Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
On 11/21/2010 10:17 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Michael Harney dolp...@mikes3dgallery.com mailto:dolp...@mikes3dgallery.com wrote: Dawkins addresses this a bit in his book _The God Delusion_. Evolutionarily, it makes sense. Children cannot afford to disbelieve things that are told to them by elders. Doing so means consuming poisonous things or getting too close to lions or other dangerous predators. That seems tautological to me, since it is only true if what you're being told is true. Believing false information of that nature would be selected against, so one could imagine that humans could have evolved a strong sense of when to believe those in authority. Actually, false ideas would only be selected against if those ideas had negative survival value. If the survival value is neutral, then the idea and the people who believe it continue. Or, an idea may have negative survival value for the individual, but positive value for the group. ex: the Aztecs would sacrifice people to the gods during times of famine to try and appease the gods to end the famine. Though bad for the individual being sacrificed, whether or not the famine ended, the group would be better off as there would be less mouths to feed and fewer people would starve. You do have a point though as teenagers actually lose judgment and consequence ability in their early teen years, it makes it more likely for them to disregard what they have been taught, making it more likely to try something that they were told was bad. Any thing that has negative consequence is likely to be witnessed by others and the taboo reinforced, but expectations to can influence what a person sees. If the parents said Say your prayers every morning and night or bad things will happen. If a rebellious teen stops saying their prayers, they are more likely to interpret any bad thing that happens as a direct consequence of not saying their prayers as that is what they expect. In this way, people may end up crediting the wrong idea for good or bad results resulting in neutral ideas being sustained. Besides, some of us had parents who taught us to be skeptical of authority. I'm fairly sure DB's kids have been taught that! Be skeptical of authority, kid. Why? Because I'm your father and I said so. Nick True, but the idea of teaching children to question authority is a relatively new one, or rather, it is one that only a small portion of the population engaged in until recently. Even now I would say it is still a small minority of the population. If holy texts are any indicator, questioning authority back in much older times usually ended in the questioning person being killed. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Brin: Arguing Doesn't Work: Fact Vs Belief
Dawkins addresses this a bit in his book _The God Delusion_. Evolutionarily, it makes sense. Children cannot afford to disbelieve things that are told to them by elders. Doing so means consuming poisonous things or getting too close to lions or other dangerous predators. So the person commits what was told to them in childhood to their model of the world. Again, it is evolutionarily dangerous to question this model no matter how much false information that model contains. For example, If you are taught growing up that eating red berries will kill you or make you very sick, you will avoid red berries. If you heard a story from someone saying that they ate delicious red berries and nothing bad happened to them, you would not believe it as the risk associated with believing them and eating red berries is literally life or death. If you actually see someone eating red berries, you would see them as foolish and maybe even try to stop them. Even if nothing happens to that person, chances are that you will still not risk eating the red berries. This is especially true if it is a stranger rather than someone you trust. You have to be confronted with multiple instances of people eating red berries with no dangerous effects or pressured by someone that you trust before you will risk eating them yourself. Meaning, people are willing to add facts to their knowledge, but are inclined to disbelieve those facts if they are from strangers (people who think or look differently than they do). Worse yet, it is a precept in most belief systems that unquestioning faith is a virtue rather than a liability. If a person is not willing to genuinely weigh and reconsider their world view, they are likely to see any facts contrary to their beliefs as either wrong or downright deception meant to mislead them (Creationists rejection of astronomy evidence of the age of the universe and rejection of evolution are prime examples). Worse, as people tend to surround themselves with people of similar belief, others in their group whom they trust will reinforce their irrational beliefs. On 11/14/2010 4:14 AM, KZK wrote: More evidence of how badly designed the brain is. I can only add a truism: It’s cheap to maintain Lies and expensive to maintain Trvth. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128490874f=1014sc=tw New research suggests that misinformed people rarely change their minds when presented with the facts — and often become even more attached to their beliefs. The finding raises questions about a key principle of a strong democracy: that a well-informed electorate is best. ... CONAN: And when facts are readily available, why are they not enough to change people's minds? Mr. NYHAN: Well, the problem is, you know, as human beings, we want to believe, you know, the things that we already believe. And so when you hear some information that contradicts your pre-existing views, unfortunately, what we tend to do is think of why we believed those things in the first place. And, you know, so when, you know, we get these corrections, we tend to say I'm right, and I'm going to stick with my view. And the thing that my research, which is with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, found is that in some cases, that corrective information can actually make the problem worse. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bnyhan/nyhan-reifler.pdf Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true. --Homer J. Simpson ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1153 / Virus Database: 424/3256 - Release Date: 11/14/10 ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Look Who's Back / Mike's crazy list of physics hypotheses that he wishes he had time to look into but doesn't have the time.
I'm back again. I don't really know that I am doing any better than I was when I left, but I will see. I wanted to discuss some concepts with intelligent people (some of whom may already know about some of this stuff). I will preface these that my knowledge of Quantum theory is small, and if anyone can recommend a good (emphasis on good, not overly simplified or popularized like Hawking's Books which read more like quantum physics for dummies I want nitty-gritty details) book on quantum theory, I would appreciate it. Mike's Crazy Hypothesis 1: I have heard hypothesized that neutrons are simply protons upon-which an electron has collapsed. First, does this make sense by our current understanding of quantum theory? If the hypothesis does make sense, what if the hypothesis is backwards? What if Neutrons are the natural state of matter and protons are neutrons that had part of them stripped away (likely during the big-bang)? This could explain why electrons are near mass-less and the incredibly strong force of attraction between protons and electrons. Mike's Crazy Hypothesis 2: I am half-way through reading Richard Dawkin's book The God Delusion. In it he says that proponents of a creator argue that the fundamental force constants in the universe are so finely tuned so as to allow the conditions that make life (as we know it) possible. and that if even one of these, like the strong force, was slightly different, that life would not be possible because if the strong force were higher, all hydrogen in the universe would have fused into heavier stuff, and if it were weaker, no heavier atoms essential to the formation of our planet and the life on it could be created in the cores of massive stars. He explains Multi-dimensional theory and it as a possible explanation that would explain why a universe that has the right constants can exist without a creator. Multi-dim theory aside, a thought occurred to me: If the constants of our universe need to be at a specific range for matter to exist in the forms that promote life, what if the constants like the strong force are not constants? What if, over billions of years (or even longer), the strong force slowly got weaker. Indeed, a higher strong force would go a long way to explain the singularity that resulted in the big bang, and the weakening of the strong force would go a long way to explaining why the big bang occurred in the first place. It might also go a long way to explain why Galaxies and solar-systems don't seem to follow the same model of gravity. If the fundamental constants of the universe are changing ever-so-slowly, Objects at a great distance would appear to be affected differently than objects closer together simply because of the time it took for the bodies to form with relation to each other and the changing of the fundamental forces. This may also explain the recent data suggesting that the universe appears to be expanding at an ever increasing rate rather than slowing down as one would expect. I have more crazy hypotheses, but I am getting tired, so I think that I will stop there for now. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Not ready
I thought I was ready to come back here. I was wrong. I was too damaged by the last few years of my life working in a job that I was ill suited for but had to do to make ends meet. I'll come back when I relearn patience. ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Social solutions rather than engineering ones
Keith Henson wrote: I am appalled (though not surprised) that people on this list who don't have any answers suggest it might just require the end of wasteful materialism and joke about soylent green. I agree, how dare they! Except, I don't remember anyone saying that. I remember some people suggesting alternate energy sources, I remember someone talking about solar (I don't think that solar is feasible in the short-term, which is why I support nuclear for the time being), I remember myself saying Nuclear as it is a very viable, reliable source of energy that produces 0 greenhouse gases. As far as I remember, no one suggested the end of wasteful materialism. I did suggest that we may have to be a little more efficient about our energy use and make some compromises (for the sake of humanity and the ecosystem), but I never said that we must end materialism, and I certainly don't remember anyone calling for the dying off of the population. *You* posted a link to an article saying the population is going to die off, and almost everyone who replied about it responded with skepticism, meaning we don't believe it is going to happen. Maybe someone else said these things you say are bing said and I skipped it though, because I don't have a lot of time to read all this stuff, being employed as a research assistant and working full time towards my Master's degree. Perhaps you can quote the person or persons who said these things to refresh my memory? Energy hungry synthetic nitrogen is the reason for something between 1/3 and 1/2 of crop yield. The ending of famines in Europe was the result of railroads more than any other factor. This allowed grain to be shipped from places with good crops to places where the crops had failed. Railroads allowed cities to grow, and cities do far less ecological damage than spread out humans. The wording of this was just ambiguous enough to make me wonder what exactly you are saying I had to read this several times before I understood what you were saying. Yes, Ammonium Nitrate is used as a chemical fertilizers and helps crops to grow. I've heard claims that if we didn't have chemical fertilizers like Ammonium Nitrate, we would not have enough food to feed even half the globe's current population. I won't bother countering with tired old arguments I've used before like the majority of American crops are used to feed livestock, not people. What I will say is this: yes, current methods in Ammonium Nitrate production require lots of energy (specifically producing anhydrous ammonia for the chemical reaction), but more efficient methods are being explored and as the production reaction is an exothermic one, methods of capturing and using that heat energy are being explored. More to the point though, all this means is that we need energy to produce it. Nothing says that that energy has to come from coal, it can just as easily come from nuclear power, solar power, wind power. If we shift away from fossil fuels and towards another primary power source, that won't stop the production of Ammonium Nitrate. The article I wrote for the oil drum, http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485 got a lot of these comments, so many that another blog picked up on the discussion: If you take a few minutes to read this blog, and again the comments, you find the dissonance on full display. On the one hand you have a person saying that there may be an energy answer after fossil fuels. On the other hand you have lots of people not only saying it is not possible, but directly arguing that a human die-back is more desirable than cheap energy. Nuclear power is just as cheap as coal. Moreover, renewable sources like wind and solar require large up-front investments, but in the long term average out to about the same cost as coal because once it is there, all you have to do is maintain it, you don't need to keep digging for more fuel for it. If you think so little of the people on this list as to equate them with typical blog posters, then why are you here? Learn quickly, straw men arguments don't go well on this list. If I had to estimate, I would say that the *average* IQ on the list is *at least* 1 standard deviation above the average. We aren't your everyday group of people, so treating us like we aren't as smart as you: I could go into detail including the economic models, but I don't know if there is anyone on this list who can follow the physics, chemistry and math. or setting up straw men to knock down is not going to convince a one of us. Most of us are in science related fields and almost all are card-carrying skeptics, and as any good scientist/skeptic knows: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You claim that without exploiting more coal power our entire country will fall into the crapper and 6/7ths of the worlds population is going to die as a result, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, prove it
Re: Br?n on global warming
How we produce that energy needs to change too, but the levels of wastage in the US and Australia are verging on criminal. Cutting out waste isn't preaching a need to suffer. What scientists are saying is that if we carry on with business as usual then a lot of people will suffer. If we don't solve the energy problem as many as 6 out of 7 people will *die* in famines and resource wars. Please, show your working. I don't disbelieve you but if you can point to work on this I will read, ponder and digest. As always. Not my work. Try here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3091 Keith Seriously? You put this much weight in a non-academic, purely speculative and, by my reasoning bullshit article. For crying out loud, the only cite in the whole article is from wikipedia. Alarmist hypotheses about running out of resources has been going on for decades, I remember growing up in the 80s and people saying that at the consumption level at that time, the majority of the world's oil reserves would be completely depleted by the year 2000. Strangely, our use of oil have dramatically increased since that time, and we still have oil now in the year 2010. And why would our Nuclear power resources be falling in the coming years as the article claims? Decommissioning old reactors? Sure, tear down an old reactor and put up a new one that is twice as efficient and a hundred times safer. I made the mistake of buying into hype all the time when I was younger. Heck, 10 years ago I was convinced that 1/3 of the land in the world would be consumed by rising oceans due to ice on Greenland and Antarctica falling into the ocean within a few decades. At the time, I could have pointed to numerous sources saying that this was going to happen, and they actually have some data from NASA, the EPA, and other credible sources to back their claims. Of course, the claims were greatly exaggerated, but at least the people tried to back up their claims with cold hard facts. This article doesn't back up anything it claims. It just states it and expects the reader to accept it blindly. Having a blog and making graphs in Microsoft Office doesn't make someone an expert. Here is a quote from the one study that the author referred to. I further claimed, based on some preliminary and overly general calculations, that it would take on the order of three times our current total primary energy output to stabilize the world population at around 10 billion people. This is the author of that article you posted saying this. Their own words state that their claims were based on preliminary and overly general calculations. In other words: Bullshit. Michael Harney ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Br?n on global warming
Trent wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. You're kidding right? If we go down we're taking the world with us? A little Bond-villain-esqe don't you think? Can't compromises be reached? The majority of Americans are willing to give up a great portion of civil rights during times of war. We can't change our lifestyles just a little to preserve a more stable future? Why not nuclear power? Less people have died in nuclear accidents than mining coal. Mining coal is more hazardous to your health than working in a modern nuclear power plant. It doesn't produce CO2. It doesn't produce environmental pollution other than the obvious radioactive waste that is slated to start being stored at Yucca Mountain starting in a few years, where it won't be a concern for tens of thousands of years. If the human contribution to global climate change is significant and is something that can significantly impact us within the next one or two centuries, then why not trade the more immediate global problem for one that is more localized and we will have a much longer time period to solve? Trent Shipley wrote: I believe that climate change is true, but that America's response must preserve the American way of life or to hell with the planet. So the solution has to be a magic technology fix. We cannot raise the cost of energy to solve climate change, especially not before the costs of climate change become apparent. Even then it may be more politically expedient to build levees than to increase the cost of energy. As for American energy security, that means coal, not uranium. Nick Arnett wrote: http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Getting ballpoint pen off laptop screen?
