They could just bomb the palestinians indiscriminantly but they do not. The comparison of israeli actions to Nazis is bound to inflict pain on jews. It is meant to do so. It is hateful. Only someone who is callous to the past and current plight of the jews could make such a claim. It is anti- semitic Been gone for the weekend. First, you are correct, in what the Nazis did, I was never saying that this was not the case. What I am talking about is the 100 years or so leading up to that. I am not saying that the Nazis did not have an indoctrinated racist set of beliefs and did not slaughter Jews simply because they were Jews. However, I am saying that the day to day events and experiences of the average European of the 100 or so years leading up to that were such that we as humans should have seen it coming, and that we can look for similar patterns in the future to make sure it doesn't happen again. The fact is that there did exist an environment of animosity which allowed for such horrendous racism to occur. I understand your anger and your emotion concerning this topic. I understand that it may be hard for you to have grown up only looking at one side of the picture, and I also understand how distasteful it is for any of us to look at the other side. (once again I am talking about the average person not the Nazis). However, if we do not see this view as well, we, as a human species will have learned nothing. As far as being Callas to the historical plight of the Jews, I suggest to you that there is not a singular uniqueness in this plight. I suggest that other groups have endured much more. All I must do is look at the map on my wall which shows what peoples populated the Americas at one time, look to where my ancestors once lived, and see quite clearly, how there is now nearly none of that people left. Your ancestors may have suffered an attempt to wipe them out, but my very light colored skin attests to the fact that my ancestors very nearly were. As far as the current situation in the middle east, I ask you to consider what your Children, Grandchildren or Great Grandchildren would be doing if you were forcibly removed from your home and sent to a ghetto to live, -AND- they still lived in that very ghetto. Sure they have not been slaughtered indiscriminately, and they have not been forced into labor camps. But from their perspective they have had the same sort of forcible removal, and from their perspective, this has been done to assure a racially pure society. Further more, their available land has further been encroached on by settlements of that same racially pure people who forced them out to begin with. Of course this does not condone suicide bombings or terrorism, 2 wrongs never make a right!!! But how can there be peace in that land until all sides can understand the viewpoints of the other, without judging the viewpoint as invalid. The Palestinians, and many others see what Israel is doing as, while no where near as bad as what the Nazis did, they see it as a very similar policy. You can disagree with this, but you can not stand back, be objective, and not see how the connection can be made. You can't watch the news and see Palestinians throwing molitave cocktails at Israeli troops and not be reminded of that movie a while back
RE: Introducing Fenris
You could make a shorter catagory that includes both religion and politics called Evil:. I like Totally Gay: myself It makes me giggle! I think we can work on entitling the title of our email messages with a meaningful pre-title... But to get the group to standardize Never! It took years to get people to stop using HTML... We are still very insensitive with our reckless disregard for the metric system Nerd From Hell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You assume that Millions of average people had a blind hatred, and had found justification any way they could, simply to persecute a group they had blind hatred for. In fact millions of people did hate the jews. It was the official position of the Church and most states for over 1000 years. Hay, you won't get me defending the Catholic church. And you might notice for a second that I am not talking about leadership. The Europeans did a lot of forced cristianity. They did that just as much to every other religion,...or non religion. It wasn't specificaly addressed at the Jews, but rather at anyone who did not comform. Why not read a bit of history before you continue to make remarks like this. Try Johnson's History of the Jews or Constantines Sword Yes, but you could read a bit about any other people and the hardships they have experienced. The species is rather violent, and agressive to those who believe or act differently. That sounds a bit like raceism to me. Have you not vilified a whole people? It isn't racism by the way but if you are asking me if christians bear collective guilt for what was done to the jews over and over again throughout the west, well yes. Oh, so -YOU (the individual)- DO believe in collective guilt for christians, but you don't believe in collective guilt for jews? Does that mean that Christians need to go around apologizing to Jews. Of course not. Does it mean that they have a moral obligation to avoid statements and actions that put jews at risk or in fear; yes absolutely. Didn't this all start from a conversation about some jewish leaders who tried and silence the chrisians religion when it was just getting started? What moral obligation does that in your reconing then place on jews? You can't have it both ways. Either there is collective guilt or there isn't. I think also that most other jews would agree with me. But then, a good many of my friends are jewish by birth, but not religion. When the crusaders stopped in Mainse in Germany and demanded that the jews convert or die, that was not about money lending, It was about burning woman and children who refused to