date:20040526

On 26 May 2004, at 12:45 pm, David Hobby wrote:
Keith Henson wrote:
Correct, but *after* the date some of them get more into recruiting.  
The
JWs are an example.
I think the more common behavior is pushing back the
predicted date of the apocalypse.  But I guess one can only do
this so many times.
Pushing back the apocalypse for over a century! sounds better than 
wrong lots of times :) Maybe they should use it in their 
literature...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
- Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Ruling against Unitarians reversed

2004-05-26 Thread Julia Thompson

About all that's really happened is, some people were needlessly caused
distress, and the comptroller's name got out on 2 different news
cycles. (Yes, I'm cynical where she's concerned, but anyone who's
followed her career for the past 15 years would have to be extremely
gullible not to be cynical at this point.)

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/metro_state_042bfebf469b90b600ef.html

Unitarians get religious status after intercession
Earlier decision is changed after state comptroller orders re-evaluation

By Ken Herman

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF

Tuesday, May 25, 2004

Reversing a ruling that shocked church officials, the state
comptroller's office decided Monday that the 52 members of Denison's Red
River Unitarian Universalist Church are engaged in religious activity
when they meet on Sundays.

Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn's office said the Denison church is
entitled to tax-exempt status as a religious organization.

The exemption had been denied in September because the comptroller's
office determined that the church does not have one system of belief.
Unitarian officials had said that was the first time one of its churches
had been denied tax-exempt status.

On Monday, Jesse Ancira Jr., general counsel in the comptroller's
office, said Strayhorn had asked him to take another look at the case.

After reviewing your submitted application, file material, as well as
correspondence between yourself and staff from our tax policy division,
it is my opinion that the Red River Unitarian Universalist Church is an
organization created for religious purposes and should be granted the
requested tax exemption, Ancira said in a letter to Dan Althoff, the
congregation's president.

Scottie Johnson of Denison, the congregation's past president, said
church officials were astonished when the exemption was denied.

We obviously are a church and (are) meeting for religious purposes and
a long established denomination, she said. We are not just a recent
player on the religious scene in any way, shape or form.

The Denison congregation was formed in 1997 and filed for tax-exempt
status after affiliating with the Unitarian Universalist Association.

The church owns no property and faces little to no tax obligation.

It was the principle of the thing, Johnson said, adding that she
believes in a supreme being but knows that some of her fellow
congregants do not. Universal Unitarianism as a denomination does not
require any creedal test to be a member. Every person in the church
might have a slightly different idea.

The comptroller's office has said tax-exempt status cannot be granted to
organizations whose members do not profess belief in God or gods or a
higher power.

Mark Sanders, Strayhorn's spokesman, said the exemption request had been
denied at the staff level. He said Strayhorn asked Ancira to review the
case last week after a Fort Worth Star-Telegram story examined the 17
cases in which Strayhorn's office denied tax exemptions to groups
claiming to have religious affiliations.

Several of the denials were based on incomplete paperwork or because the
applicant's services were not open to the public.

Sanders said Strayhorn has not asked for reviews of any of the other
denials, which included requests from groups including agnostics and
atheists, new age adherents and the Whispering Star Clan/Temple of
Ancient Wisdom, a Copperas Cove organization of witches.

Strayhorn is in a courthouse fight over religious exemptions. The case
was ignited by the Ethical Society of Austin, which sued
then-Comptroller John Sharp when he reversed a staff-level ruling that
had granted exempt status despite the organization's lack of a
prescribed belief in a supreme being.

The Texas Supreme Court last month upheld lower court rulings that the
Ethical Society of Austin, which has 60 members, is entitled to
tax-exempt status as a religion. Strayhorn plans to appeal the decision
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ

From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:56:25 +0100
On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 The Devil is us, but then so is God.

 It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist.
At the least as some sort of natural metaphor.
Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who really 
knows?

Or they may be kinds of cheese,  possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian.  Perhaps 
even processed...
I dunno about the cheese bit...I'd say they're more likely to be different 
types of wild berries. Concur?

_
MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Goal was Victory

2004-05-26 Thread Robert J. Chassell

[This is a follow up to my posting of Mon, 24 May 2004] 

In his speech on Monday, 2004 May 24, US President Bush said that he
would continue his Administration's previous policy in Iraq, with the
possible addition of more deals with US enemies, as in Fallujah.

(The White House transcript is at

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/20040524-10.html
)

It is possible that US negotiations in Fallujah mean that the Sunni
guerillas have been separated from other Sunni powers and will not
cause much trouble to the US.  At the same time, their military power
may enable the Sunni to protect themselves from Shi'ite justice.  It
is also possible that the more powerful of the various Shi'ite
factions will cooperate with the United States and not work strongly
for Iran.

But that is not my main concern.  It looks to me that the President
decided to give up the long term goal of victory.  The goal was to
enable Americans to feel safe from attack, one or two generations from
now.

Instead of educating people to a two part strategy for US security,
the President looks to be focusing just on one part.  Although he
speaks in favor of the second part, he is not preparing people for it.

(No one in the current Bush Administration has said that they are
following this two part strategy.  However, I do not think that the
United States government and its military were persuaded by the
arguments the Bush Administration has made.  I think the two part
strategy is, or was, US policy.)