Julia wrote: What's the best thing to do for that? And, just as importantly, what should be avoided at all costs? Julia ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com Important: Do NOT use acetone. It erodes plastics and may severely damage the screen surface. Someone already suggested using a moist, lint-free cloth. There are cleaning gels and wipes for LCD screens that you can also try. Michael Harney ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Wife's suggestion!
Chris Frandsen wrote: My wife suggested this. I always go along with her ideas:-) learner Begin forwarded message: Hey! Let’s circulate a request for common courtesy and civility between individuals and groups with opposing ideas. I don’t know about you, but I have become increasingly concerned about the verbiage and rage Americans are expressing to and about one another. Verbal abuse and physical attacks send a damaging message of hostility to our youth and demolish our image to the rest of the world. We can and will disagree, which makes us stronger if we remember that we are all Americans. It’s acceptable to disagree—to not even like one another (including our president). Let’s not confuse freedom of speech with human decency. Just because an action is legal does not make it ethical. Bottom line—We profess to be a Christian nation. It is appropriate to ask, “What would Jesus say and do?” I imagine he disagreed with the actions of those cheating tax collectors and adulterous women he befriended. Yet, we have no record of him calling them names, swearing at them, or making degrading comments. Amazingly, we even have evidence that Jesus loved his enemies. The challenge is to disagree with dignity, intelligence and respect. If you think this is a worthwhile message, please forward it to others. I respectfully disagree. Not in appealing to people to be respectful in disagreements, but in appealing to the religious What would Jesus do? to do so. Rationality promotes calm debate. Sadly, religion is not conducive to rationality. Rather religion and religious belief promotes the irrational and rejection of the rational (IE: Creationism/Intelligent Design vs Evolution). No, appealing to ones irrational beliefs doesn't promote rational debate. Oh, as for an example of Jesus not respectfully disagreeing, call to your recollection what Jesus did to the vendors in the temple. I believe it had something to do with shouting, throwing over tables, smashing merchandise and even wielding a whip. It's been a while though, so I may be a little cloudy on the details. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Where's Waldo
I hope they can find Waldo. From AP: (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,546922,00.html) SARASOTA, Fla. — Scientists on Florida's Gulf Coast are trying to find an underwater robot that has mysteriously vanished. The robot from the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota has been missing since Monday. It cost about $100,000. It also was equipped with a detector to find red tide, a toxic algae bloom. That was valued at another $30,000. Scientists aren't sure what happened to the robot, which is nicknamed Waldo. It could have had a leak or malfunction and sunk to the bottom. It also could be on the surface, but its communication system isn't working properly to signal its location. The lab hopes boaters out for the busy Labor Day weekend might spot Waldo. ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Freeman Dyson on climate
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Rob wrote: Worth a read. Dyson is a Global Warming skeptic with an interesting take on the subject. A GW skeptic or an AGW skeptic? It would be hard to deny GW from the past 400 years with data. Alberto Monteiro Based on what I read in the article, I would say that he doesn't dispute global warming. What he does dispute is the global impact that it would have. I can understand people saying we need more data, what I can't understand is that they insist we keep things status quo until we have conclusive data when the current data we have predicts multiple global catastrophes. With stakes that high, it makes no sense to say that we should err against the side of caution. It reminds me of the chicken gun episode of Mythbusters where Adam, who is the one usually doing foolish things and getting hurt, got angry at Jamie for wanting to make a potentially unsafe pressure tank. Sure, there is a chance that nothing catastrophic will happen, but if something catastrophic does happen, people are going to die. Erring against caution in such a situation is just a big middle finger to all those people who are potentially in harms way. Its like saying We are willing to risk your lives and the lives of your family and friends to maintain our way of living. Michael Harney dolp...@mikes3dgallery.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Cool dolphin behavior
Julia Thompson wrote: Dolphins blowing bubble rings and playing with them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuVgXJ55G6Y Video from SeaWorld in Orlando. 3:25 Julia Actually, I had seen some of the dolphins at Sea World of San Antonio make bubble rings in 1999. You really couldn't see if they were playing with it or not because there was no underwater viewing window there, but you could see the rings rising to the surface. The next year some of the dolphins were moved to Discovery Cove in Florida. Maybe they were the dolphins from San Antonio or learned it from them. Interesting to see the rings moving any direction other than up. The triumph of surface tension over buoyancy. Must have taken the dolphins a lot of practice to be able to do stuff like that. Yes, I'm back. Very busy at the moment, but my schedule will be freeing up in a couple of months. Hope to have some Brin related art to share soon after. Michael Harney dolp...@mikes3dgallery.com ___ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Um, does this make any sense?
Julia Thompson wrote: http://www.timecube.com/ I'll explain where I found the link after a suitable number of people have expressed their bogglement. What's the matter? It couldn't be clearer. The world is a rounded cube with only four sides. Each of the sides is oposite to all of the other sides. Athiests are mindless robots and religious people are stooges. -1x1=0. What's there to be confused about? What was I saying again? :-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cool space picture
Deborah Harrell wrote: I was looking up the Horsehead Nebula for a friend, and happened across this -- what a nifty cosmic Rorschack (?sp) test! http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060119.html I see: -a saint (or other bearded fellow with outstretched hand) -a frontal view of a turtle's head, mouth gaping -a startled Sorting Hat -a panting pony's head, with a very long flowing mane -cosmic eggyolk -a distorted Man in the Moon I don't see any of those. Though the things I do see indicate a pretty clear pattern. I saw: - Mufasa (from the lion king). - A japanese style dragon head. - Sepheroth from Final Fantasy 7. I need to cut back on the anime. looking again I also saw: - a man with a short beard that looks kind of like Laurence Olivier as Zeus in Clash of the Titans (that probably says a little too much about my psyche :-) ). This was probably the saint you saw. - an owl. - the head of a mean-looking, thin-faced, bald man with a goatee. (this is easier to see if you tilt your head sideways). Debbi Perhaps I Should Forego Any More Caffeine Today Maru :) Depending on the time zone you live in, it's a good idea to not consume caffeine in the evening anyway. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Patterns in chaos maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Having children 'is bad for your mental health'
Doug Pensinger wrote: On wrote: I dunno. Here's some possibilities, though: Because there's more to life than a low stress level? Not much. Life*zero stress=zero life 8^) I don't know about that formula. By that formula, the more stress you have, the better your life. I would argue that it should be more of a bell curve, where initially the more stress, the better life is, but then begins to level off and reaches an apex point where after that, the more stress, the worse life is. How's that for nit-picking? :-) If this has caused you any stress, no need to thank me for improving your life. I'm always glad to help. ;-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: New Battlestar Galactica - no spoilers.
Gary Nunn wrote: Anyway, I hope that BSG doesn't peak early and then go downhill. Given the Sci-fi Channel's past, I think it's a better hope that the show reaches a conclusion before it's canceled. I like this new BSG too, and I never was a fan of the original, so that says a lot, but Sci-fi only cares about the same thing that other networks do: ratings. I liked the Invisible Man. I liked Farscape. Both of those series died before their time, so just hope that BSG's ratings stay up. Or better yet, make sure its ratings stay up by talling all your friends to watch. As for BSG's story, I can see where they are taking it, and I wouldn't be too worried about it peaking early and going downhill. If the story goes where I think it is, then there's lots of room for action and drama. One series that I hope wraps up in this or the next season is Stargate: SG-1. Despite Ben Browder being one of my favorite actors, I think the series has had a good run and really needs to conclude rather than running it until it fizzles out like Sci-fi Channel seems intent on doing. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Let's Roll
Dave Land wrote: On Jan 3, 2006, at 1:23 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: The most significant accounts of multiple explosions came from firefighters inside the WTC. Those are people who know what explosions sound like. And unless they thought they were truly significant and not just the sort of popping and snapping that accompanies any hot fire, they wouldn't have reported them on the radio, especially when all hell was breaking loose. Firefighters reporting multiple explosions inside the WTC, many floors away from the impact, seems very strange. True, and the fact that huge slabs of marble were blown off the walls and virtually all of the lobby windows were blown out of the building -- I realize that an airplane entering a building will create a huge overpressure, but even the FDNY captain on scene couldn't explain the lobby damage. Possible explanation: A plane traveling at a couple hundred miles per hour has a lot of kinetic force behind it. Such an impact can cause powerful vibrations down the building, blowing out windows and causing other damage, especially on the ground floor where the vibrations would then hit the foundation, having nowhere else to go. And the huge pools of steel, still molten weeks after the building came down. What the hell kept it so hot, hotter than any kerosene fire can possibly get? Possible explanation: When metal is bent, it gets hot, *very* hot. If the metal were turned molten by the collapse of the building, then was buried under tons of rubble and debris, the pressure and insulating properties of the rubble could easily keep the metal molten by simple virtue of the fact that there is no way for the heat to escape. And it's not just that people described the plane hitting the tower as an explosion, it's the reports -- many of them at the time they happened -- of there goes another explosion. There are radio recordings of lots of firefighters reported secondary explosions throughout the building at various times, and footage of reporters reacting to explosions way after the both planes had hit. Possible explanation: Serious structural damage to a building can cause secondary explosions to occur, particularly if there are natural gas lines running through the structure. Something happened on 9/11 other than the official version, and the price has been the real security of the USA. Dave As utterly despicable and hateable as Bush, Cheyney, and Rumsfeld are, there is nothing here to prove anything other than what was said in the official story occurred. I can understand why people love conspiracies, I used to be a Roswell Aliens, crop circle, JFK assassination, etc. believer. The problem with conspiracies is that, largely, they are doomed to failure. People hate keeping secrets. Especially secrets that would have such earth-shaking impact. The number of people that would have to be involved in such a conspiracy could not possibly keep it a secret for long. All the leaks in the White house on genuine scandals and the leaks about torture of prisoners in Iraq are representative of this. A secret this big simply could not be kept. Beyond all that, Bush is too stupid to think up something like this, Cheyney's health is too precarious to handle the stress of such a conspiracy, and Rumsfeld being the mastermind of such a plot strains credibility as he doesn't stand to gain enough from committing such a despicable act. There was a documentary on the Discovery Channel once that explained the mechanisms of how and why the WTC buildings colapsed because of the airplanes hitting them. From what I understood, the method chosen for building the buildings gave them a structural Achilles heel that made it so that if two or more floors were to become structurally unsound, the floors below would not be able to survive the impact of the floors above it crushing down on them, and basically each floor would fail in turn like a row of dominoes. This description matches the videos of the buildings collapsing. Now I just wish I had watched the whole thing and paid closer attention so I could share more details. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: MSN: British woman 'marries' dolphin
Gary Nunn wrote: There has to be some good jokes in this somewhere. Yeah, a male dolphin named Cindy... oh the teasing he must get from all the other male dolpins. JERUSALEM - Sharon Tendler met Cindy 15 years ago. She said it was love at first sight. This week she finally took the plunge and proposed. The lucky guy plunged right back. In a modest ceremony at Dolphin Reef in the southern Israeli port of Eilat, Tendler, a 41-year-old British citizen, apparently became the world's first person to marry a dolphin. Given my past I have the right to joke about a topic like this, but can't think of anything witty at the moment, only really bad jokes about problems with the in-laws and wedding/honeymoon attire. I'd say the timing of the article arriving on list was quite a fluke though. :-) (Sorry, I can't resist a bad pun) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Catholic Censorship Speads to Viacom and Comedy Central
The Fool wrote: http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=157615 South Park Parked by Complaints By Sarah Hall Did Comedy Central grant the Catholic League its Christmas wish? Following the Dec. 7 season finale of South Park, titled Bloody Mary, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights slammed the network for its irreverent portrayal of church icons and sought to block the episode from being rebroadcast. It appears the group may have met with success. A repeat of the finale was scheduled to air Wednesday night, but was pulled from the Comedy Central lineup without explanation. Ha! Silly oversensitive Catholics. Other religious groups have been hit harder than that by South Park. Mormons and Scientologists immediately come to mind (I bet Catholics got a good laugh out of those two episodes). The makers of South Park said it, they are out to offend and make fun of absolutely everyone. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.
Doug Pensinger wrote: Hey, Michael, welcome back! Where are you going to school? Doug I'm attending the University of Texas at El Paso. I got my B.S. degree in Biology there. I'm going back to try to get a Master's in Computer Science. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.
