arachne-digest Friday, January 24 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2033
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 01:34:40 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Kor Ron, Please be more specific. Exactly where did this occur and when. Filing a complaint with the police department does not depend on whether you are a citizen, visitor or what religion you are. There are a number of legislators in the U. S. Congress who would be very interested in this assault on you. Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: . > [Sam Heywood wrote:] . > > If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local . > > police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her . > > with assault. . > I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and . > b) I was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 04:15:54 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:40:27 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: >> If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local >> police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her >> with assault. > I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and b) I > was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. Anyone in this country has the right to swear out a warrant for the arrest of anybody else in this country, regardless of the nationality, race, and/or the religion of the complainant. >> If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have >> been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie >> and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can >> get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement >> authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which >> they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the >> suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. >> As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to >> get away with it the incidents will continue. > It wasn't the victim wanting to let her get away with it, but the > authorities. In that case you could have filed a federal complaint charging the local authorities with violation of your civil rights. You could have contacted some anti-racist organizations such as the Jewish Defense League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. They would have provided you with with lawyers for free. You could have sued the town for a lot of money. The organizations I mentioned are very strongly against allowing the authorities to get away with this kind of thing. They have very strong and positive ties to the press and to the TV news networks. They can bring down very negative national media attention against any town which allows this kind of thing to happen. The investigative reporters could have set up some scenes involving people playing the role of foreign Jews and they could have interviewed the local authorities in such a way as to portray them very negatively. You could have fought back and won big if you knew how to go about doing it. You would not have even needed any money to press your case. >> Unfortunately racism is >> still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, >> especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in >> areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order >> groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold >> racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. >> > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and >> > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around >> > anywhere. >> The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and >> warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and >> they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he >> is a known madman. > Do you have proof that he is? If not, than this is merely your opinion. > Sure, he is at the very bottom of my list of favourite people. But so far, > we have no tangible proof that he is either a madman, or has certain weapons > stashed away. While he may well have them, I feel he is clever enough NOT to > use them. He will use them. He has in the past used chemical weapons even against his own people and with devastating results. This fact is not disputed. >> I don't think we need to worry so much about the >> other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq >> we have quite a problem with that. > Well, I feel like most people in the western world (including the US). The > regime is only evil because some right-wing madmen say it is. See above. >> > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just >> > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to >> > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have > no >> > means of getting them all the way to America. >> Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might >> try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical >> and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried >> by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are >> bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully >> conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also >> at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents >> also. > Maybe. But why would Iraq, or any other nation, want to do that? What would > be the reason for them to do it? Because they want to kill Americans. Why did the terrorists hijack some commercial airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center? It is because they wanted to kill Americans. >> > For that reason alone it would >> > be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to >> > "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war > in >> > the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is > that, >> > apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I > don't >> > want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... >> > Have a good day, Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 03:36:38 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Worst possible light (was: international law) On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 16:33:38 -0500, Sam Ewalt wrote: > (material deleted) > You seem disposed to view the actions of the United States in the > worst possible light. I think this is unfair and unrealistic. Yes, some of us tend to view the US in a worse light. This is unfair for the US has many virtues too. This is not unrealistic but provoked by the ongoing war propaganda and very arogant speech from the US administration. > The United States is reasonably and appropriately concerned about > the safety and security of it's citizens. To suggest that this > concern is somehow immoral or wrong is irresponsible and absurd. Any administration has the duty to care for safety, security and welfare of it's citizens... no question about that. "Always care for number one" But jeopardizing American lives, the American economy, much more lives in the Middle East and the world economy is absurd. Linking Sadam to Bin Laden without proof is absurd. Stating that Sadam is a thread to the US is absurd... even if he should posess weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors are in