The first part of the strategy is to intimidate dictatorships, such as
those in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and thereby to cause their governments
to support the US.  This part fits within the `The Jacksonian
Tradition' of US politics.  It also fits the inference-preserving
cross-domain mapping that US conservatives often use for thinking
about politics.

The second part of the strategy involves persuading the unconvinced to
replace their governments with governments that lead fewer people to
oppose the US.

This means overthrowing the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Al
Qaeda also hopes to overthrow those dictatorships.  The US goal is to
replace those regimes with governments harmless to the US rather than
with a re-invigorated theocratic despotism that opposes the US.

Intimidation cannot work for generations: eventually, if they are not
assimilated, at least a few of the intimidated will cease to be
intimidated and will fight back.  Consequently, the United States will
eventually have to replace a policy of intimidation or else suffer
defeat.  It has no alternative.

Since people who consider their circumstances just are less inclined
to fight others, the goal for the US must be to arrange for justice.
Since free and democratic countries are more likely to provide the
institutions that enable them to adapt well to change and provide for
justice, the US must support such change.

In his speech, President Bush said America's task ... is ... to help
Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. This is a general way of saying
that he is against the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and
elsewhere, and that he favors ending US intimidation.

The question is whether you think President Bush's methods will
succeed?

There are two aspects to this question.  One is whether current policy
will succeed in Iraq; the other is whether the President is doing
enough to prepare Americans for the second half of the strategy.

Regarding the first aspect, do you think that the US can guarantee
order and law in Iraq?  These are the necessary preconditions for
justice and democracy.

Or do you think that those who oppose US success will continue to
fight, if not this year, within the next five or ten years?

The argument for continuing to fight is straightforward: over the last
30 years, the US has pulled out of Vietnam pulled out of the Lebanon,
and pulled out of Somalia.  In each case, US opponents say the pullout
occurred because US suffered more casualties than it could bear.  They
say that the US is more willing to suffer defeat than to suffer
casualties.  Thus, for them, fighting leads to victory against the US.

Moreover, in Iraq, many Sunni police and soldiers fear that the
Shi'ites will seek justice against them and that US will not guard
them.

The recent deal between the US and its enemies in Fallujah tends to
negate this fear.  The deal enables Sunni guerillas to maintain their
positions, so long as they do not fight the US: locals may figure that
their co-religion's soldiers will deter the Shi'ites, even if the US
does not.

But Sunni soldiers must also think that if they are strong enough to
deter the Shi'ites, they could go further and sabotage the development
of a government that protects the Shi'ites.  They must consider the
possibility of regaining strength in a temporary truce with the US and
then fighting again.

Similarly, the Shi'ite may welcome the US defeat of Saddam Hussein, as
Chalabi has, but then seek power for themselves.  Among

Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:19:19 -0500
- Original Message -
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:53 AM
Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

 Maybe someone here knows, but I thought the Vatican's riches had quite
 a bit to do with banking over the last few centuries.

 I'm not really sure. I do know that priests receive a salary of sorts
that I
 believe comes from the Vatican. As for tithing (commonly given/taken
through
 *collections* at mass), it is utilized in the upkeep and running of
 individual parishes. And in many cases this money is short of where it
needs
 to be in order to adequately address the financial hurdles that parishes
 must overcome to remain open.
The Vatican's riches are basically the artwork and other antiques that it
has gathered over the centuries. They also got some funds when Italy took
over most of Vatican City, back in the '30's I think...but it might have
been the '20s.   The main source of funding for the entire Catholic church
is
1) Contributions from US parishes.
2) Contribution from the German Catholic church, where the government still
subsidizes churches.
Thanks. I didn't know that. And not that I don't believe ya, but do you have 
anything to back that up?

The Vatican is not  living hand to mouth,
The Vatican itself may not be, but many parishes (at least here in 
Newfoundland) are struggling to survive. Everything from heating to repair 
work, supplies etc...

-Travis
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Goal was Victory

2004-05-26 Thread Robert J. Chassell

 ... That is to say, the goal was to enable Americans again to
 feel safe.

Deborah Harrell responded,

Feeling safe is in itself an interesting concept; if
Americans _feel_ safer, yet are not _actually_ safer,
will that be enough of a 'victory?'

As a practical matter, that will be called `victory'.  People always
make judgements.  When enough judgements -- enough `feelings' --
combine to suggest an actuality, they will think it is actual.

There is even a mathematics for adding judgements; you can add lots
and lots of evidence, but it never reaches certainty:

http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/certainty-factors.html

Of course, the people who make the judgements may be wrong.  In that
case, the methods for making judgements were flawed.  That is how
confidence tricksters and magicians succeed.  That is also the origin
of the proverb `the road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

... Would it change our outlook to call gangs 'domestic
terrorists' and realize that they take thousands of lives
annually?**

Only if enough people decided to believe that the gang members best
fit into the category `terrorist'.  Humans do tend to put people into
definite categories -- it is one of the ways humns perceive and
organize their perceptions of the world.

http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/guttman-scales.html

This form of categorization can be helpful or dangerous.  I think we
now pay considerable attention to mis-categorizations.  In medical
terms, these are `false positives' and `false negatives'.