I'm back. Worry not. I'm here only as a distraction. Merely an escape to fill my time until the Spring semester begins or I get a job, whichever comes first. If the load isn't as heavy as I remember it, I may stay on digest mode after. I'll probably spark a discussion in a day or two, but I just wanted to say hello for now. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Random witticism: There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those that understand binary; and those that don't. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Farewell and Goodnight (was: Re: Race to the Bottom)
From Russell C.: Thankyou Michael for the profanity - big help from someone who has made such demands about the way we treat him onlist in the past... You are right, I am an unreasonable person, I've been so demanding. By the by I've only made requests, not demands, but I'm sure you see it differently. Part of the reason I've made those requests is because I've been so stressed out in the last year due to financial problems that any subject too close to me sets me off rather quickly, as was seen here. I'm glad I checked the archives, because this proves to me what I already suspected. I'm not really welcome here. Moreover, I've come to realize that participating in this list makes me feel worse, not better. I'm unsubscribing completely, and doubt seriously if I'll come back even after I get a job. Nobody cares about my 3D stuff on the rare occasions that I actually produce something that I can share publically., so there's no point in sticking around to post about it. I'm CCing this message to myself as a reminder as to why I left in case the notion of coming back creaps into my screwed-up brain. Goodbye everyone, some of you I will miss, others not so much. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Race to the Bottom
- Original Message - From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 8:59 PM Subject: Re: Race to the Bottom Why do comparatively rich Americans deserve a job, but dirt poor people in other countries, who are willing and able to produce the same thing for less money, do not? Shouldn't the job go to the person who is the most cost-effective, the person who produces the most for the least cost? If we can simultaneously cut our costs AND benefit those workers in other countries who are desperate to work, why should we deny people the opportunity? And denying some the opportunity you will be, even if you raise tariffs or taxes on globalization rather than instituting an outright ban. The net result is that costs will be higher in America and some people in foreign countries will not have a job that they otherwise would have had without the tariffs. Paraphrase of what you asked: Should we give the jobs to rich Americans or poor foriegners? That question is utter bullshit. There are *poor* ameicans with college educations that can't do shit with them because some coprperate fat-cats decided to send the jobs over seas where they can get the work done cheaper. Should we let american jobs be given away just so already rich americans can get richer. Fuck no! In case you are wondering, yes, this subject is a very sore spot for me. Would you like to live in a place like Iain Banks' Culture? The only way to get there is to keep our productivity, roughly GDP per head, increasing as fast as possible. And the main way to do that is to invest in more and better capital. But someone has to design, build, and operate that capital to make more capital to increase productivity further. To keep this cycle going as fast as possible, we need to allocate our resources in the most efficient manner to increase productivity. David Ricardo explained, two hundred years ago, that even if a country can make every product cheaper than another country, that BOTH countries can still benefit from trade -- each area/group should work making the goods or providing the services in which they have a comparative advantage. And as new capital and new ideas accumulate, the comparative advantages for each group or country change. Jobs shift. But long-term, everyone is better off when this happens, since it is the most efficient way to create new capital and increase productivity. Job shifts... Do you see any programs to support and retrain the workers that were displaced so that they can perform a new job and still make a good living? I sure as fuck don't. Do you want to pay more for your DVD player? Free trade has been largely responsible for the drop in prices of equipment such as DVD players, TVs, and computers. And it doesn't just benefit consumers with lower prices on consumer electronics. Cheaper computers, for example, all the inexpensive Dells manufactured in China, allowed companies to invest in IT and get more capital for the buck, thus increasing their workers productivity. And remember that productivity increases are the only way to increase the long-term standard of living. So the rich in America get richer, the poor in America get poorer, but that's ok, because we can buy cheap DVD players. Fuck that! I've already read too much. This topic is aggitating the hell out of me and I have other, more important things to do than participate in a discussion that is going to piss me off. I just cannot beilieve the utter number of people on this list that think giving away American jobs is a good thing. I bet you wouldn't like off-shoring quite so much if it cost you your job and job opertunities. I'm filtering all but brin posts as of now. DO NOT CONACT ME OFF LIST ON THIS TOPIC. DOING SO WILL BE CONSIDERED HARASMENT. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Breakdown.
My breakdown today, and sensativity to the subject of off-shoring are centered arround the fact tht I am unemployed and unable to fid work, and have been for some time now. After today, I think it would be best if I do not participate in discussion until I find a job. Therefore, I bit you farewell for now. I may be gone only a couple of weeks, I may be gone months, or I may be gone years... who knows? I'll post if I make any 3D stuff that I can share with you all, but I will not be participating in discussions and will be filtering most of the list mail. Goodbye for now, Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Race to the Bottom
From: Russell Chapman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Harney wrote: For one, I want heavy penalties levied against companies that off-shore work. Call it an intelectual property terrif if you like. Second, I want the government to establish work programs with that money so that people put out of work by off-shoring are able to have some kind of job available to them. But that's nonsense - you'd cripple the companies that are such a vital component of the economy. If Boeing finds that an Israeli firm has a brilliant new avionics package, why can't they contract that firm to develop a better system for their jets. If Chrysler doesn't have the resources to build a new sports car, but needs a fresher image, why can't it turn to other parts of DaimlerChrysler and get their engineers to develop the Crossfire (excepting of course the 2 Chrysler badges which are made in the USA), just because those engineers happen to be in Eastern Europe. If Boeing don't - Airbus has a better package and USA loses. If Chrysler don't, then BMW or Acura have the better car, and USA loses. What about the truly global multi-nationals which are still American companies - IBM, Ford, GE, Texaco, Intel etc. Do they get penalised for the productivity of their workers outside the USA? If they don't why can't every US company set up an Indian office or a Russian office and do the same? No, it's not nonsense, it's the only way that we can keep jobs in the US, make it more expencive to off-shore work than to contract locally. I never said they couldn't off-shore work, I just said there should be fines associated with that to make it less cost effective. A country based on total free enterprise isn't neccessarily a good thing. Moreover, even in the past, our nation had tarrifs so that cheap foriegn imports wouldn't put American businessmen out of business. For one, we can extend the concept of tarrifs so that they protect not only business men, but workers as well. Tarrifs are being abolished because they are a short term gain for long term pain. The simple fact is that there are more consumers outside the USA than within it, and US companies need to be able to sell into those markets. Uncompetitive practices propped up by artificial tarrifs make that difficult, and the tarrifs imposed by trading partners in response make it impossible. For products, that may be true, I don't know, but we want to export our products, not our jobs. Do you want american jobs exported? Do you want to increase the rift between the working class and business owners? Make the poor poorer, make the rich richer, and eliminate the middle class? Maybe you do, but I don't. I'd hate to see yet another revolution that rips a country in half. If you don't know what I am talking about, review your history of Russia and France. I think that would require corperate responsability laws restricting (not forbidding, just restricting) all outsourcing (outsourcing of anykind weakens the strength of unionizing... But you can't restrict it. If I run a wholesale business and find I can expand into e-commerce, should I be prevented because the three guys who always ran my inventory system don't have the expertise to set up and maintain a full-blown e-tailer system. When I contract an outside firm to replace the computer system, my network administrator is going to see himself as having been outsourced, but as a business owner I won't see it that way. There are all sorts of reasons - PriceWaterhouseCoopers ran a very effective consulting division within their practice, but the facts are that modern consulting requires different ownership structures, risk management, resourcing, insurance and legislative compliance to accounting or audit, so they hived off the consulting division... Should they be penalised that suddenly all those workers were now attached to offices on an outsourced basis? Did I say forbid it? No, in fact I stated to the contrary: not forbidding, just restricting. And what kind of restriction did I say was needed? Corperate resopnsability laws. Not taxes, not red tape, just corperate responsability laws to protect the rights of the outsource workers. I'd really like to know how anyone can stop American companies from giving contracts to foreign companies? You don't have to stop it, you just have to make it less cost effective to do so. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Race to the Bottom
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is a very simple response to all of this: Do you truly believe that America can make itself more prosperous by making goods and services more expensive? And my very simple response to that is: Do you truly believe that America can make itself more prosperous by sending money and jobs out of the country? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Race to the Bottom
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 09:38:00AM -0700, Michael Harney wrote: No, it's not nonsense, it's the only way that we can keep jobs in the US, make it more expencive to off-shore work than to contract locally. I never said they couldn't off-shore work, I just said there should be fines associated with that to make it less cost effective. Did I say forbid it? No, in fact I stated to the contrary: not forbidding, just restricting. And what kind of restriction did I say was needed? Corperate resopnsability laws. Not taxes, not red tape, just corperate responsability laws to protect the rights of the outsource workers. I'm not sure what you are proposing here. First you say there should be fines to make it less cost effective then you say not taxes, not red tape. Your confusion is over the fact that I was talking about two different things. The first was about off-shoring (sending work to other countries), the second was outsourcing. Outsourcing can be done within the country, and that is what I was talking about in the second part. The rest of your post is far too long for me to read right now, so I may address it tomorrow. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Race to the Bottom
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Out of curiosity, and without wanting to get into the whole is it good/is it bad/is it fair thing: What is it that the people who complain about off-shoring (which is quite different to out-sourcing BTW) want done about it. For one, I want heavy penalties levied against companies that off-shore work. Call it an intelectual property terrif if you like. Second, I want the government to establish work programs with that money so that people put out of work by off-shoring are able to have some kind of job available to them. Isn't America built on Free Enterprise? Are you going to tell these companies that they CAN'T take out a contract with an Indian company to provide help desk support services. Where do you draw the line? Can Wal-Mart buy toys from China? Can a tech-company outsource help desk to an American company? Can it outsource to an American company with worldwide offices? A country based on total free enterprise isn't neccessarily a good thing. Moreover, even in the past, our nation had tarrifs so that cheap foriegn imports wouldn't put American businessmen out of business. For one, we can extend the concept of tarrifs so that they protect not only business men, but workers as well. I think it would be great if we could stop the brain-drain which threatens the development of future technological advances, but I'm not sure how it can be done. I think that would require corperate responsability laws restricting (not forbidding, just restricting) all outsourcing (outsourcing of anykind weakens the strength of unionizing... to avoid corperate abuse, regulations protecting workers in those outsource companies should be enatced), placing tarrifs on off-shore work, and basically, make it more cost effective for companies to hire or outsource within the country rather than off-shore. The only other option I see is turning the economy into socialist one, or else the worker/consumer base may collapse entirely, killing our ecconomy completely. We have only seen the begining of off-shoring of Amerian jobs. It will only get worse if something is not done. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] BULLY! Now was this Bully! meant in the sense that you think Eric is someone who picks on people he thinks are weaker than him, or in the sense of strong agreement as was the expression used by President Theodore Roosevelt? :-) Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:24 AM 2/25/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. In other words, when I present novel arguments and opinions, their lack of repetition in other sources is prima facie evidence that my arguments and opinions are not credible. On the other hand, if I present novel arguments and opinions that are present in other sources, then I am merely running with the pack. Thank you Michael and Robert for making right-wingers feel really welcome here as credible participants of Brin-L. Yes, yes, try to vilify those arguing with you to detract attention from the merits of the arguments. Keep up the good work. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Unfortunately, there is no hope of the atrocious ruling from the Massachusetts Supreme Court being struck down. Which is why we need a FMA. Especially since this phenomenon has also sprung up in New Mexico and now New Paltz, and who knows where else in the two years or so at *minimum* it would take to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Personally, I think that it is instructive that it has been how many days now that this semicolon delay has lasted, and San Francisco is *still* handing out faux marriage certificates. Yes, it's indicative of the fact that those opposed to the same sex marriages want to be heard from a higher state court on the matter without first having gone through the lower courts. That court has a very busy schedule and almost never hears a case before it has been through the lower courts. Now who's asking for special treatment? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] And of course, an infertile heterosexual couple can adopt a child while meeting that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father. A homosexual couple, by definition, cannot. that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how many orphans or other children put up for adoption or are in foster care? I think it's far more important to provide a stable family than to be picky about the sex of the adoptive parents, but maybe that's just me... Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:09 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Why is there no hope? Can't it go to the supreme court? Additionally, the Massachusetts legislature is trying to work on an ammendment to their state constitution that can counter the courts ruling. Some Republicans have said leave it to the states. Let Massachusetts decide whether it wants to ban same sex marriages or not. Except in very rare cases, the US Supreme Court does not have authority over the interpretation of a State constitution. In this case, the MA Supreme Court's ruling required implementation of their radical decision immediately. The only recourse the people have of MA have to this decision, is to spend a minimum of two years in order to amend their Constitution to simply say what they believe it had said all along... going back to the day it ratified it. For example, even a simple amendment No provision of this Constitution shall be construed as requiring the enactment of marriages or civil unions between any couple or group cannot be enacted for two years. In the meantime, they have no choice but to hand out gay marriages. Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:39 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: that child's reasonable expectations for a mother and a father How many children have you questioned regarding this, particularly, how many orphans or other children put up for adoption or are in foster care? I think it's far more important to provide a stable family than to be picky about the sex of the adoptive parents, but maybe that's just me... Given that every child is produced by a mother and a father, that is surely a reasonable expectation of that child. Children don't know where children come from until they are told, therefore, it is not the child's expectation, but yours. Are stable homosexual parents better than abusive parents? Of course. But ceteris paribis, every child can reasonable expect to have a mother and a father, and we should do our best to meet that expectation. Should we try to provide every child with a mother and father? Maybe, but should that effort neccessarily exclude the possibility of same sex parents when a good set of parents in with both genders is not available. Should we deny a child a good family simply because that family isn't everything that you think the child expects? The way you have stated your case, you have made it seem that no same sex couples should be able to adopt, ever. You certainly argued that same sex couples have no child-bearing and no child raising potential. Am I wrong in interpriting your possition in that way? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 08:49 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Yes, and the national amendment process can take up to seven years after it's already been passed in both the House and the Senate. Let's see, leave it to the states: 2 years. Deal with it on a national level: 7 years. Methinks you have your proirities backwards. If other states are affraid of judicial activism, they can amend their own constitutions a lot faster than you can amend the US Constitution. A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. The same Supreme Court that found in favor of George W. Bush's position on the ballots in Florida. Surely, you can expect a fair ruling from them, not activism. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:46 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: A US Constitutional Amendment can, from time to time, move more quickly than that. Examples, please. Show me that a US Amendment can pass faster than 2 years. Kevin Tarr posted the relevant excerpts from the US Constitution. That process can theoretically be completed within a year. Ok, theoretically, if everyone cooperated, that might be possible. But, from what I understand, how long it takes depends entirely on the states. They have up to seven years to cast their vote on the issue, and that is not something that George W. Bush can rush. A single state holding out can drag out the process to 7 years. Besides, the FMA has little chance of passing even in the House and Senate. Moreover, the republicans in the senate have already made it clear that the FMA is not something they will rush through. You would be lucky if it even passed both the Senate and the House within 2 years, if it passes at all. In addition, if federal judges are anything like those in Massachusetts, they will likely in short order find the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thus necessitating a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now this is just paranoia. You are already assuming a bad outcome if it goes to the Supreme Court. You mean, the same Supreme Court that decided Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Pennsylvania? No, it is not the same supreme court that issued Roe v. Wade. As for Casey v. Pennsylvania, I am simply unfamiliar with it. There are many judges on the court now that were not there for Roe v. Wade. That is why I chose the example of the ballots in Florida. It's the same judges then that would rule if the case were to go to the Supreme Court now. If they issued what I would dare say that you considered a fair ruling in the Florida Ballots case, why would they suddenly lend themselves to liberal judicial activism now? Sorry Michael, but if the Supreme Court rules against us, as Massachusetts has learned, it is already too late. How is it too late in Massachusetts? There is still the possiblity of a state amendment. I dare say, that has a far better chance of passing than a federal amendment. I have no problem with amending the Constitution to handle situations - much like the present one - which the framers never envisioned. And I honestly don't think that you seriously that the FMA is redundant. I don't think it's redundant. I never said it was. I think it's like using a bazooka to kill flies. If same sex marriages bother you that much, then use the right tool to address it. Marriage is a state issue, and as such, shouldn't the situation be handled on the state level? Really, John, why does same sex marriage bother you so much? If homosexuals marry each other, that won't affect you or your life in the slightest. What about gay marriage is so disturbing to you that you can only think of forbidding it rather than having a live and let live attitude about it? Don't give me that cornerstone of society and radical redefinition BS you have been dishing out, what really bothers you about it so much? This is asking for a personal opinion, not neccessarily something based in sound argument. If you want to discuss that off list so you won't get flamed on-list for your personal opinions, I will gladly discuss it off-list and keep everything you say off-list private. I just think there is more too this reaction of yours than simple disagreement with gay marriage if you want to make gay marriage banned in the whole USA and by means of the most powerful tool available. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
. :-) Even if the wording were fixed, I wouldn't vote for it (unless it was a choice between that and the FMA), but I probably would not rally strongly against it. Nevertheless, I do also support the (soon-to-be-modified, IMHO) Musgrave Amendment for the reasons previously stated as well. You should never support anything if you feel it crosses a line. If you really think an alternately worded amendment like the one above is adequate, you should not support the more radically and absolutely worded FMA. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:34 AM 2/28/2004 -0700 Michael Harney wrote: Children don't know where children come from until they are told, therefore, it is not the child's expectation, but yours. Nevertheless, we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational thought would reasonably expect. After all, every child is produced by a mother and a father. Can you even listen to yourself here? we can reasonable deduce what a child capable of rational thought would reasonably expect This very clearly shows that this is not the child's expectations, but your expectations for that child. That's the thing about children (young children anyway), they don't have expectations outside of their limited experience with life. If they have two dads or two moms, rather than a mom and a dad, they may wonder why their family is different from others, but to them, having two dads or two moms won't be outside their expectations. Are stable homosexual parents better than abusive parents? Of course. But ceteris paribis, every child can reasonable expect to have a mother and a father, and we should do our best to meet that expectation. Should we try to provide every child with a mother and father? Maybe, but should that effort neccessarily exclude the possibility of same sex parents when a good set of parents in with both genders is not available. As I have said previously, no, that possibility should be excluded. All I am arguing is that ceteris paribis, we should attempt to meet that reasonable expectation of the child - and that attempt should guide the incentives implemented by society. Again, your expectations for the child, not the child's expectations. Should we deny a child a good family simply because that family isn't everything that you think the child expects? The way you have stated your case, you have made it seem that no same sex couples should be able to adopt, ever. Again, I have previously rejected that in my post entitled Federal Marriage Amendment. Ok, so you say it's ok for a same sex couple to adopt a child when it is the best option available to that child. If that is so, then why do you continue to insist that same sex couples have no reproductive or child raising potential? The two views are mutually exclusive. Moreover, if a good same sex couple is a better option for a child than a bad couple consisting of both genders or no parents at all, then why should a good same sex couple not recieve the same incentives that a good couple consisting of both genders recieves? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 12:08 PM 2/28/2004 -0600 The Fool wrote: One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. I can just imagine the outrage if I ever said that one of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the one to the effect that the opinions of homosexuals should be respected Kind of puts it in a different perspective, eh, Kneem? Just because _YOU_ are a homophobe and a bigot and an apologist for other homophobe bigots doesn't change that fact the religion is the worst disease that has ever existed. I can almost feel the HATE emanating from your extremist religious rants. Actually, I think religion is necessary to keep less enlighted individuals honest and lawful. It's when religion is used to support an opressive/destructive agenda that I take exception (which, regrettably, is far too common). Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep charging those windmills if that makes you happy. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Harney wrote: Humans, by contrast, have only been around for about 200,000 years. It depends on how you define humans. If we consider the separation from the chimpanzee(s), it would be _much_ earlier, 1 to 7 million years ago. Alberto Monteiro I was speeking of humans as a species (homo sapiens), just as I was talking about bottlenose dolphins as a species (tursiops truncatus). If you want to go from when the family first formed and species branched off, then delphinidae (the family which bottlenose dolphins belong to) started about 10 Million years ago. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doug said: Do you oppose SSM and if so, why? I don't oppose it, but there's at least one reasonable argument against it: marriage is not just an agreement between two people but also an agreement by which the government (at least the UK government!) provides tax benefits for married couples in exchange for the couples producing children to be future citizens who pay future taxes or to go to fight Germans in future wars or whatever; gay couples cannot reasonably enter into this deal; therefore gay couples should not get those tax advantages; therefore they should not be allowed to marry. It seems to me, though, that this is more an argument for phasing out those remaining tax benefits than not allowing gay marriages. Are sterile heterosexual couples denied marriage? What if the couple does not want children? IOW, is having children a requirement for marriage? The answer: No, it is not. Moreover, some homosexual couples *do* raise children. Does it matter that the children were concieved from artificial insemination or were adopted? No, it doesn't Like you said, if other laws that address marriage are broken, they should be phased out or fixed, not used as an excuse for promoting bigotry. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Harney wrote: It depends on how you define humans. If we consider the separation from the chimpanzee(s), it would be _much_ earlier, 1 to 7 million years ago. I was speeking of humans as a species (homo sapiens), But we don't know _for sure_ if Homo erectus was a race of Homo sapies or a different species. There are some hints that it was possible to exchange genes from H. erectus to H. sapies - this would place the origin of humans back to 1 million years ago. just as I was talking about bottlenose dolphins as a species (tursiops truncatus). If you want to go from when the family first formed and species branched off, then delphinidae (the family which bottlenose dolphins belong to) started about 10 Million years ago. Again, we don't know if the Tursiops truncatus is the same species for such a long time. I don't think there's any useful DNA to check Look, we can speculate until we are blue in the face, I'm just basing the dates I gave on the best information available. Could bottlenose dolphins as they exist now be a totally different species than they were 2-5 million years ago? Maybe. Could humans of today be genetically compatible with Homo erectus or an even earlier species? Perhaps. Heck, bottlenose dolphins *are* genetically compatible with other species of dolphins, and have, in captivity, produced viable hybrids (viable meaning the hybrid is capable of producing offspring). The species classification system is not perfect, and the fossil record isn't perfect either. I'm just using the best information available (based mostly on fossil records), and that information says Homo sapiens has only been around for about 200,000 years, and Tursiops truncatus has been around for about 2-5 million years. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you consider that equal protection? How would you feel about such a thing? No, I would not consider it a denial of equal protection. Somehow I don't believe you. I have a hard time believing that you would not take exception to such a scenario had it actually occurred. In addition, I think that there is a large common law disparity between your analogy and the current situation. Right now, marriage has always been defined in the United States to refer heterosexual unions. As Dan Minette has noted, no matter what else you think about this issue, you have to concede that what is under consideration is a profound redefinition of marriage. Actually, I don't concede that it is, as you say A profound redefinition of marriage. I never have conceded that. It is a redefinition, but only a minor one. Marriage has been re-defined for centuries. Only a few centuries ago, the vast majority of marriages were arranged. Parents were the ones who chose who married who, and the purpose of which was usually to form partnerships/alliances between families. The redefinition of marriage as an institution that two people (a man and a woman) who love each other willingly choose to enter, promising their lives to eachother was a far greater redefinition of Marriage from arranged marriages than extending an institution that two people who love each other willingly choose to enter, promising their lives to eachother to include same-sex partners. The radical redefinition as you say, is only in your mind. A much closer analogy would be a society that had always only permitted same-sex unions... alas, any such ociety would now no longer exist. I don't know, it seems to work ok with bottlenose dolphins... male bottlenose dolphins typically pick another male bottlenose dolphin that they spend most of their life with, and they even sexually stimulate one another. Of course, they still have sex with female dolphins (or the species would die out) but they partner with a member of the same sex. It can't be too bad of an arrangement, because bottlenose dolphins have been arround a lot longer than our species has. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Republicans and the Federal Marriage Ammendment.
From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry JDG, even Republicans don't back the FMA: I am shocked to learn that the Republican Party does not have a unanimous position on a given political issue. Or are you the one who is shocked? Then again, I'm just running with the pack on this issue, so what do I know? Funny, are you trying to attribute that running with the pack statement to me? I didn't say it. In fact I agreed that you were not running with the pack. I even went as far as saying that you were on the fringes. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Thoughts on gay marriage? Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:15:56 -0700 From: iaamoac [EMAIL PROTECTED] big snip It can't be too bad of an arrangement, because bottlenose dolphins have been arround a lot longer than our species has. Really? How much longer? Jon Genuinely Curious Maru Aaarrrggg! You and your curiousity making me look things up. Gr! :-) According to the page at: http://www.dolphins.org/Learn/lmm-phys.htm bottlenose dolphins have been around for 2-5 million years. Humans, by contrast, have only been around for about 200,000 years. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 10:17 PM 2/24/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: To be honest John, this is one of those discussions where you give the appearance of being a run with the pack kind of guy. I don't mean to be insulting, but you seem to be on a dittohead heading lately. I am flabbergasted. I am the only Brin-L'er sticking my neck out and taking a position that I *know* will be very unpopular here. And *I* am running with the pack?Hello I put great effort into my defense of the Federal Marriage Amendment, and I doubt that you will find anything much like my post on that subject from any other right-wing source. I agree with you here. Not one right wing source I have heard from is making as big a deal about the judges striking down the impropper order as you are, probably because it *is* an impropper order and they know it. By pointing it out as a footnote, they make it look like activism, but if they make too big an arguement about it people will learn the truth, that the order was impropperly worded and could not be enforced as written, then realize that there is no activism going on here, only adherance to the law. I agree with you, you are deffinately on the fringes, not in the pack. I actually do hope that the order, once properly worded, does go to court, and is passed by the same judge that struck it down for being impropperly worded. Then that would demonstrate that George Bush's sudden endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment to be an unneccessary knee-jerk reaction based in fear. Showing fear over such a mundane issue is not very becoming of the president. Michael Harney - Who is waiting for a reply to my questions, and marvels at how John avoids replying to certain posts or portions of posts that hold the strongest points against his arguements. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Republicans and the Federal Marriage Ammendment.