convert. Even other non christians. When jews were tortured and murdered in the Spanish Inquisition Yes jews were among those murdered in the spanish inquisition, so were many others. When Pope Pious did not lift a finger when the Nazis marched jews in frount of the Vatican City in World War II that was not about money. Those eveil christians, their leaders sat by and did nothing instead of getting killed. When the US military command refused to bomb Auschwitz even they knew that the Germans were murdering jews in large numbers and despite the pleas of american What? Ok I have studied a lot about WWII and that has never come up. Besides, even if the US Military knew would you have them kill possibly thousands in the attack? Would it have been better for the US bombs to kill them, or the gas that we now know they were subjected to? It is about anti-semtism promoted or at least condoned by organized christianity. Yes christians are anti-jewish faith. They are also anti- everyotherfaith. Are you serious? The rest of the statement went on to say that this is hogwash. The jews did what they had to do because they were allowed to do nothing else. Do you understand that the vast majority of jews lived in grinding poverty throughout most of their history. A few jews earned a lot of money (only to have it taken away on occasion on the whim of king or priest) but most were incredibly poor. Not at the time we were discussing. And not in the eyes of the average christian european. Hate? yes that did occure. Evil, yes, but there were early warning signs. That is what we should be interested in, how do humans get to that state. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige Amendment
- Original Message - From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Federal Marraige Amendment Robert Seeberger wrote: Are we going to recognise marriages made in (FREX) France if France legalises Gay Marriage? The courts will not allow discrimination in that regard and France WILL retaliate. How about shipboard weddings? Are those legally recognised? (Law Of The Sea?) I really don't see any way it could be stopped if Gay people are determined. Actually the Dutch state allows same sex mariages. Even grants registered partners (same sex and others) the same status as officially maried couples, with the same benefits and disadvantages. Afaik same sex partners are normally allowed to adopt each others children or other children if they are elsewise suitable parents. Nothing hypothetical, rare or freekish about that. So then the question becomes Does the US recognise foriegn made marriages if the couple is gay. Anyone know? Sonja GCU: Very fortunate to live in a liberal and tolerant country I would say you are. And thanks for filling in on my question! xponent Who's The Bride? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)
In a message dated 2/17/2004 6:21:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Monogamous, hetero, married, kids. monogamous hetero married kids (I have kids my kids aren't married at least not the last time I looked) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Totally Gay: RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marrai ge [sic] Amendment)
Are we as a population representative in terms of sexuality distribution? Does Brin-L have any openly GLBT members (excepting myself, of course)? Na... I expect we are less representative that the general populace. Frankly, Sci-fi is a bit too Gay, so to speak, for the cool hipster metrosexual types... Now if I ask what GLBT stands for, does that make me curious bi? How many chili peppers did I win for this message! Nerd From Hell -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Totally Gay: RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marrai ge [sic] Amendment)
At 06:04 PM 2/17/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we as a population representative in terms of sexuality distribution? Does Brin-L have any openly GLBT members (excepting myself, of course)? Na... I expect we are less representative that the general populace. Frankly, Sci-fi is a bit too Gay, so to speak, for the cool hipster metrosexual types... Now if I ask what GLBT stands for, does that make me curious bi? How many chili peppers did I win for this message! None. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is my father-in-law Jewish?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan wrote: You assume that Millions of average people had a blind hatred, and had found justification any way they could, simply to persecute a group they had blind hatred for. That sounds a bit like raceism to me. Have you not vilified a whole people? I don't know what history you've read Jan, but from what I've read and in fact, from what I've observed, humans have an enormous capacity for blind hate especially for those who are in any significant way different from themselves. One only has to observe the genocide in the Sudan, the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the perpetual war in Israel, the 200,000 dead in East Timor, the killing fields of Cambodia, the El Salvador death squads to understand the capacity for hate. I don't know where you got your ideas about the plight of European Jews, but they're just wrong. Weird, you seem to be makeing my point. But then of course you could be reading what I have written and assuming a position. Well, sorry, go back read again, my position is seldome the position you know. Then of course you could believe that people just get up one day and decide to hate. You could think that every human has some kind of flaw that makes them need to hate. To some extent you mihgt be right. We might have a natural instinct for it. There is some evidence for this kind of evoluntionary advantage. But if you put yourself in the same position of the group that does not yet hate, but will by the end of the