Even police are beginning to worry about too many erroneous
classifications -- in the past the people they mis-classified as
criminals were generally powerless, so mistakes did not matter to the
police.  But nowadays, the misclassified do not always fall into the
category of powerless and can cause trouble.

   ...As a practical matter, such a desire means danger to
 Americans since the United States government has sided with
 dictators such as the rulers of Saudi Arabia...

Who have conveniently promised to increase oil
production beginning in June, although we won't likely
see a drop in gasoline prices until...the fall.

Right.  So the President, for his own reasons as well as for national
reasons, must tell people clearly what his and by extension US goals
should be, and do so believably.  Otherwise, some people will think he
is failing.  (See my message following up on `The Goal was Victory'.)

 I do not know what to expect.Will the President
 lay out a strategic plan that not only looks like
 it will succeed in the near future but also appeals
 to enough Americans that the country can follow it
 for 40 or 60 years?

I do not recall Bush calling for such a Marshall-style
plan before the war; ...

Before the war, he and others in his administration did talk of
bringing peace, prosperity, and democracy to various dictatorships.

After the war, the Bush Administration sought more than US$50 billion
for investment in Iraqi over the next five or seven years.  In an
international donors' conference a year ago, the Bush Administration
promised US$20 billion from the US.  Others promised about US$13
billion.  (Note these were promises of funding, not planned
expenditure.)

Thus, on the one hand, the Bush Administration did call for a
`Marshall-style' plan.  On the other hand, it failed dismally in its
implementation.

Rather than say `we fell 40% short in promises, and far more than that
in funded expenditure', the Bush Administration contradicted their
previous calls and termed the conference a success.  (It appears not
to be a `try and try again' administration, to use an old fashioned
phrase.)


I think that the impression of a
relatively easy military victory, followed by a
grateful Iraqi public happily embracing American-style
democracy, was deliberately fostered by his
administration.  What that says about their estimation
of the 'average American' is not flattering.

Both statements look true to me.

But many still say that President Bush might win the US election in
November, which suggests that he or his advisors are politically
shrewd and doing what is for them the `right thing'.

The problem is whether these actions are good for the country and/or
good for the Republican party in the long run?

Please remember, senior Republicans, such as President Bush, but also
the leaders of the House and Senate, tell people through their actions
that the word `conservative' in US politics now means an
Administration that

  * sets up a policy of long term government deficits, not one of
either cutting government spending or of raising taxes.

  * declares itself entitled to arrest and hold US citizens
indefinitely, without trial, or other kind of check by another
branch of government.  Such actions go against the US
constitution, at least if you hold a `strict constructionist'
view.

Re: 'Expect less, be happier...?'


From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 'Expect less, be happier...?'
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
 Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -Travis a perfect response from you would be *make
 it so* Edmunds
Imperfect response:
I prefer a full head of hair, but what's on top is
inconsequential to the brain inside the skull.
How shallow... Not everyone is smart ya know!! Some of us are just 
good-looking. And there's nothing we can do about that!

-Travis
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cults vs Religions, was Bullying and Battering

2004-05-26 Thread The Fool

--
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Keith Henson wrote:

Got me, what is the difference between disease organisms 
and parasites?  If the individuals are sufficiently large, we 
call them parasites, and if they are small enough, we don't?


My pet cat is clearly a parasite.  I would be hard pressed to desribe him
as a disease.

...
 Most
 apocalyptic cults turn inward a bit before the predicted
 apocalypse.  This seriously interferes with their ability to
 recruit more members.  And so on...
 
 Correct, but *after* the date some of them get more into recruiting. 
The
 JWs are an example.

I think the more common behavior is pushing back the 
predicted date of the apocalypse.  But I guess one can only do
this so many times.


Indeed:
http://www.freeminds.org/history/list.htm
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Goal was Victory

2004-05-26 Thread Erik Reuter

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:46:35PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:

 Clearly, the Bush Administration hopes either that Al Qaeda is weak
 or that it prefer the known Bush Administration.  The President could
 well be defeated in his re-election if a symbolically powerful attack
 takes place within the next few months.

That is not so clear at all. Bush's approval ratings were high after
9/11. Assuming that Americans will react the same as Spaniards may be a
mistake. In fact, I could see Americans being more likely to vote for
Bush if there is a terrorist attack: because they think Bush would be a
tougher military leader, because Americans tend to be more conservative
in times of fear, and not the least that Americans may think, we're not
like Spaniards, we won't vote the way the terrorists want us to.


-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Goal was Victory

2004-05-26 Thread Erik Reuter

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:46:35PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:

 Others think the opposite, that a symbolically powerful attack will
 increase US support for Bush in the election.  I think it depends
 on timing.  In the very short term, I expect an attack to increase
 support -- the `rally around the President' effect.  But in a month or
 two, I expect an attack to cause people to start asking whether the
 Bush administration acted competently in the past 2.5 years to defend
 Americans.  Thus an attack in June, July, or August may well lead to
 Bush defeat, but an attack just before the election may lead to his
 victory.