Sorry JDG, even Republicans don't back the FMA: Full article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=514e=2u=/ap/20040225/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_gay_marriage_5 exerpt: --- Several GOP lawmakers said they would prefer to see Congress take a different route rather than amend the Constitution. Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif., a co-chairman of Bush's campaign in California in 2000, said he doesn't support a constitutional amendment. I believe that this should go through the courts, and I think that we're at a point where it's not necessary, he said. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the matter should be left to the states, and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., said changing the Constitution should be a last resort on almost any issue. --- Even worse for Bush is this exerpt: --- The Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group, worried that Bush risks alienating the 1 million gays and lesbians who voted for him in 2000 by pushing for the constitutional amendment. We believe that this is a move to start a culture war, fueled and pushed by the radical right, that will end up in George Bush's defeat, and defeat for a lot of good Republicans who are with us on equality, Mark Mead, the group's political director, said in an interview with AP Radio. --- As close as the last election was, I don't think that Bush can afford to alienate 1 Million voters. This may be just one more step towards Bush's ultimate downfall. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constitutional Amendment Question
From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] As of this morning, George Bush officially endorsed the ban on gay marriages amendment. No doubt he is hoping this will either raise support for republicans in the coming election if Democrats try to stop it or to pass it through both the house and the senate before the elections if the democrats cave. Either way Bush's agenda of hate goes on. I'm really annoyed at Bush and his fellow conservatives, but sadly unsurprised. I do believe he's making a huge tactical error. Taking this into a larger context Can you please provide concrete examples of 'an agenda of hate' perpetuated by President Bush? Hate's a very strong word.. No, I won't bother defending the 'agenda of hate' statement I made, I won't deny that yesterday was a really bad day for me (health problems, financial problems, among other problems that just made my day that much worse), so I spoke a little too strongly there. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Civil Marriages under the Hate Amendment
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Musgrave FMA amendment: Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. -- Read it carefully. This Amendment would prevent ALL new civil marriages. It might even be interpreted as nullifying all existing Civil Marriages. Gee, Fool, read your e-mail much? That was last week's topic of discussion. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Blue Monday (was: Re: Constitutional Amendment Question)
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:25 AM Subject: Re: Constitutional Amendment Question No, I won't bother defending the 'agenda of hate' statement I made, I won't deny that yesterday was a really bad day for me (health problems, financial problems, among other problems that just made my day that much worse), so I spoke a little too strongly there. Hey Michael, I hope you feel better soon and that you have better days. I'm feeling better healthwise, and today was a much better day than yesterday. Other problems still plague me, though, and as consequence my temper and mood tend to be on a hair trigger. I'm working to resolve those problems, but since they are job-search related, it's an up-hill struggle in this job market. It's no longer an issue of trying to find a job locally... there are too few jobs here and too many applicants. The competition for jobs is so fierce that, of the 8 jobs I've applied for in the last 3 months that have already been filled, I have not even been called for one interview. I'm going to have to relocate and considering that I have two dogs, that is not going to be easy. I would hate to have to give up one or both of my dogs, but may not have a choice. Several positions in the Houston/Galviston Texas area have shown up on my job search that I have all the qualifications for and would pay well enough to counter my financial woes even with the expenses of relocation (though it will be tight for a couple of years while I'm paying down the debt I've fallen into). I would love to live in Galviston. I have friends and relatives in that area that might be able to take care of my dogs until I can get a place where I can keep my dogs. Additionally, it's on to the Gulf of Mexico, meaning, if I wanted to, I could go watch dolphins swimming almost any time that I want to. Don't ask about the subject line, I'm just a New Order fan and the name and lyrics popped into my head when I was trying to think up an appropriate subject line. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Constitutional Amendment Question
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's an interesting trivia question. Who was the last sitting President to openly endorse a Constitutional Amendment? George W. Bush is the last sitting president to endorse a Constitutional Amendment. Too easy. What do I win? As of this morning, George Bush officially endorsed the ban on gay marriages amendment. No doubt he is hoping this will either raise support for republicans in the coming election if Democrats try to stop it or to pass it through both the house and the senate before the elections if the democrats cave. Either way Bush's agenda of hate goes on. If the amendment is passed, does that mean, under equal protection, that heterosexual marriages are nullified as well? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it. - Tommy Lee Jones ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Again, not to be flip about it, but homosexuals remain free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. In my mind, this is at minimum a very salient *legal* difference, especially given the current reliance upon equal protection grounds of the current pro homosexual marriage arguments I have seen. Not to be flip huh? Here's a flip for you: Suppose that, in an effort to control world overpopulation (or for some other reason, the reason isn't really important to this hypothetical), the goverment negated legal rights for heterosexual marriages and only extended marriage rights to homosexual couples (a similar scenario was mentioned in the book _The Forever War_... oops, a sci-fi reference... getting too close to on-topic here :-) ). Everyone is free to marry anyone they want from the same sex, but not of the opposite sex. Would you consider that equal protection? How would you feel about such a thing? It's called empathy John, try using it. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Semicolon Saved San Francisco RE: BRin-L - are we average? (was RE: FederalMarraige[sic]Amendment)
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:34 PM 2/20/2004 -0800 Dave Land wrote: John, I assume you've been watching the news about the semicolon that saved San Francisco. It's been nice having something to cheer about while watching the local newscast. :-D I presume by the smiley that you aren't serious. Surely that kind of judicial ruling is not good for a free society. Do you mean that it is /not/ the job of Judges to insist that legal documents be constructed so as to insure that their meaning is clear? You have GOT to be kidding me, right? To quote Ivanova You're using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law. I'm sorry, but forcing a multi-day delay in a legal process over a semicolon is cynical, craven, crass, and unbecoming of a judge no matter what side you are on. And I must say that I am *shocked*, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find none of Brin-L's reisdent left-wingers criticzing this absurdity, and in fact, several of them praising it. JDG - Who is frankly sick and tired of liberals on Brin-L cynically insisting upon so-falled fair-mindedness from conservatives, and seeing scant sign of it from themselves. Did somebody once mention due process on this List?I couldn't tell. Did you even *read* the article. quote: - The Proposition 22 Legal Defense and Education Fund had asked the judge to issue an order commanding the city to cease and desist issuing marriage licenses to and/or solemnizing marriages of same-sex couples; to show cause before this court. The way you've written this it has a semicolon where it should have the word 'or', the judge told them. I don't have the authority to issue it under these circumstances. - The semicolon changes the meaning of what is written, and the judge said he didn't have the authority to order it as it was written. It isn't just symantics and technicalities, it's a matter of *law*. The article also said: - The second judge told the plaintiffs that they would likely succeed on the merits eventually, but that for now, he couldn't accept their proposed court order because of a punctuation error. - See, one of the same judges that shot it down on what you call a technicality said that the plantiffs (the people seeking to stop the marriages) would probably win on their merrits. This isn't a case of judicial activism using symantics to strike down something they disagree with, it is clearly a wrongly worded order, and is something that the judges *cannot* order. I would *never* want a wrongly worded order to be issued in court, as all court orders are legally binding. If there is anyone to be angry at, be angry at the lawyer that prepared/submitted it. It's who I would be angry at if an issue important to me was shot down in court because the documents submitted were not correct/appropriate. A lawyer should know what is and is not neccessary, and should know not make mistakes like that. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 05:58 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote: snip The list is tacking on an attatchment that is coming through on your e-mails. The message at the bottom of all list posts that has the lists' web address is 7bit encoded, whereas your email is 8bit encoded. It's solution is to change your message to a multipart-mime type. If you want to get rid of that, check your mail settings for sending mail, see if you can switch it to 7bit, that should fix it. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you hear me now? out the door You are still sending it 8bit transfer-encoded and getting the list attatchment. Not a big deal though. At least the mystery of the phantom attatchments is solved. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Attachments, was Re: Democrats secular?
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 03:52 PM 2/19/2004, you wrote: Why do some posts still have attachements? I thought the server that relayes them strippes attachements. Kevin's post f.i. has two (see below). One saying that his outgoing mail is virus free the other was the added iformercial from our friendly neighbourhood server (Which could be scrapped if you ask me. We all know where we are. :o) ) Just out of interest. Sonja GCU: Topposting because this isn't a response but some of the original mail is needed for reference. Kevin Tarr wrote: At 04:27 PM 2/17/2004, you wrote: snipped the rest Is this better? I only noticed yesterday that outgoing e-mail is being scanned AND certified. But it's just part of the message, not an attachment. I receive some mail on the subservient list that has attachments for no other reason than the client they use. So maybe your e-mail client is doing it. Not saying it's wrong, just a function. Kevin T. - VRWC Get your dirty paws off me you damn stinking attachment! The list is tacking on an attatchment that is coming through on your e-mails. The message at the bottom of all list posts that has the lists' web address is 7bit encoded, whereas your email is 8bit encoded. It's solution is to change your message to a multipart-mime type. If you want to get rid of that, check your mail settings for sending mail, see if you can switch it to 7bit, that should fix it. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: BRin-L - are we average?(was RE: Federal Marraige[sic]Amendment)
From: ritu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Robert Seeberger wrote: One thing you have to remember about Bisexuals. They can blend into any crowd. Remain hidden as long as they like. And only attract notice if they want to be noticed. My personal experience tells me that 40-60% of women I have dated were Bi (to varying degrees) and I would suspect the numbers are similar for men. Male homosexuality is suppressed in our society to the degree that male bisexuals either hide their sexuality or never act on it. I suspect that pure heterosexuals may not even be a majority. I have some questions: How do you determine if somebody is 'bi' if they have never acted on it? If you are talking about a person who thinks they are bi but has never had sex with one (or both) of the sexes, sexual orientation isn't about who a person has or has not had sex with, it has everything to do with who that person feels sexually attracted to. Determining if another person is bi can be difficult. I don't know how Robert drew the conclusion he did unless the women he dated were open about it. And who would 'pure' heterosexuals be? People who find homo-sexuality repulsive? No, I think he simply meant that the person feels no sexual attraction to members of the same sex. That doesn't require feeling repulsed by it. As a matter of fact, there is a good chance that a person that actually feels repulsed by homosexuality probably feels that way because they are sublimating doubt about their own sexual orientation, and I would question the purity of their heterosexuality. I think Robert's estimates may be a bit high, though, if he really thinks bisexuals might outnumber heterosexuals. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Federal Marraige Amendment
to promote them. Ever heard of artificial insemination? Ever hear of adoptions? Besides, in-vitro fertilization is *legal*. No, this argument holds about as much water as a sieve. Furthermore, each child, being the product of a man and a woman, has a reasonable expectation of having a mother and a father. It is a basic truism that women and men, and hence mothers and fathers, are different in some ways (Otherwise, homosexuals would not find it repulsive to marry someone of the opposite sex if there were truly no difference between the sexes.)As such, *ceteris paribis* we should try and meet a child's expectation of having a mother and a father. Now, of course, there are numerous situations where governments should very wisely choose not to meet these expectations. Nevertheless, I do not consider it wise for governments to provide *incentives* for the siring of children into situations where we know *a priori* that this very reasonable expectation of the child to have a mother and a father will not be met.Note, that I am not saying that we should make it illegal - merely that the government should not provide incentives for this situation. (Nota Bene: The above paragraphs are addressed in the minds of the rights of the *child*, not necessarily any rights of the couple.) Single parents are not denied parenting rights, why should a couple be denied those rights simply because they are of the same sex? Moreover, what proof is there that heterosexual couples do a better job of raising children than homosexual couples? 4) Despite all of this I am willing to recommend that governments provide certain steps of recognition to homosexual unions in the interests of social/societal stability and furthering the desires of homosexuals in our society to pursue happiness. Nevertheless, I believe that marriage should retain a privileged status in our civilization as the fundamental building block of our society concomitant with its role in siring and raising the next generation. Once again, there is nothing in any constitution or law stating that marriage is for child-rearing, nor does a person need to be married to raise children, therefore, this idealistic view you have created is false. Law needs to be applied fairly and equally, and seperate is seldom, if ever, equal. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Star Trek Politics
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] A forum I frequent has been having a discussion of how one would describe the political system of the United Federation of Planets. It seems to me to combine traits of two systems I generally don't think of as compatible, that is almost a sort of democratic communism. I'd be interested in seeing what other people thought, especially since I think most of the folks here are more politically and SF-ally savvy than this other group. Assuming that democracy and communism are oposites is false. Democracy is a system of government, whereas communism is an economic model. The reason the two are usually incompatible is because the people of a democracy generally don't trust the government with un-checked power, and, it follows that they don't trust the government with management of land and resources either. If land and resources were managed by the democratic process as well, there is less likelyhood of distrust, so it could theoretically be achieved. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige Amendment