generation, you might discover that most humans are capable of this kind of animocity. We tend to look for some goup to blame our problems on. It might be a good starting place from which to address hate in general. I am NOT saying, as some have in the past it was their own fault. I am simply just not saying that! What I am saying is, that you have to look at the whole picture, from every angle, look at where the animocity came from, far in advance of the existence of hate. Understand all sides. If you don't do this, you might as well forgive and forget, becouse remembering will have no effect but a propigation of more hate. If we look back on the events of the past few centuries in this manner we can see that these evils happened becouse they were in the intrest of some controlling group or another. What is there to learn from this? Hatred is the emotion of puppets. What that doesn't tell us is how to cut the strings away from the with puppets, how to get them to think free. As long as we de-humanize anyone, we will never have a solution. No matter how vial the act was, we have to accept that they were human, that they could have easily been our parents, or more importantly our children. What is more, the opressed could have been our parants or children as well. Both outlooks, for everyone involved are equaly important. The right way to look at it is not that ~they~ did that to ~us~, but rather look at it from a detatched equal perspecive. Propogating niether the guilt of the opressor, nor the victimization of the opressed. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 2/17/2004 11:03:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. Thus, it stands to reason that greater acceptance of homosexual relationships will increase the number of these in-between people who choose the identify more closely with their homosexual tendencies than their heterosexual tendencies. Now, maybe this will be an insignificant percentage - but I don't think that either side can convincingly demonstrate the ultimate eventual size of that trend. I don't think the scientific evidence supports your claim at least for men. On the face your arguement seems innocuous but smell a bit of the discredited idea that people can be coerced or influenced to be homosexuals. This arguement has caused to much grief to be accepted. But let us say you are right. Let us say that some people could marry someone of either sex. How would they make their choice? Hopefully by finding somenone they loved and were willing to marry. Do we as a society want to prevent this from happening Please don't mis-attribute this to me, what you quoted was something JDG said, not me. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics and Motivations
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Politics and Motivations On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:15:39PM -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Who cares whether you WANT to restrict basic rights -- if you support legislation that restricts the basic rights, then you are imposing your cowardice on others. You know Gautam, I believe that people like you are a big danger to America's freedom, and people like you should be locked up without access to a lawyer and without a trial. You deserve to be held for years until we can get you to reveal everything you know about other evildoers like you, until the danger you pose to American freedom has ended, until we have won the war against anti-freedom cowards. Ok this is where I get off. Gautam is no evil doer and I am no liberal patsy. I hate it when people attempt to trample reasonable discussion of complex issue (the balance for the need for security in an altered world and to protect the rights of american citizens) I thought that was Erik...and I thought it was sarcasm? Yes, and sorta-yes (I would say satire, since it was basically turnabout to what has been said and done against so-called enemy combatants) Bob Z. is one of the most careless people about emails that I have ever seen. He constantly gets attributions wrong, messes up formatting and quoting so badly that you have to wonder if it was intentional, and posts multiple copies and blank emails all the time. I Darn teenagers! xponent Happens All The Time Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 06:38 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:33:54PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 06:24 PM 2/17/04, Chad Cooper wrote: When I replace Gay and Homosexual with Interracial, replace sex with race, and heterosexual as same-race.. Chad's Modified text example below ...snip for brevity... 3) interracial unions are ill-suited for the siring and raising of the next generation.By definition, interracial unions are infertile. Kinda falls apart here, doesn't it? Not if you consider inter-racial progeny to be sub-human, then they are infertile in that they don't produce full humans. Has anybody here said that, other than you just now? Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Latest Mars pic
thought you'd get a chuckle out of this from the sci.space.* newsgroups: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/mars_spiritcolor.jpg xponent Colonials Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Totally Gay: RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marriage [sic] Amendment)
At 06:04 PM 2/17/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now if I ask what GLBT stands for, Garlic, lettuce, bacon, and tomato. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Totally Gay: RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marrai ge [sic...
In a message dated 2/17/2004 5:06:19 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now if I ask what GLBT stands for, does that make me curious bi? Gimli - Legolas Buddies in Tolkein? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Democrats secular?