I meant to reply to this point as well -- I just don't see a terrorist
attack hurting Bush, no matter when it comes. Why would Americans
suddenly hold Bush responsible for incompetence when they have failed to
do so many times already?



-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

DISCLAIMER: I'm a rather agnostic fellow who has some major problems with 
organized religion. I think that should clear up any potential 
misunderstandings below.

From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:15:22 -0700
Travis Edmunds wrote:

... if they did not teach the actual teachings of Jesus, which is what the 
Catholic Church is very specifically based upon), and states that one must 
be repentant at heart.
Where does that idea, that must, come from?  What authority?  Cite, 
please.
The authority my friend would be God Himself (which is all too proper to use 
in this particular context, agree?) coupled with the concept of free will, 
which is basically a choice that is left for Humans to make on their own - 
serve God or the Devil - which in and of itself is a very black  white 
standpoint that is a key part of Christian dogma. That being said, in order 
to gain entry to Heaven (either by going straight there or after the 
purification of Purgatory) one must make a choice (free will) of whom to 
serve. And whatever choice one makes is a choice that one *wants* to make. 
Not that God doesn't love them, he does. He just won't let them into his 
house until they have washed up. And it's entirely up to them to keep up 
their personal hygiene. Hence my saying that someone 'must' be repentant at 
heart. They have to decide whom they serve, and actually WANT to repent. 
Otherwise it's one big lie. And I'd like to add that this is even another 
topic of dicussion, which specifically deals with my belief that organized 
religion serves no useful purpose othen than as a moral institution.

I'm curious to hear if it's a church or the Bible, which sometimes have 
little to do with each other.
Here is where we agree, yet disagree. It is true that the Bible and religion 
(church) sometimes have little to do with each other. We agree on that. 
However, you draw distinctions between different facets of religion 
(religion/church/faith), whereas I say they are for all intents and 
purposes intertwined. And if they are indeed intertwined (believe you me sir 
they are) then for the Bible and the Church to sometimes have little to do 
with each other, is a perfect example of the contemptable hypocrisy that I 
say runs rampant through organized religion in general; and in this case 
catholicism.

The Roman Catholic Church is *not* specifically based on the teachings of 
Jesus
Are you trying to tell me that with a straight face?
-- it also is based on papal authority,
The Pope is supposedly infallible (according to Catholic dogma) because he 
is in direct communion with God (who I might add is PERFECT), therefore your 
'papal authority' is nothing more than God himself getting done what he 
wants done. And need I add that what God wants done is what Jesus taught? 
Need I add the mystery of the Trinity? That Jesus IS God?

the saints, etc.
The saints?!?!? The Roman Catholic Church is based (partly) on the saints?!? 
No it isn't. Certain splinter groups (that are still under the Catholic 
Church) like the Franciscans, certainly follow their saints' teachings 
devoutly. But it all happens under the wing of the Catholic Church.

Sort of a Jesus-plus deal.  I don't think there's any question about that.
I like the way you put that. Too bad I disagree with the context in which it 
was posted.

The good news is that we are acceptable to God exactly as we are. Jesus' 
harshest words were for the self-righteous, who rejected that idea.
Not exactly. You speak more from a modernization movement within religion, 
rather than from an actual dogmatic point of view.
There is nothing modern about it.  It goes back at least a couple of 
thousand years.  Plenty of people get it wrong and preach what they think 
it should be.
For the sake of time I shall pretend to agree with you, and put forward a 
question - will it ever change? (people getting it wrong and preaching what 
they think it should be)

I really should add something more though. You say that the Christianity 
(which, like it or not IS based upon the teachings of Jesus) sometimes get's 
the real message of the 'good news' wrong. And one of those messages is 
indeed that we are acceptable to God exactly as we are. I couldn't agree 
more on that score Nick. But if such is the case, then what is the point of 
reconciliation? And as Jon Bon Jovi once sang - If there's nothing but 
survival, how can I believe in sin?

It incenses me, the hypocrisy of it all, and the ultimate futility, as I'm 
sure you will come to see when you answer my above question on whether or 
not individual interpretation of 'God's Word' will ever change.

-Travis being hypocritical on the outside to make a point Edmunds
_
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar  get it now!

Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 10:53:27 -0500
At 08:50 AM 5/19/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:27:48 -0500
At 02:55 PM 5/18/04, Travis Edmunds wrote:
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out
Date: Tue, 11 May 2004 10:29:07 -0700
Travis Edmunds wrote:

This is funny. Yes, it is decidedly unchristian to give much thought 
to people who *sin*, or to people of other religions (meaning that 
every religion is THE religion) going to Hell, Hades, the 'fiery 
deeps', or whatever you want to call it. Although...on second thought 
I will call it Hell as we are after all talking about Christianity. 
Anyway, my point is this - the actual belief that sinners and everyone 
else who for whatever reason cannot make it into Heaven (supposedly 
most go to Purgatory) is a key part of Christian dogma.
No, that's a part of church-ianity dogma.
First of all Nick, allow me to state for the record that I don't buy 
into your distinctions among religion, church and faith bit. For if 
those distinctions do indeed exist, then they can serve only to 
disparage any one facet of the other. I mean, what is Faith without a 
Church to profess it? What is a Church without a Religion as a 
foundation? What is a Religion without people to have Faith? I tell you 
sir, they are as intertwined as you are with oxygen.
So are you saying that the only way one can have faith in God is to be a 
member of an organized religion and to be a card-carrying active member 
of a particular church?
Nope.