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snip First, the question is: Should marriage be redefined to include homosexual unions as well as heterosexual unions? And indeed, given the current judicial environment, the question can be taken one step further Does our civilization have a moral responsibility to so redefine marriages, *immediately?* In my mind, however, the questions can be further redefined to be: Should our civilization incentivse homosexual unions by redefining marriage to include such unions? And also, Does our civilization have a moral obligation to immediately incentivise homosexual unions by so redefining marriages *immediately.*? I come down very firmly against the latter questions, and also fairly firmly aginst the former question as well. The problem is that your questions are wrong. You ask about *moral* obligations. Moral obligations are subjective, and by virtue of that fact, not the correct standard to apply as there is clearly massive disagreement on that. The real question is: Are we *legally* obligated to do those things? Under the standard of equal protection under the law, Yes, we are obligated to do so. Legally, a homosexual couple should be entitled to all the rights and priveledges of a heterosexual couple. That is precicely the question answered by courts in Vermont and Massachusetts (please forgive my spelling if I spelled it wrong). Can you give compelling reason why we should ignore legal obligations because they conflict with your moral ones? Should we outlaw interracial marriage because some people are morally opposed to it? Or maybe examples closer to your home: Should we ban all forms of prayer (including student innitiated prayer) in public schools because some people are morally opposed to it? Should we remove the words under God from the Pledge of alliegence because some people are morally opposed to it? You see, morals are ambiguous, and if you apply moral standards to choices in law, you will invariably end up with a system that is unjust. Apply legal standards, and the answers are much more clear. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Shrek Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 05:27 PM 2/15/2004 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: That, and the fact that Shrek is on TV tonight :-) Good movie, hope you don't have to watch it on network... Yes, it was on NBC last night. It was definitely a solid movie. A little too much potty humour for my tastes though, and I thought that the beginning was a bit slow. The animation was a little uneven, though, especially of the human characters. Also occasionasly there would be some brilliant animation, for example, of the donkey - but that would just highlight some of the weakness elsewhere.I occasionally found the rock music distracting from the fairy tale feel of the film - and I felt the same way about the pro wrestling scene.On the other hand, I loved some of the fairy tale humor, and the suprise ending was good for a fairy tale as well. I think the point of the movie Shrek is that it is supposed to be an anti-fairy tale. The story of an ogre going to save a princess and deliver her to a less-than-prince-charming is not exactly typical fairy-tale fare. The music and crudeness I think are to highlight that fact. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marraige Amendment
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:47 PM 2/16/2004, you wrote: From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Snip First, the question is: Should marriage be redefined to include homosexual unions as well as heterosexual unions? And indeed, given the current judicial environment, the question can be taken one step further Does our civilization have a moral responsibility to so redefine marriages, *immediately?* In my mind, however, the questions can be further redefined to be: Should our civilization incentivse homosexual unions by redefining marriage to include such unions? And also, Does our civilization have a moral obligation to immediately incentivise homosexual unions by so redefining marriages *immediately.*? I come down very firmly against the latter questions, and also fairly firmly aginst the former question as well. The problem is that your questions are wrong. You ask about *moral* obligations. Moral obligations are subjective, and by virtue of that fact, not the correct standard to apply as there is clearly massive disagreement on that. The real question is: Are we *legally* obligated to do those things? Under the standard of equal protection under the law, Yes, we are obligated to do so. Michael Harney That's interesting. Why are we *legally* required to discriminate based on race or gender then? For what it's worth, I'm against affirmative action as it exists now. The government sees it as the only way to ensure that minorities get a fair shake. It is how they interprit equal protection in that instance. The presumption, of course, is that people in power are likely to discriminate against people of minority groups. I don't agree with the methods, but I certainly can't argue that discrimination doesn't happen, and something needs to be done to remedy that. Do you have a better solution to ensure that descrimination doesn't happen? I would love to hear one. Perhaps all job applications should be mailed in, with only social security numbers rather than names. Moreover, resumes would only have social security numbers on them as identifying information as well. And job interviews will be a blind process, where the employer does not know which applicant they are interviewing, or the interview process takes place in such a way that the interviewer is unable to see the applicant. The employer will only know who they hired when the employment choice is made. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tom Beck wrote: It's the word marriage that appears to have some mystical, totemic meaning for some lamebrained lazyminded easily stampeded credulous dolts (i.e., most of the American public). Well, add me to list of dolts then, Tom. I find myself in that very boat; I believe gays should have the right to official unions. Hell, why shouldn't *they* have to have the prospect of giving up half their stuff and arguing over who gets the coffee table if they break up same as straight people? :) Not to mention my sister is gay, and she and her girlfriend have been together for some seven to eight years, and if that's what she wants, that what I want for her. But the idea of calling it marriage does make me uncomfortable on some vague level I can't really explain. Product of my environment, I suppose. If it makes me a dolt that 36 years of being told that marriage is between a man and a woman isn't easy to just shrug off, so be it. You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't that lend you to think that your belief is likely an irrational one. No offense intended, but should we bend towards an irrational belief simply to make holders of that irrational belief feel more comfortable or should we stand firm in the belief that everyone should be treated equally? Jim Gay divorce is sure to follow Maru Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] And Michael Harney wrote: You say you can't explain why you feel that way... then doesn't that lend you to think that your belief is likely an irrational one. No offense intended, but should we bend towards an irrational belief simply to make holders of that irrational belief feel more comfortable or should we stand firm in the belief that everyone should be treated equally? I think I implied in my original post that I understood it wasn't rational. Perhaps I wasn't direct enough. And never did I say that others should bend to what I think. Somehow, I don't think their divorce statistics will be any worse than those of heterosexual marriages, but even if they are, so what? See, that signoff was called humor, Michael. I have no reason to think that gay divorce will be more or less likely, and I don't care either way. Eric, Michael, I was ruminating on the idea of gay marriage, and where I stand. I never once said, or even hinted, that if gay marriage came to a vote, especially an all-or-nothing prospect, that I would oppose it; I'm pretty certain I wouldn't. 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. Honestly, the fact that I don't *like* something doesn't mean automatically that I would stop others from doing it. Place some weights on your knees so that they won't jerk so quickly next time. From your original post, I got the distinct impression that you would support the concept of gay civil unions, but was opposed to gay marriages. This was reinforced when taken in context to the message that yours was a reply to. If this was a misunderstanding on my part, I appologise. There is a possibility that the issue of gay marriage may be presented before the citizens of the United States for a vote. In such a situation it doesn't take a big leap from not feeling comfortable with gay marriages to voting against gay marriages. If you really would vote in support of gay marriage even though you feel uncomfortable with the idea, then I think that is very commendable of you. If only all people were willing to do the same on all issues (voting for what thier mind says is right rather than voting their personal prejudices)... Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Introducing Fenris
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nick Arnett wrote: Michael Harney wrote: If it is not too much trouble to Nick, could there be a few new header filters added to the list: 1) politics: - any discussion regarding politics, including but not limited to posts criticizing/plauding politicians. 2) religion: - any discussion regarding religious issues, including but not limited to criticisms/endorsements of religion(s). 3) environment: - any discussion that falls under the topic of the environment. That's easy enough to set up... the question is whether people will use 'em. Can't hurt to give it a shot. Given the history this group has of not changing headers when they should be changed, I'd recommend that Michael check out John Horn's recommendation of Pegasus Mail and see if that does the trick first. I've already installed Pegasus Mail. I looked it up shortly after reading John's post. Its a matter of playing with the filters to see if it will do what I want it to, then , if it does, porting over my mailboxes. I like the idea of using a program other than Outlook Express for my mail, but porting over my boxes is quite a task as I already use a large number of message rules in Outlook, and have a number of different folders, and have 3 different boxes/identities I use (one for personal, one for work, and one I use as a spam target if I am asked to enter my e-mail address on sites that I think may sell spam me or sell my email address... surprisingly the most spam comes on my work box). I still think the headers would be helpful though. I don't think that too many good messages will be lost in the process, but you are probably right that well crafted filters would be more effective at not filtering posts a person might want. Even so, the header would make it easier to filter messages if a person were to use a multi-stage filtering process (which would be more effective at keeping a me ssage that one might not want to filter). Julia who's had the wolf be a positive animal too much to have it be credible as *her* nightmare Fenris isn't an evil character, Fenris is a character that is a culmination of my litteral nightmares, and my nightmares aren't about boogey-men and supervillians, they are situational. Fenris is more of a self portrait than a villain. It represents me and the situations in my Nightmares. A wolf was chosen because I have had very bad dreams about bad things happening to my dogs in the past. There is much more to the character of Fenris which I may address in the future, but not right now. Obviously, I've put thought into the character before, so I may as well say that I had started modeling this character in Lightwave months ago. I haven't finished it yet, but may in the next couple months if I can find the time to. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Introducing Fenris
Hello, I am Fenris, the culmination of Michael's Nightmares. I've come here today to make an announcement. Michael has no further interest in the bulk of this discussion. It seems that reading the constant/perpetual political discussions (in quotes to denote sarcasm as those so-called discussions are typically more like pissing contests and nit-picking competitions) makes him feel ... what's a good word or phrase for it? Emotionally unstable, for lack of a better word/phrase. He would rather not have the influx in his mailbox, and has all but stopped reading any of the listmail as a consequence. He could filter his own mail, but feels it will probably inadvertantly filtering posts he might want. As an alternative, he asked that I discuss the following possibility with the list: If it is not too much trouble to Nick, could there be a few new header filters added to the list: 1) politics: - any discussion regarding politics, including but not limited to posts criticizing/plauding politicians. 2) religion: - any discussion regarding religious issues, including but not limited to criticisms/endorsements of religion(s). 3) environment: - any discussion that falls under the topic of the environment. If this is not too much of an inconvenience for Nick, and the other list members are willing to adopt these headers, we would really appreciate it. Even if it is inconvenient to Nick, and he is unable to assist, adopting these headers without Nick's intervention would make things easier for individuals (not just Michael) to filter/sort the discussions themselves, with less fear of missing posts that they might want to recieve. The list may not be as destablizing as mixing morphine analogues (which his messed up metabolism makes from gluten products) and caffine to Michael, but he is not able to cope with the list as it is. He does not wish to leave or filter all but brin: posts, but will probably do so if another solution is not possible. Best Regards, Fenris P.S. No, I have not gone completely insane, I just find it easier to say certain things in a character other than myself at times (three years of Theater in High School will do that to you) ... besides, it makes the discussion more interesting. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Introducing Fenris
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:46 PM Subject: Re: Introducing Fenris In a message dated 2/12/2004 10:35:15 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Fenris P.S. No, I have not gone completely insane, I just find it easier to say certain things in a character other than myself at times (three years of Theater in High School will do that to you) ... besides, it makes the discussion more interesting. And putting Fenris in the subject line makes me think it was from the H. Beam Piper list. Fenris is just a damn cool name for a wolf, and my nighmare culmination is a wolf character. As to the other subject matter, AOL has a nice big delete button. Not using AOL, and probably never will again. It's one of my least favored ISP's. Deleting is easy, yes, it's knowing what to delete that is the hard part. If I could use custom filters based on regular expressions, I could probably catch 98% of the unwanted messages, and only lose about 2% of messages I might actually be interested in, but the e-mail program I use (Outlook Express, sometimes called Look Out Express) does not have support for regular expression filters. Considering that the Internet Explorer Browser has Regular expression support in its implementation of Javascript, I find it surprising that it does not have such support. Anyone know of any free Windows email programs that have regular expression support in email filtering? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Spot the fake smiles
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/surveys/smiles/index.shtml Spot the fake smiles This experiment is designed to test whether you can spot the difference between a fake smile and a real one It has 20 questions and should take you 10 minutes It is based on research by Professor Paul Ekman, a psychologist at the University of California We will not pass on your personal details to any other organisation without your permission except for the purposes of processing the data for this experiment Each video clip will take approximately 15 seconds to load on a 56k modem and you can only play each smile once Requires Flash 6 or higher I got 15/20, which is probably not very good...but I hadn't seen the TV program that explains how to tell the difference either. I got 14/20. Not bad considering I see myself as being socially inept. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: v*r*s question
That is one of several of its propagation methods. It uses faked mail delivery failure notices among other methods to try to trick people into opening the attached file. Another posibility is that it used your email address as a false from address from an infected computer's address book, and the message went to a dead email address, resulting in a bounce to you. You can find out more about that and other viruses at : http://www3.ca.com/virusinfo/ Or any number of other antivirus sites. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 2:32 PM Subject: v*r*s question I started getting mail saying something from me was undeliverable. AVG said it had the myd**m v*r*s in it. AVG isn't finding the v*r*s anywhere else, just the mail coming in. Since them I'm getting messages coming in with the v*r*s. But I'm more confused by the returned mail. Is my computer sending out mail with me knowing it? Or is my mail being spoofed, it's being sent from somewhere else with my address? Or third option, is this a backwards way to get a person to open mail, it sends you a bogus e-mail claiming to be a delivery failure? More than a few have come from ASU, I'm assuming Arizona State but I know no one there. Thanks in Advance 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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: did I break it?