Do you vote in primaries? (I vote in Republican primaries because whatever district I'm in tends to be a lock for the Republicans and I want to have some say in who represents me.) Julia Eight of ten times I vote in the primary. I was going to switch parties, just to vote for Dennis K. or Dean or whomever may be less likely to win. Then a good primary challenger showed up against Senator Arlen Specter. I have to vote for the challenger. Kevin T. - VRWC --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics and Motivations
In a message dated 2/17/2004 7:36:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob Z. is one of the most careless people about emails that I have ever seen. He constantly gets attributions wrong, messes up formatting and quoting so badly that you have to wonder if it was intentional, and posts multiple copies and blank emails all the time. I Do not confuse incompetence with carelessness ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:49:47PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Has anybody here said that, other than you just now? ... Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) Is it really so difficult to follow the reasoning? You so missed the point... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Politics and Motivations
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:57:58PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do not confuse incompetence with carelessness I haven't. You've been told about it numerous times by a number of people. A careful person with your intelligence would have spent some time experimenting off-list to figure out how to get it right. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 08:02 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 06:49:47PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Has anybody here said that, other than you just now? ... Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) Is it really so difficult to follow the reasoning? You so missed the point... As, apparently, did you . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:13:12PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: As, apparently, did you . . . What ever happened to your God-given predictions? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not unlike saying that artificial insemination does not count for lesbian couples. Did anyone say that it does not count? John said that he does not believe in it, which I presume is because the Catholic church discourages it. AFAIK, the Catholic church does not teach that babies born through IVF are sub-human, or indeed anything but fully human. (If I am wrong on this, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows what the Catholic church teaches.) John did not mention artificial insemination at all, seemingly ignoring that possibility in his original post. I'll quote the relevant bit here: 3) Homosexual unions are ill-suited for the siring and raising of the next generation.By definition, homosexual unions are infertile.For pro-life reasons, I am opposed to in vitro fertilization (say what you will, but I am at least consistent in the consequences of my belief that human life begins at conception.) As such, it is unreasonable to believe that homosexual unions will be producing children - and thus, don't meet the first standard for why governments should provide incentives to promote them. So, he objects to IVF on pro-life grounds, but ignores artificial insemination (these are two different things). I am pretty sure artificial insem. has no pro-life objections (though I'm a little less sure that it has no *other* Catholic objections, (despite being a Catholic myself)). This is probably what Erik was referring to. (As an aside, I believe the pro-life objection to IVF is that more human embryos are created than are actually implanted in a given IVF cycle, essentially leaving a stockpile of frozen human embryos that eventually will be tossed out.) In my reply, I pointed this oversight out, which he acknowledged and then shifted his position to argue that the government shouldn't encourage homosexuals to have children: I'm sure that it is possible. unmarried couples can have children. Homosexual couples are of course physically capable of adoption. Nevertheless, homosexual unions do not naturally produce children the way heterosexual unions do.Moreover, the question becomes - should we *incentivise* homosexual couples having children. I argue that we should not. -Bryon _ Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment)
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: Federal Marraige [sic] Amendment) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:25:23 -0800 From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1) I believe that human sexuality is non-linear. While there are certainly a great many people who are very firmly homosexual or heterosexual, there just as surely exists some subset of people who exist on the in-between. [...] Are we as a population representative in terms of sexuality distribution? Does Brin-L have any openly GLBT members (excepting myself, of course)? -j- delurk Openly hetero here. Married, no kids (yet). :-D /delurk Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Latest Mars pic
thought you'd get a chuckle out of this from the sci.space.* newsgroups: http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/mars_spiritcolor.jpg They look too large to be the same species that left the skull over by Spirit in the older NASA press release pic. The head shape is about right, though. You can see the skull near the JPL logo at: http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spirit/20040120a/2P127438461IOFP2269L456C6_V3-A17R1_br.jpg (or http://tinyurl.com/2kwwm ) Funny they didn't comment on it in the press release, though... ;) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Greenspan: Cut Social Security to keep tax cuts for millionares
Greenspan says Congress should cut Social Security to keep tax cuts http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040213/1031952.asp By MARTIN CRUTSINGER Associated Press 2/13/2004 WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that Congress should make President Bush's tax cuts permanent and cover the $1 trillion price by trimming future benefits in Social Security and other entitlement programs. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
At 08:17 PM 2/17/04, Erik Reuter wrote: On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 08:13:12PM -0600, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: As, apparently, did you . . . What ever happened to your God-given predictions? Nothing happened to them. I'm not sure what that has to do with the current discussion, though. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