So if that is \not\ what you were saying in your earlier post, could you 
expand a little so it's clearer what you did mean by that paragraph, 
because after reading it several times I still wasn't entirely sure what 
you meant? Thanks!
Sure. First of all I wasn't saying that 'the only way one can have faith in 
God is to be a member of an organized religion and to be a card-carrying 
active member of a particular church'. On the contrary, one can have all the 
faith in God they want, and have nothing to do with religion in any way 
whatsoever. I'll give you something to think about though - in doing that, 
one downplays the significance of organized religion, and becomes a 
hypocrite oneself is they cite any one facet of organized religion in 
relation with 'faith'.

-Travis
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ

On 26 May 2004, at 3:44 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Reviews for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 18:56:25 +0100
On 25 May 2004, at 5:27 pm, Travis Edmunds wrote:

From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 The Devil is us, but then so is God.
 

 It is entirely possible that God and his Devil do indeed exist.
At the least as some sort of natural metaphor.
Or perhaps as tangible beings that we cannot yet identify. Who 
really knows?

Or they may be kinds of cheese,  possibly goat. Maybe vegetarian.  
Perhaps even processed...
I dunno about the cheese bit...I'd say they're more likely to be 
different types of wild berries. Concur?
Heretic!
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not
tried it.
-- Donald E. Knuth
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re:New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

Sure. First of all I wasn't saying that 'the only way one can have faith in
God is to be a member of an organized religion and to be a card-carrying
active member of a particular church'. On the contrary, one can have all the
faith in God they want, and have nothing to do with religion in any way
whatsoever. I'll give you something to think about though - in doing that,
one downplays the significance of organized religion, and becomes a
hypocrite oneself *is* they cite any one facet of organized religion in
relation with 'faith'.
-Travis
*IF*
_
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re:New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

I really should add something more though. You say that *the* Christianity
(which, like it or not IS based upon the teachings of Jesus) sometimes get's
the real message of the 'good news' wrong. And one of those messages is
indeed that we are acceptable to God exactly as we are. I couldn't agree
more on that score Nick. But if such is the case, then what is the point of
reconciliation? And as Jon Bon Jovi once sang - If there's nothing but
survival, how can I believe in sin?
*Shouldn't be there - 'THE'
-Travis doing my own version of a spell check Edmunds
(even though an extra 'the' wouldn't show up on a spell check...)
_
MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months 
FREE*   
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Weekly Chat Reminder

2004-05-26 Thread Steve Sloan II

This is just a quick reminder that the Wednesday Brin-L chat is
scheduled for 3 PM Eastern/2 PM Central time in the US, or 7 PM
Greenwich time, so it started a little over an hour ago. There
will probably be somebody there to talk to for at least eight
hours after the start time. See my instruction page for help
getting there:
http://www.brin-l.org/brinmud.html
__
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

half-OT: Buffy/Angel question

2004-05-26 Thread Alberto Monteiro

In yesterday's Angel episode (5.11, with the psychotic slayer), Andrew tells
about Willow [Buffy's witch] and Kennedy [her second wife, after Tara]:

  They are living in Brazil, Sao Paulo, but whenever they call us they
  are in Rio

_I_ can understant this one way. What is the meaning of this to the
target audience in the USA?

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cults vs Religions, was Bullying and Battering

2004-05-26 Thread David Land

David Hobby wrote:
   I think the more common behavior is pushing back the
predicted date of the apocalypse.  But I guess one can only do
this so many times.
Indeed: http://www.freeminds.org/history/list.htm
   

Amazing.
 

Especially for people who claim to speak with the authority of God, 
given that Jesus said No one knows about that day or hour, not even the 
angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 13:32).

From the above document: ... this measurement [of a length of an 
interior passageway discovered inside the Pyramids - it has no reference 
in Scripture] is 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years ...

Let's see... that's about 285 feet, and also about 87 meters, which 
means that they missed the end by a little more 3000 years. It's also 
about 9000 of my little pinkie widths, which means we have a long time 
to wait.

Dave
What's that come to in skoshes?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: half-OT: Buffy/Angel question

On 26 May 2004, at 4:44 pm, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
In yesterday's Angel episode (5.11, with the psychotic slayer), Andrew 
tells
about Willow [Buffy's witch] and Kennedy [her second wife, after Tara]:

  They are living in Brazil, Sao Paulo, but whenever they call us they
  are in Rio
_I_ can understant this one way. What is the meaning of this to the
target audience in the USA?
Other than Rio being the gay capital of Brazil, no. Is it more than 
that?

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Invest in a company any idiot can run because sooner or later any 
idiot is going to run it.  -  Warren Buffet

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bullying and Battering

On Tue, 25 May 2004 13:25:01 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  YHO is not accurate.  The dictionaries were used
  because Dark Ages
  is a recognized term with which you disagree.  Not
  being a historian I
  am not obligated to use more than general terms.
 