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] I sent this e-mail last night, with the subject work e-mail Not about list e-mail, but general work e-mail. I got chastised by a boss because I was contacting a user using e-mail instead of calling directly. The text of the e-mail was about, drumroll, setting up a face to face meeting. I really felt like telling the boss to take a hike. His way mattered 20 years ago when you had to use a phone, but 70% of the time e-mail is appropriate. How do others feel? I know not all situations warrant it but if you have established that the receiver regularly checks e-mail and will respond, isn't e-mail okay? I actually prefer e-mail for business communication. It's far more preferable to phone communication IMO, because it leaves a written record you can refer back to should the need arise. If it is an urgent matter that needs an immediate response (within 24 hours). Then phone is probably a better means of communication. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Social Programs (was: Re: Martian Emotion)
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 02:49 PM 1/16/04, Trent Shipley wrote: On Friday 2004-01-16 13:16, Damon Agretto wrote: --- Trent Shipley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. If you are insolvent you should not be treated. Open access to emergency medicine is the back door is basically a disguised form of socialized medicine. It forces solvent people to take on your charity case whether they want to or not. Well Trent then I guess I won't depend on you should my life ever be threatened. While we're at it, lets get rid of unemployment support, wellfare, and any other government charities since we're being forced to provide for those leeches too... Damon. Yep. If the space-cadets must justify their pet project in objective terms, so must bleeding hearts. The main reason to keep welfare programs is the sentimental belief that we (meaning those lucky -- or moral -- enough to be taxpayers) Why do you believe that being a taxpayer -- by which I am presuming you mean having an income, owning property, etc., so that you are subject to taxation -- is simply a matter of luck? It is entirely luck. Allow me to illustrate: I am a genius, more intelligent than over 98% of the world population. I have extencive programming skills, a degree in biology, computer animation skills, the list goes on and on. I, however, am unemployable. Why? I tried to join a branch of the military, but due to a genetic condition I have (kyphosis) which makes my *appearance* unmilitary, they won't have me. I've tried to get jobs in customer service, but, again, due to a genetic condition (autism), I am socially akward, and so, not even considered for such positions. I've tried to find jobs in computers, there is so much competition right now for such jobs, due to the bad job market and greedy corperate outsourcing, that anyone without a Master's degree or a decade of experience is not even considered for such jobs. I've tried to find jobs in biology, but there are no such jobs locally, and any job out of town won't pay enough to afford relocation and to pay off the incredible debt I went into simply trying to get my degree. In essence, I am fucked. Not because of lack of intelligence or skill or education, but due to my circumstances. Is being employed a matter of luck? You're damn right it is. A *lot* of reform is needed, not only in jobs, but in education as well. First, the government should have programs so that anyone who wants a job but is unable to find one will be employed performing valuable services for the country. This can take the place of both the Welfare and unemployment systems currently in place. Companies that outsource work to foriegn nations and/or do mass layoffs can be charged a substancial tax that can provide a good portion of the funding for this. Financial/tax incentives can be offered to companies that hire individuals working on such government work programs to take some of the employment burden away from the government. Second, for people to have equal oppertunity, all state colleges and universities need to be *fully* funded, meaning any citizen that wants an education can do so without going tens of thousands of dollars in debt. My parents, despite earning just slightly above the poverty line and being burdened by my father being very ill and needing extencive medical care, were expected to pay the whole of my college tuition, but because they were unable to, I had to take out extencive student loans to pay for my college... this is a circumstance that I find *totally* unacceptable. Government employment programs (mentioned above) should also work around the student's schedule so that stable employment while attending college is not a difficult thing. People who think that social programs are a waste of taxpayer money have failed to learn from history. The poor overthrowing their own nation's government due to feeling neglected and oppressed is something that has happened repeatedly (The French Revolution, The Russian Revolution, etc.). If poor people feel they have no other choice, and their numbers grow large enough, they will act. I, personally, can not believe that the nation doesn't see a problem in having a bunch of out-of-work, disgruntled, and desperate computer programmers in the country. If skilled, out-of-work programmers formed a rebellion, due to the world-wide dependance on computer and network technologies, they could potentially bring the whole technological world to its knees without firing a single gun-shot (just imagine something like the I Love You virus, but written by a huge team of programmers, with multiple vectors and exploits, and distributed as a coordinated attack, not just a random propagation... a deffinate circumstance that would be devistating, and could be easily avoided by keeping the citizens employed and contented). Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED
Re: human rights
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/153985p-135485c.html He didn't free the slaves. He didn't rid the world of Hitler. He didn't even - like his father - preside over the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Yet George W. Bush tells New Yorker writer Ken Auletta: No President has ever done more for human rights than I have. With stunners like that, no wonder he spends so little time with journalists. sillyHey he didn't say he *helped* human rights. Only that he's had a greater effect on them than any other president. Give credit where it's due. :-)/silly Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Quiz
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://intuitor.com/physics_test/PhysicsSavvy.html 77.5 % Embarrassing 90% for me. IMO some of the questions were poorly worded. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
No longer filtering.
I'm not filtering anymore. I've reviewed recent posts in the archives, and I think I'll be fine for now. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RIDDLES: Yet another thread for fun.
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lets play a little game. I'll start things off by throwing a riddle on the table. The first person to correctly answer the riddle has the privilege of posting a riddle of their own. This guy went into the forest one day. Once there he got it, but he couldn't get it. So he left it there and brought it back home. What did he get? In another message: You know, I would probably do the same thing you're doing right about now. However this is a classic case of over-analysis. The answer (or perhaps more accurately my answer) isn't a sense of anything, nor is it an intangible, abstract concept of any type. Rather it is something quite concrete. Final guess: Half of a tree. Once there he got half a tree, but couldn't get the other half of the tree (possibly because he didn't have the means to move a whole tree), so he left half of the tree there and brought half of the tree back home with him. Michael Harney - who doesn't like this answer, but has read riddles with worse answers. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 'nother riddle
From: Doug Pensinger Here's one I'm sure won't last nearly as long. Guess the next number in the following sequence. 1 11 21 1211 -- Doug Looks like a palindrome, and I don't see much of a mathematical pattern in it (not that I tried much though), so my guess is 1. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Filtering
I just reviewed the archives back from the day I started filtering (I am recieving only OT and BRIN posts). I was only interested in seeing if someone had solved the riddle, but noticed several replies to my Filtering post. I realize that my request that noone post on environmentalist, particulary anything that might be considered an insult to environmentalists, while I am not feeling well is an unreasonably restrictive request. Please know, I am in an extremely stressful situation right now, so am running very on-edge. It is my problem, not the list's, and that is why I went to filtering. I am still filtering, so will not recieve either this post or any of its replies. I appologise if my actions have cause anyone to feel badly. My problems are not the fault of anyone on the list, and, had conditions been better, I probably would have handled the situation much better than I did. Hopefully, things will turn around in my life soon, so I can feel better and be able to participate in such discussion without feeling overwhelmed or going overboard. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RIDDLES: Yet another thread for fun.
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RIDDLES: Yet another thread for fun. Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 16:56:37 -0700 Ok, guess number two: A view. He took a picture to bring the view home with him, but left the view there. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] lol Nope. Yet another good guess though. -Travis Having reviewed the guesses made, and your responses, I noticed that one guess got a not exactly response, leading me to believe it was close to the answer. That guess was a sense of accomplishment, so here is one final set of guesses before I give up: A sense of wonder A sense of oneness with the world/nature A sense of belonging Though to me, these things do not seem to fit the conditions of the riddle, I make these guesses based on how you have reacted to various guesses. That's all I've got. I am still filtering, but will look for the response to this in the archives tomorrow. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Filtering
I'm filtering once again. I have lots of things to do to prepare for Christmas, so I don't have the time to participate. Additionally, with the increasing posts re: environmentalism, my mind is going in directions that I don't want it to go. I should have known that my requesting that topics I feel strongly about not be brought up would only increase the number of posts on those topics. Oh, well. See you in a few (days, weeks, I don't know it depends on when I'm not so busy and when I'm feeling better). Michael Harney - who regrets that he will miss the answer to the riddle, but can always look it up on the archives later. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RIDDLES: Yet another thread for fun.
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lets play a little game. I'll start things off by throwing a riddle on the table. The first person to correctly answer the riddle has the privilege of posting a riddle of their own. This guy went into the forest one day. Once there he got it, but he couldn't get it. So he left it there and brought it back home. What did he get? This sounds like a patient zero situation. A man goes into a forest, he picks up a virus, but is immune to the virus, so he can only be a carrier. So my answer is a virus that he is immune to. Am I right? Micahel Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seasonal Puzzle
Since nobody else has taken a crack at it, I have filled in the ones I know, maybe that will spark some memories on the others. From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip I was also disappointed that one of my very favorite Carols wasn't included, especially since it isn't an easy one: 33. BATJI Some other good ones: 34. AIAM (Nothing to do with AOL.) Away in a Manger 35. OIRDC 36. CIC 37. HTHAS 38. AWHHOH (Ho, Ho Ho!) 39. AFTRG 40. TFN 41. E (Very popular among Catholics thanks in large part to the iconic Glory and Praise Hymnal) 42. GRYMG 43. COTB 44. WCIT 45. ISTS 46. CTIH 47. DYHWIH (Probably the easiest one as many of you have probably even seen this abbreviation before. :) Do You Hear What I Hear 48. DNP 49. MKTHCS 50. THC (No, not a drug, and not by Handel either.) And finally, as a bonus, one of my very, very, favorite Carols: 51. AMN (Hint: Non-English Carol) A double bonus, another song that isn't quite a Carol, but is certainly one of the oldest Christmas songs: 52. OMM Lastly, a triple bonus, a Christmas Carol that is most popular in a culture other than the culture of most Brin-L list members: 53. SGBTJ (Nothing to do with Meyers-Briggs. :) Ony two... I was raised Catholic, so maybe I would know the others if I heard them, but, then again, maybe not. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RIDDLES: Yet another thread for fun.
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RIDDLES: Yet another thread for fun. Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:41:48 -0700 From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lets play a little game. I'll start things off by throwing a riddle on the table. The first person to correctly answer the riddle has the privilege of posting a riddle of their own. This guy went into the forest one day. Once there he got it, but he couldn't get it. So he left it there and brought it back home. What did he get? This sounds like a patient zero situation. A man goes into a forest, he picks up a virus, but is immune to the virus, so he can only be a carrier. So my answer is a virus that he is immune to. Am I right? Micahel Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is a probable answer to the riddle. However it's not THE answer. I mean if you had asked this particular riddle with a virus in mind as the answer, then a virus would be correct. It's a multi-answerable riddle I suppose. Just keep on guessing what it could be, until you guess correctly. -Travis Ok, guess number two: A view. He took a picture to bring the view home with him, but left the view there. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 09:54 PM 12/16/03, Michael Harney wrote: P.P.S. Never insult me or what I believe unless you are ready to face a challenge. It was not meant as an insult to you or what you believe. I feel rather strongly about this subject, too, but I don't want to unnecessarily upset anyone or risk disrupting the list. No worries, you didn't write it, you just posted it. Nor did you say where you stand on the topic. It was the people on-list agreeing with it that irked me more than the post itself. P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe distance from topics I feel strongly about. I'm sorry you have not been feeling well. I hope you get better soon. As a few here know, I have chronic health issues of my own, and sometimes when I am not feeling well I too get stressed out, and far too frequently I let myself become impatient and short-tempered. If I have offended anyone while in one of those moods, I apologize. And if I do so in the future, please forgive me and realize that I am likely to be in a better mood after I have gotten some rest and get to feeling better. Well, for me, it's not so much an issue of physical health. I'm in the better physical health now than I have ever been in my life. It's more about mental health. I've just had a lot of concerns on my mind recently, concerns that I have little/no control over, and it becomes very easy to rub me the wrong way when I get in that frame of mind, especially on topics I feel strongly about. Regretably, I haven't been getting a full night's sleep for most of the last two weeks. Each day there was a different reason why my sleep was disrupted before I got a full night's rest, but it doesn't change the fact that I haven't slept enough. I just wish I had my own place rather than living in a house with my mother, brother, and all my brother's children. 80% of the time, that is the reason my sleep is disturbed. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip Forget the neutronium hull. What I want is some of the stuff they used to brace the interior so the neutronium hull wouldn't collapse into a solid sphere under its own weight and self-gravity. Now _that_ has to be strong stuff . . . -- Ronn! :) I'm pretty sure that's a highly improbable scenario. Isn't gravity based on size and not weight? If so, then I should also point out that the planet killer isn't THAT big. So the neutronium may be dense enough to create a few engineering problems, but the gravitational pull would technically be too weak to cause problems, right? Nope, mass causes gravity, size doesn't. Admitted, most very large objects also have lots of mass, but a volume of highly dense matter would produce more gravity than an equal volume of low density matter. Technically, though, since it was almost cylindrical (which would act like an arch) and mostly hollow, I imagine that, if the neutronium is strong enough to be impervious to most weapons, it would probably be able to support it's own inward gravity as that gravity shouldn't be that massive. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted:Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Harney wrote: Well, for me, it's not so much an issue of physical health. I'm in the better physical health now than I have ever been in my life. It's more about mental health. I've just had a lot of concerns on my mind recently, concerns that I have little/no control over, and it becomes very easy to rub me the wrong way when I get in that frame of mind, especially on topics I feel strongly about. Regretably, I haven't been getting a full night's sleep for most of the last two weeks. Each day there was a different reason why my sleep was disrupted before I got a full night's rest, but it doesn't change the fact that I haven't slept enough. I just wish I had my own place rather than living in a house with my mother, brother, and all my brother's children. 80% of the time, that is the reason my sleep is disturbed. Sleep interruption caused by children can really get to be a drag. Yep. Sleep interuptions caused by grown-ups aren't much better either. Can you nap at all during the day? Yes. If so, does that help? No, if anything, a nap in the middle of the day makes me feel worse. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 10:48 AM Subject: Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun. snip Nope, mass causes gravity, size doesn't. Admitted, most very large objects also have lots of mass, but a volume of highly dense matter would produce more gravity than an equal volume of low density matter. Technically, though, since it was almost cylindrical (which would act like an arch) and mostly hollow, I imagine that, if the neutronium is strong enough to be impervious to most weapons, it would probably be able to support it's own inward gravity as that gravity shouldn't be that massive. Lets see, the densities we would be talking about are around 3*10^14 g/cc. 300 Billion Kilograms per cubic centimeter? We aren't talking about a black hole are we? Is density that high even possible? I mean, there has to be a finite limit of how many protons and neutrons that you can pack into such a small space. If 6.02*10^23 protons only wieghs1 kilogram (IIRC), and neutrons weigh roughly the same as protons, that would require about 1.8*10^38 protons or nuetrons packed into a single cubic centimeter. Assuming a spherical model for protons and neutrons and perfect packing of protons and nuetrons (assuming no empty space at all, which would be impossible with a spherical model): 1.8*10^38*(3/4)*pi*r^3=1cm^3 4.24*10^38*r^3=cm^3 r^3=2.36*10^-39cm^3 r=1.33*10-13 cm That would mean the radius of a proton/neutron would have to be less than 1.33*10^-13 cm. Is that right? Michael Harney - No Room For Electrons Maru [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seasonal Puzzle