 Which is why I posted a correction.
  Where in the Hell did I even use any dates!?
 
 When I asked for definitions and you posted them.

The dates I posted were the Fall of Rome and the rebirth of
reason known as the Renaissance.

 
  As you point out, historians at this time disagree
  about the time of
  the Renaissance and you fall into a modern camp
  denying there was even
  a Renaissance.  A brief checking of current
  encyclopedias online
  indicates the term is still in current use in their
  historical
  articles but now note that a few are beginning to
  refer to it as a
  cultural Renaissance.  That my use of the terms is
  acceptable also
  should have been obvious as the current history
  professor I quoted
  uses those terms.
 
 That's fine. I was pointing out that that is not a
 universal belief within the community.

OK, and I have learned that.

 
  I am left to speculate if there is some conservative
  or religious
  basis to such strong objection to the term Dark Ages
  and denial of the
  Renaissance.
 
 No. The objection is the some 100 years of belief in
 pop history that the Middle Ages were the Dark Ages
 (def 2). It still pervades pop history, though things
 are getting better. The conservative/religious comment
 is silly.
 
 As far as dates are concerned: you make the allegation
 that the Church hindered intellectual growth because
 of its power, bias, etc. This would be impossible
 during the early period between 500-1000, as the
 Church barely survived. The period between 1000-1300,
 which is part of the aformentioned 12th C rennaisance,
 clearly contradicts your statement as this was the
 major period of Church power and reform.

Believing it is impossible for the Church to retard learning between
500-1000 because it barely survived is silly.  It was destroying
libraries and books before that time.

I agree with you that the Church was at its all time high in political
power between 1000-1300 but this is irrelevant.  It was in this period
that the seeds of a Renaissance were sprouting with the rise of
scholars not necessarily agreeing with the Church in the Church
controlled universities. Perhaps some intellectual movements in the
Church such as Aquinas being condemned for heresy in 1277 but being
canonized in 1323 are influential.  The rise of the study of Aristotle
and a decline in Plato might also help scientific thought and lead to
Bacon and Newton.

Upon further investigation I agree with your objection to the term
Dark Ages.  It is difficult to tell when that period would begin or
where 'Light' would be before it.

Gary  - Enlightened maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: half-OT: Buffy/Angel question

2004-05-26 Thread Alberto Monteiro

William T Goodall wrote:

 In yesterday's Angel episode (5.11, with the psychotic slayer), Andrew
 tells
 about Willow [Buffy's witch] and Kennedy [her second wife, after Tara]:

   They are living in Brazil, Sao Paulo, but whenever they call us they
   are in Rio

 _I_ can understant this one way. What is the meaning of this to the
 target audience in the USA?

 Other than Rio being the gay capital of Brazil, no. 

Is it? Not for us. The gay capital is Pelotas, RS with a close second
Campinas, SP. But these are _male_ gay capitals.

 Is it more than that?

That was what I was wondering.

Alberto Monteiro

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Goal was Victory

On Wed, 26 May 2004 12:19:36 -0400, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 02:46:35PM +, Robert J. Chassell wrote:
 
  Clearly, the Bush Administration hopes either that Al Qaeda is weak
  or that it prefer the known Bush Administration.  The President could
  well be defeated in his re-election if a symbolically powerful attack
  takes place within the next few months.
 
 That is not so clear at all. Bush's approval ratings were high after
 9/11. Assuming that Americans will react the same as Spaniards may be a
 mistake. In fact, I could see Americans being more likely to vote for
 Bush if there is a terrorist attack: because they think Bush would be a
 tougher military leader, because Americans tend to be more conservative
 in times of fear, and not the least that Americans may think, we're not
 like Spaniards, we won't vote the way the terrorists want us to.

That has been a conservative reaction to the Spanish vote.  It has
been more often said it was a closely matched election and then the
ruling party lost support by trying to claim that was not an al-Qaeda
attack.  By lying to the people.  I would imagine they could still be
in power except for the lies.

Gary obvious lesson maru

#1 on Google for liberal news
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ruling against Unitarians reversed

On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:48:57 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 About all that's really happened is, some people were needlessly caused
 distress, and the comptroller's name got out on 2 different news
 cycles.  (Yes, I'm cynical where she's concerned, but anyone who's
 followed her career for the past 15 years would have to be extremely
 gullible not to be cynical at this point.)
 
 http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/metro_state_042bfebf469b90b600ef.html
 
 Unitarians get religious status after intercession
 Earlier decision is changed after state comptroller orders re-evaluation

I had this.  I thought the topper was that she blames it on staff mistakes.

Gary Her Grandmother PR machine maru

#1 on Google for liberal news
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Goal was Victory

2004-05-26 Thread Erik Reuter

On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 07:13:29PM -0500, Gary Denton wrote:

 That has been a conservative reaction to the Spanish vote.  It has
 been more often said it was a closely matched election and then the
 ruling party lost support by trying to claim that was not an al-Qaeda
 attack.  By lying to the people.  I would imagine they could still be
 in power except for the lies.

Probably true, but irrelevant. I was talking about the perceptions of a
large number of American voters, not about facts.



-- 
Erik Reuter   http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: half-OT: Buffy/Angel question

On Thu, 27 May 2004 00:00:28 +, Alberto Monteiro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 William T Goodall wrote:
 
  In yesterday's Angel episode (5.11, with the psychotic slayer), Andrew
  tells
  about Willow [Buffy's witch] and Kennedy [her second wife, after Tara]:
 
They are living in Brazil, Sao Paulo, but whenever they call us they
are in Rio
 
  _I_ can understant this one way. What is the meaning of this to the
  target audience in the USA?
 
  Other than Rio being the gay capital of Brazil, no.
 
 Is it? Not for us. The gay capital is Pelotas, RS with a close second
 Campinas, SP. But these are _male_ gay capitals.
 
  Is it more than that?
 
 That was what I was wondering.
 
 Alberto Monteiro

Xander's in Africa. He sent me an mbuna fish, says Andrew. And
Willow and Kennedy are in Brazil. They're based in Sao Paulo, but, um,
every time I talk to them, they're in Rio.

Rio seems to have an image in America and the UK as a sexy gay vacation spot.

Gary - Blami It on Rio Maru

#1 on Google for Liberal News
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

2004-05-26 Thread Dan Minette

- Original Message - 
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

 From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out
 Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:19:19 -0500

 - Original Message -
 From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 10:53 AM
 Subject: Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

   Maybe someone here knows, but I thought the Vatican's riches had
quite
   a bit to do with banking over the last few centuries.

   I'm not really sure. I do know that priests receive a salary of sorts
 that I
   believe comes from the Vatican. As for tithing (commonly given/taken
 through
   *collections* at mass), it is utilized in the upkeep and running of
   individual parishes. And in many cases this money is short of where
it
 needs
   to be in order to adequately address the financial hurdles that
parishes
   must overcome to remain open.

 The Vatican's riches are basically the artwork and other antiques that
it
 has gathered over the centuries. They also got some funds when Italy
took
 over most of Vatican City, back in the '30's I think...but it might have
 been the '20s.   The main source of funding for the entire Catholic
church
 is

 1) Contributions from US parishes.

 2) Contribution from the German Catholic church, where the government
still
 subsidizes churches.

 Thanks. I didn't know that. And not that I don't believe ya, but do you
have
 anything to back that up?

The last Vatican financial statement that I have is for the year 2002.  In
this statement, given at

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=38649

I have obtained the following numbers: (all in euros)

giving 85,385,000
real estate 19,082,000
financial -16,308,000
misc 5,000,000
total 93,159,000

The giving is not broken down by country, but it is very well known that
church attendance and giving are far higher in the US than in Europe.
Germany is the exception because of the tax.

Dan M.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: half-OT: Buffy/Angel question

On 27 May 2004, at 1:00 am, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:

In yesterday's Angel episode (5.11, with the psychotic slayer), 
Andrew
tells
about Willow [Buffy's witch] and Kennedy [her second wife, after 
Tara]:

  They are living in Brazil, Sao Paulo, but whenever they call us 
they
  are in Rio

_I_ can understant this one way. What is the meaning of this to the
target audience in the USA?
Other than Rio being the gay capital of Brazil, no.
Is it? Not for us. The gay capital is Pelotas, RS with a close second
Campinas, SP. But these are _male_ gay capitals.
Is it more than that?
That was what I was wondering.
So you still didn't say what the way you could understand it was...
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
If you listen to a UNIX shell, can you hear the C?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Ruling against Unitarians reversed

On 27 May 2004, at 1:19 am, Gary Denton wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2004 08:48:57 -0500, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
wrote:
About all that's really happened is, some people were needlessly  
caused
distress, and the comptroller's name got out on 2 different news
cycles.  (Yes, I'm cynical where she's concerned, but anyone who's
followed her career for the past 15 years would have to be extremely
gullible not to be cynical at this point.)

http://www.statesman.com/metrostate/content/auto/epaper/editions/ 
tuesday/metro_state_042bfebf469b90b600ef.html

Unitarians get religious status after intercession
Earlier decision is changed after state comptroller orders  
re-evaluation
I had this.  I thought the topper was that she blames it on staff  
mistakes.

Gary Her Grandmother PR machine maru

So she's still pursuing bans in a higher court but blames this on her  
pesky staff. Obvious appeal to the crazy bigot electorate. With get-out  
clauses...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard. - anonymous
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cults vs Religions, was Bullying and Battering

2004-05-26 Thread Keith Henson

At 07:45 AM 26/05/04 -0400, David wrote:
Keith Henson wrote:
snip
 You might be right on this point, but there were a lot of dangerous cults
 about in the past.  For example the children's crusades in 1212 resulted in
 a few tens of thousands dying.
So the claim would be that during the Dark Ages in Europe
(Hi, Damon!), when the Catholic church was the only religion, that
people were more susceptible to cultic memes, just as monocultured
plants are more susceptible to pests and diseases?
That might be a valid analogy.  Though, I would expect Europe of 1212 to be 
less of a monoculture then than it is today.  On the other hand, the 
children's crusades came from rather small areas.