19. TLDB - The Little Drummer Boy Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seasonal Puzzle
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. TCS (CROAOF) - Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire TCS stands for The Christmas Song. Generic, huh? 10. AF (OCAYF) - Oh Come All Ye Faithful In case anyone was wondering AF is Adeste Fideles. I knew what the AF stood for, but couldn't think of Oh Come all ye Faithful. 30. COCE I still can't figure out COCE. If it were OCOCE, I would say O Come, O Come, Emmanuel. Should we keep looking? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Seasonal Puzzle
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 05:11 PM 12/17/2003, you wrote: From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1. TCS (CROAOF) - Chestnuts Roasting On An Open Fire TCS stands for The Christmas Song. Generic, huh? 10. AF (OCAYF) - Oh Come All Ye Faithful In case anyone was wondering AF is Adeste Fideles. I knew what the AF stood for, but couldn't think of Oh Come all ye Faithful. 30. COCE I still can't figure out COCE. If it were OCOCE, I would say O Come, O Come, Emmanuel. Should we keep looking? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about 31. GGROBAR ? Too easy, in fact I thought of suggesting it myself. Grandma got run over by a reindeer. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyway, seeing as how I've made my mind up about the Jem'Hadar, would anyone care to move on? I still think Scarans are superior. They may be a bit slow, but they are stronger and practically bullet-proof. Lets take a look at starships. I'll just throw a couple into the mix to start things off. -A Borg cube (standard) vs -A Goauld mothership (Stargate) Discuss.. Assuming that the G'ould mothership had the latest (in the SG-1 series) in shield and weapon technology, I would say it would win the battle against the Borg Cube unless the Borg Cube was actually piloted by Borg. Star Trek: TNG early Borg episodes demonstrated that the power of the Borg ship in regeneration and defenses/adaptability relies on the actions of the Borg crew working as a coordinated unit. If the Borg are piloting the Borg Cube, the G'ould Mothership wouldn't stand a chance IMO. Personally though, I would choose a Leviathan gunship equiped with a peacekeeper defence field. High weapon power, self-repairing (as long as damage isn't too extensive), and can escape quickly if the situation calls for it. If I had to pick from Star Trek though, I would pick Tinman. Now *that* was a powerful ship. If you think Tinman and a Leviathan gunship are too outlandish, how about the Scimitar from Star Trek: Nemesis? It took two Romulan Warbirds and the Enterprise E just to cripple the ship (and the battle resulted in the Romulan Warbirds and the Enterprise E being even more crippled than the Scimitar, only an internal attack on the Scimitar resulted in its destruction). Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
From: Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] snip If you think Tinman and a Leviathan gunship are too outlandish, how about the Scimitar from Star Trek: Nemesis? snip I almost forgot about Babylon 5 universe. How about the Vorlon planet killer? Hyperspace capable, able to singlehandedly destroy a planet, virtually indestructable... Now *that* is outlandish. How about a more realistic ship. The Excaliber maybe? Tinman, Leviathan gunships, and vorlon and shadow ships out of consideration, my vote would still be for the Scimitar, though it's hard to compare technology from different series. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted: Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
/scienceques2001/20020329.htm In it, it confirms his claim that overall ice mass on Antarctica has indeed increased in recent years. Another article, however, talk about the melting of *other* glaciers contributing to the overall rise of sea-level: http://eob.gsfc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2003/2003101616058.html Regarding Forest Fires: Attempting to control forest fires by any method (either by fire supression or by controlled cutting down of trees as George W. Bush has put into action) is directly contradictory to the forest ecosystem. Forest fires are a *natural* part of the forest's evolution. Before humans were here, there were forest fires, and forests still survived. Forest fires are now considered *essential* for clearing dead trees and branches, recycling nutrients, and even helping new plants to grow and wildlife to thrive. http://www.nps.gov/seki/fire/firerole.htm In conclusion, Mr. Crichton asks one to accept on faith that what he says is true without support or proof. Who's belief is based on faith, and who's is based on science and research here? Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] P.S. As all these topics were ones I had researched and learned about prior to this, most of what I typed on the subjects I typed *before* looking up supporting articles. Having prior knowledge of the subjects made finding the supporting articles a relatively quick process since I already knew what to look for, and only reinforces that what I had previously learned had not been skewed, had not been exagerated, and was accurate. I may or may not be an anomoly when it comes to environmentalists, but I am definate proof that Mr. Crichton is dealing in stereotypes, not facts. P.P.S. Never insult me or what I believe unless you are ready to face a challenge. P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe distance from topics I feel strongly about. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Michael Crichton is Evil and Must be Destroyed (was: Scouted:Environmentalism is Evil and Must Be Destroyed)
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michael Harney wrote: P.P.P.S. I've been in a particularly strange mood for a long while now (a few weeks), perhaps stress induced, and encourage others to keep a safe distance from topics I feel strongly about. Sorry to hear that, and if I start in on something you feel strongly about, I may have forgotten that you feel strongly about it. Blame the sleep deprivation. (Although it's getting better) I wouldn't worry too much about it. The topics that I am sensative about are not ones that you tend to bring up, and when you do, you usually do so in a way that is not construed as an attack or challenge, but in the interest of genuine discussion. That, I can typically handle even when I am feeling as I am. I am feeling quite unwell though. Things have even gotten to the point that I am even consuming caffine at mid-day to maintain concentration. I have been limiting my caffine consumption for years now, consuming it only on rare occasion. It is a surprisingly potent drug when used sparingly, but I would rather not use it at all. Prolonged use of caffine (use spanning 4-5 days) typically makes me feel short of breath (which is quite unpleasant) and affects my metabolism for the worse. My moods seem to be forming a pattern though, last year at this time, I was feeling badly as well (though, greatfully, this year hasn't been nearly as bad as last year). Hopefully, it will clear up faster than last year, which spanned right through to the end of February. Part of it is related to holidays. I feel badly around Christmas because I am unemployed and unable to buy other people gifts. I feel bad in January around my birthday because I'm reminded that another year has gone by and things haven't gotten any better. And I am depressed around Valentine's day because I am reminded that I am alone, have been alone all my life, and am likely to be alone the rest of my life if the trend continues. In short, Holidays and Birthdays suck for someone stuck in a rut. Hopefully one of my job leads will pan out before my birthday rolls around so that I will at least feel better about that. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Outlandish but exceedingly fun.
From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] As with most questions, I imagine the reader is supposed to interpret it so that it makes sense. Here's the original: For example, the other day a friend of mine asked me an interesting question. He wanted to know what type of species I would use, if I could magically have one million individuals of that species, as a ground force army. The one stipulation being that my army would have to employ military hardware of today's technology. So you can't use vampires, or episarchs, or Kryptonians, because allowing them makes the question degenerate. Or put it this way--anything can come, but they have to leave their powers with the physics of their home universes. I don't think that is neccessary, each of the species you suggested as being super-powered has a weekness to them. Vampires are burned by UV light and sunlight, and are vulnerable to garlic, silver, holy icons, etc. Episiarchs (which I thought of suggesting, but changed my mind) are unpredictable and are dangerous to allies without the technology to distract them when you don't want them reaping havoc on the laws of physics (as was mentioned in _Startide Rising_). Kryponians are vulnerable to certain forms of radiation that humans are not vulnerable to. Additionally, Kryponians are only powerful because of the yellow sun of earth if the battle is on a planet other than earth, kryptonians may only be as good as humans, or possibly even worse. I'm with Damon, it doesn't say anything about the SIZE of the million individuals, at least as long as they can move around on a planet. So bigger is better! Feeding them should not be an issue; one assumes that an army comes with supplies. It could well degenerate into a contest to name bigger species... but I do like the human consciousness in dinosaur bodies things mentioned in Banks's _Feersum Endjinn_, and even in _Kiln People_ there were dittoes of similar sizes. Not necessarily, bigger may just make them bigger targets and would limit the technology that they could use in a battle. They would not be able to use planes (bombers, fighters, etc.), they would be difficult to transport, etc., so they would be at a serious tactical disadvantage. Me, I think I would go for an army of Scarans (from Farscape). Sure, I'd need to keep nurseries of Birds of Paradise flowers, but that's well within today's technology. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: [ADMIN] Another dang interruption
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jon Gabriel wrote: I don't remember the volumn on the list ever being quite this low. Is it related to the server problems or is everyone gone or busy? Well, the last interruption was only 30 minutes long, I later realized. I sure hope that the problem isn't that people *can't* post because of the blackhole servers we added. They have drastically cut the amount spam we're getting here... which also means less work for Julia and me (mostly Julia) rejecting the spam that is submitted to the list. Perhaps we should invite everyone to post at least once in the next few days... And if your message is rejected by our server, write to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] to say so. Ok. Perhaps it's just the upcoming U.S. holiday. I think that is the case. IIRC, list participation usually drops on and around holidays. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: author review
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/24/dumbing_down_american_readers/ or http://makeashorterlink.com/?D2A513796 Since the article is free, I'm not posting it. The op-ed writer takes the literary world to task for awarding bad but popular authors like Stephen King. While I can understand his point, what is the list opinion: is it better that more people read even if it's not highbrow works? Isn't this the same argument used against comic books or rock n roll? Kevin T. - VRWC I would say it's about evolution. The shifting of literature towards popular culture. In my opinion, anything that will encourage kids to read is a good thing, but I wonder if this trend will actually contribule to a common mindset. Many Steve King novels and Harry Potter books are turned into movies. Kids might, like most adults, succumb to the mindset Why read the book when I can just watch the movie. From the movie standpoint though, I am glad that the Harry Potter books are being made into movies. By converting books into movies, Hollywood is starting to take more chances and stepping away from the standard movie formula. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets is 161 minutes (2 hours and 41 minutes) long. Before that movie, it was thought nearly impossible to hold a child's attention for a movie that long. Rarely does a movie for children have a story so developed, and never, within my experience, has a movie for children been so long. Hollywood needs to step out of the standard formula more often so that people that watch the movies might actually have their horizons broadened rather than pumped with the same mindless drivel over and over again. I will have to argue with the author of that article about Steven King's writing. Admitted, I have only read one of Steven King's books (_Regulators_ under the pen name Richard Bachman, which I liked until the last two chapters, which I hated), but if some of the movies based on some of his books are any indication (Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption, and The Green Mile) his work isn't all bad. I wish I had the time to read those books, but I have other books to read and I have already seen the movies :-) . Do a few diamonds in the rough entitle Steven King to such an award? I really don't know, I would have to read more Steven King books to make such a judgement. Honestly though, any author that can sell books as well as he can, despite harsh crticism from so many people, deserves some kind of award :-) . Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fanatics (was: christian dreams of murder...)
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 01:31 PM 11/14/2003 -0800 Deborah Harrell wrote: --- The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://www.pandagon.net/archives/1992.htm Murder, Murder WASHINGTON-January 6, 2004. A paramilitary organization calling itself the Christian Liberation Front changed the balance of power in Washington by a pair of brutal attacks this afternoon. snip sigh Please title such articles more accurately. The vast majority of Christians - I'd guess nearly 100% of mainstreamers - would not support, condone or 'secretly applaud' such an act; in fact they'd consider it their civic duty to report knowledge of such action to the authorities. Of course, does anyone actually expect him to do this? When people who *agree* with many of his positions are criticizing him, then he should at least consider it. I've tried to explain that what he does (distortions, inacurate characterizations, over-generalizations, over-playing facts, etc.) harms his stance more than it helps it, but he fails to listen to that. Apparantly he doesn't realize that presenting an intelligent person with good facts that are not decorated with exagerations and inflaming material is far more likely to convince the person than presenting exagerations and inflaming material. Posting exagerations and inflaming materials only convinces the intelligent reader that the facts enclosed are probably poor and should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Either he doesn't believe the advice given to him by myself and many others, or he doesn't think that the people on the list are intelligent. Either assumption, IMO, is fatal to the positions he is arguing. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