snip
 My favorite is the Church of the SubGenius--which is distantly related to
 (of all things) scientology.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_SubGenius
No, the Church of Bob doesn't work for me, since it
seems too obviously a joke.  (Your link does not seem to give
any connection between Bob and L. Ron Hubbard.)
Try scientology discordians OTO masons mormons in Google.
snip
 There is a reason to use the parasite model.  As I mentioned in the clip
 above, it is a common progression over evolutionary time for a parasite to
 become a mutualistic symbiote.  Disease and parasites are often the same
 thing, malaria for example.
Got me, what is the difference between disease organisms
and parasites?  If the individuals are sufficiently large, we
call them parasites, and if they are small enough, we don't?
The most common distinction is that of persistence.  Disease is more often 
acute and is cleared by the immune system.  A parasite has figured a way to 
limit the effectiveness of the immune system and persists for years to a 
lifetime.  Parasites cause persistent disease.

...
 Most
 apocalyptic cults turn inward a bit before the predicted
 apocalypse.  This seriously interferes with their ability to
 recruit more members.  And so on...

 Correct, but *after* the date some of them get more into recruiting.  The
 JWs are an example.
I think the more common behavior is pushing back the
predicted date of the apocalypse.  But I guess one can only do
this so many times.
Look up When Prophecy Fails by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter for an 
example of a typical cult.

Keith Henson
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: New Hate-Mongering Chick Tract is out

2004-05-26 Thread JDG

At 05:00 PM 5/7/2004 -0500 Robert Seeberger wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: Horn, John [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But when one describes themselves as a Christian without any other
qualifier or asks if you are a Christian without any other
qualifier, more than likely they are Southern Baptist or other
fundamentalist types.

*
Untrue John.
Christian describes a multitude of varying forms of belief.
Southern Baptists are just one brand on the shelf.

Frex...and correct me if I am wrong, but Catholics are a larger
set of Christians in America than Southern Baptists.
Though I will grant you that Southern Baptists may be louder
concerning their beliefs and more forceful in regards to making their
environment conform to their religious beliefs.
But in no way do I see Southern Baptists as the stereotype for all
Christians.
Fundamentalists perhaps..

You are engaging in some serious word games if you intended your use of the
word Christian to imply Catholics in the context you made your original
statement in.

JDG 

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: The Goal was Victory

On 27 May 2004, at 1:39 am, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 07:13:29PM -0500, Gary Denton wrote:
That has been a conservative reaction to the Spanish vote.  It has
been more often said it was a closely matched election and then the
ruling party lost support by trying to claim that was not an al-Qaeda
attack.  By lying to the people.  I would imagine they could still be
in power except for the lies.
Probably true, but irrelevant. I was talking about the perceptions of a
large number of American voters, not about facts.
Perceptions are facts. Just annoying non-reality-based ones. Which lead 
to non-reality-based decisions ...

--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me 
-- you can't get fooled again.
 -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 
17, 2002

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bullying and Battering

2004-05-26 Thread Damon Agretto

 The dates I posted were the Fall of Rome and the rebirth of
 reason known as the Renaissance.

Which is commonly accepted as being between 500 and 1500. You may not have
said it outright, but you certainly implied it, especially as you did not
define precisely what you mean. And, of course, this period (ALL of it) is
the Middle Ages.
 Believing it is impossible for the Church to retard learning between
 500-1000 because it barely survived is silly.  It was destroying
 libraries and books before that time.

Cite please. Specifically how the church was burning libraries and books.
This is contrary to anything I've heard.

Damon.

___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Bullying and Battering

2004-05-26 Thread Kevin Tarr


 Believing it is impossible for the Church to retard learning between
 500-1000 because it barely survived is silly.  It was destroying
 libraries and books before that time.
Cite please. Specifically how the church was burning libraries and books.
This is contrary to anything I've heard.
Damon.

But you weren't there! So you can't say it didn't happen!
Kevin T. - VRWC
Waiting for the photos 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Cults vs Religions, was Bullying and Battering

2004-05-26 Thread Keith Henson

At 09:38 PM 26/05/04 -0400, I wrote:
Try scientology discordians OTO masons mormons in Google.
Sorry, Google.groups.
Keith
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: half-OT: Buffy/Angel question

2004-05-26 Thread Kevin Tarr


Xander's in Africa. He sent me an mbuna fish, says Andrew. And
Willow and Kennedy are in Brazil. They're based in Sao Paulo, but, um,
every time I talk to them, they're in Rio.
Rio seems to have an image in America and the UK as a sexy gay vacation spot.
Gary - Blami It on Rio Maru
What part of America or UK are you talking about? When I saw this, I 
imagined the party capital of South America. Like saying, they are based in 
Houston, but yada-yada in New Orleans (or Galveston). I'd certainly go to 
Rio, and I wouldn't care* if all the women were lesbians if everyone is in 
a constant state of undress.

*Saying I wouldn't notice why I'm not having any luck striking up a 
conversation. My batting average would be the same at a poetry reading full 
of lesbians with their SOs or a bar full of hetrosexual women just released 
from prison.

Kevin T. - VRWC
It's my party 
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: half-OT: Buffy/Angel question