Iraq to deal with that... they are there to find the weapons and to DESTRUCT them, as they did before. But even if some weapons in Iraq are not found... would those remaining weapons be a thread to the US? Could they be launched undetected and reach the US? NO ! Sadam does not even have the means to launche them to the US. Regards, Bastiaan > Sam Ewalt > Croswell, Michigan, USA > -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 02:44:54 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ASSUME Hi Bob... your story about you and the professor sound familiar to me ;-( Bastiaan On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:51:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote: > <RM> >> > If somebody manages to collect enough true evidence >> > that the world was indeed created in 6 days, than he will >> > get the nobel prize and his theory will be taught in school. >> > But until than he should not speak nonsense. > <SH> >> What is nonsense to you and me is truth for many others. >> You have to be exposed to a lot of ignorance in order to >> recognize that it is perceived by many as changeless truth. > Hi all, > Might I raise a point of protest to the methodology of making *logical > assumptions*? > Ricsi makes a valid point that people who lack *true evidence* should not > speak nonsense. However, I'm still waiting for the factual evidence to be > presented. > Sam and Ricsi have carried out an ongoing dialog about many subjects, the > central essence perhaps being the various perspectives held by Americans > and Europeans. I have, BTW, enjoyed the exchange. I hope others are not > annoyed by the running commentary. > Unfortunately, Ron, Steve, and myself (and others) have pointed out > several factual inconsistencies in some of the *true evidence* offered, > so much so that some issues lack any valid proofs. They are, to use > Steve's phrase, merely Urban Legends. > Urban legends become accepted *facts* because they remain unchallenged > and become part of an accepted body of knowledge. Eventually, those who > dare to challenge the *facts* are labeled *ignorant* and their own > version of the truth is labeled *nonsense*. > However, to those who hold an opposing view, the appearance of > *intellectual superiority* among those of the majority opinion indicates > (to the minority) a degree of arrogance which states, in no uncertain > terms, that the majority have no real concern for the ideas or opinions > of the minority. Since the minority are stupid and not worthy of serious > consideration, they should just shut up and go away. > Wow. That is not the path to understanding and the reconciliation of > differences. And it is certainly NOT the scientific method! > And, so, I will challenge the assumptions. > During my undergraduate work, I once asked a PhD in Physical Anthropology > (these are the guys who try to date the origin and sequence of the > species) for the references of the research that outlined the repeatable > experiments which demonstrated the positive results of genetic mutation. > The professor taught and insisted that the *scientific method* required > documented experimentation that could be repeated with identical results. > So, when he taught that biological evolution required both adaptation > over time AND genetic mutation, I thought it proper to ask for the > research references that proved (through experimentation) the existence > of positive results from genetic mutations. I didn't mean to offend, but > our text books had only given examples of destructive mutations. > Unfortunately, the professor had no references. I made the mistake of > suggesting that he was not a very scientific scientist, which made for a > most uncomfortable semester. (The professor may not always be right, but > he's always the professor). As I recall, he too used words like > *nonsense* and *ignorance*. And, I'm sorry to say, he did so repeatedly > in public. > I still insist that he failed to PROVE his position using the scientific > method. And I still believe (if I'm allowed to use that word) that I was > right. We should have been given proof in the form of reputable data, not > the mere opinion of an individual (no matter how important his position). > (Arachne, BTW, would be an excellent tool for presenting scientific > evidence linked to reference material). > It should be obvious that, since I still remember the incident, it was > (to me) a perceived injustice that has not been quickly forgotten. > I suggest that there is a principle hidden in this story that has value > for the world today. > In the quoted dialog above, the authors make some *logical assumptions* > that their view is held in common with all others. Specifically, those > who reject evolution are ignorant individuals who speak nonsense. > I am not offended by Sam and Ricsi's assumptions. Their view is, after > all, widely held. I actually enjoy observing the ongoing dialog and, > especially, who interjects various comments on various subjects. > However, I submit to all the list membership that there would be more > peace and less violence in the world if we collectively tried our best to > understand *the other* and actively worked to observe their right to be > an individual. And that would require us first to challenge our own > assumptions and opinions, and allow others to be different. > Therefore, I offer the phrase "in my opinion" as a suggested option in > potentially disagreeable situations. > As a closing word ... > A friend of mine once said, "To assume is to make an ASS of U-M-E (you > and me)". > I must admit that I can only *assume* he was correct, as he offered no > scientific evidence. But, if it's just an urban legend, it sure sounds > good. <grin> > Bob > - > ________________________________________________________________ > Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today > Only $9.95 per month! > Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:34:05 -0500 From: "david gunnells" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: A Threat to Peace - U.S. Terrorist Infrastructure Map Giving the flavour of recent noise in this list, I thought some may be interested in this: http://nyc.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=43796&group=webcast I'm sure there may be a few mistakes on it, but it is nevertheless thought-provoking. I should include the following information: "'A Threat to Peace' was produced by the staff of The Indypendent, the monthly newspaper of the New York City Independent Media Center. For more information, visit www.indypendent.org. cheers, david ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:36:16 +0000 (UTC) From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Life looks good for Linux (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 09:21:00 GMT Newsgroups: news.bbc.news.technology Subject: Life looks good for Linux Site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/technology/2680955.stm Archive: n/a Comments: n/a Enclosure: n/a ( n/a ) The open source operating system is quietly going from strength to strength, with many firms and governments adopting Linux. - -- Genecast recommends an HTML enabled NNTP client. See http://www.genecast.com for more information. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 14:56:39 -0500 From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mailing list question Dear folks on the Arachne and Nettamer Mailing Lists: I have noted with much interest that the Arachne Mailing List does not have a certain particular quirky problem which the Nettamer Mailing List does have. The problem with the Nettamer Mailing List is that it does not allow one to post messages to the list from a remote server by one modifying his "From:" header so as to indicate that the message is being sent from the address from which one is subscribed. When I am running PINE on my remote server account I can post messages to the Arachne Mailing List if I modify my "From:" header so as to indicate that the message was sent by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The message gets posted to the Arachne Mailing List with no problem. Those of you who are subscribers to the Arachne Mailing List may take a look at the full headers on my most recent post to the Arachne Mailing List. You guys will see what I mean. The Nettamer Mailing List has a problem in this regard. The MAILER DAEMON for the Nettamer Mailing List always bounces the messages back to me at my remote server email address with a note saying that in order to post messages to the Nettamer Mailing List list I must be a subscriber. The Nettamer Mailing List does not recognize me as a subscriber when I appropriately modifify my "From:" header in the same manner as for posting to the Arachne Mailing List. I do not have a problem posting to the Nettamer List as long as I do it directly from my real ISP and I use my real "From:". Setting up a mailing list so as not to accept messages from those who have modified their "From:" so as to reflect the email address of a legitimate subscriber is a good feature or a bad feature? The advantage of such a feature is that it discourages spamming and immitative deception and other obnoxious behaviors. The disadvantage is that the feature disallows perfectly legitimate posters from posting to the list from their Unix shell accounts simply by modifying their "From:". A legitimate subscriber may solve this problem by subscribing to the mailing list from his remote server email address too. The problem with resorting to this solution is that he would be advertising also the email address of his remote server account to the spammers who harvest email addresses from the mailing lists. I wonder what might be the majority opinion as to whether a mailing list ought to have a feature for disallowing one to post to a mailing list by modifying his "From:" header so as to indicate the email address of a legitimate subscriber. There are several pros and cons to consider. All the best, Sam Heywood - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 21:58:34 +0100 (CET) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) Subject: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) Hi bobdohse! 17 Jan 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sorry all ... I have 100 msgs in ml.arachne, and no time to dig through. (exam season ...) anyways: PS: I'm myself half hungarian, and the Hungary vs. Romania "battle" is simply not true (any more:). But you are right about the Gypsies. And _NATURALLY_ Europe is not perfect (who is ?) Europe has many, many problems. America has also problems. But a subset of these problems lies in different areas. For example burocracy is very big here, whereas much smaller and faster in the US. The amount of money you have to pay for taxes is much higher than in the US, etc. b> So, does that mean that it's OKAY for all of us to keep our separate b> ways? SURE ! As long as it doesn't hurt others. It's the old freedom debate: Does freedom mean that I am free to hurt others ? :)) b> Or must everybody change so that all become alike, yet each b> keeps their individual name so that *diversity* remains? NOOOOOO Where did I state something like that. b> Because, what I'm hearing is that you don't like some of the American b> ways. Right. But this doesn't have to do with the discussions. America has its values, and I have mine. This is absolutely OK and good. As long as nobody wants to force the way onto others with force, everything is perfect. b> And, my understanding is that you think America should change. no. My understanding is that america can do what it wants on its terretory. But it is not OK if America _starts_ a war without being attacked. It is not OK if america invades a country, without any legal mandate by the UN. This means there is no legal protection for anybody outside of the US. Basically "America can do what it wants, and nobody can stop it. The only thing which matters is what Americans think will help them, and they can do anything in the world to achieve their goals." PS: Schr�der and jaques chiraques (?spelling) said: UN Insepctors should investigate. If evidence is found, than Iraq has to fully cooperate in the destruction b> What I have failed to grasp is any reasoning that would suggest why it b> is logical to argue that America should change to a European b> perspective, yet illogical to argue that it is Europe who, in fact, b> needs to change its perspective. Nobody should change. Americans can do what they want, as long as they stay on their terretory. MY problem is if america itself decides what is good and bad for others, and forces this way on somebody. b> Maybe that's because I've never been indoctrinated with that b> particular version of basic knowledge. ??? (I'm very diasspointed about that comment) Anyways ... maybe this comes from the mixing of 2 issues. American bullying ... threatening to start an illegal war by its own. (this is bad ... maybe it is MY being indoctrinated ... but maybe it is you watching too much fox news) MY PERSONAL feeling about some American issues. The second is simply how I see things. It doesn't mean that america should change. And I'm sure that there are many european issues as well. But anyways the 2. part is unimportant. Here I simply wanted to express some of my private thoughts. But the first part is of HIGH IMPORTANCE: again ... what if america would acuse austria of having many skiers. america would have 100.000s of soldiers at the borders of austria. it would say Sch�ssel ("president" of austria) I want to see you dead. every 2. word concerning Austria would be war. The UNs would have highly skilled skier detection personel in austria in order to detect possibly skiers. And america says I don't care about the UN, I will attack another counrty, because I want to. No evidence is given, no proof of any illegal Action in austria is given. Is it OK if America starts a war against austria ?? b> Bob CU, Ricsi - -- |~)o _ _o Richard Menedetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> {ICQ: 7659421} (PGP) |~\|(__\| -=> He who laughs last doesn't understand the joke <=- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:43:50 +1000 From: "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Kor > Ron, > > Please be more specific. Exactly where did this occur and when. Filing a > complaint with the police department does not depend on whether you are a > citizen, visitor or what religion you are. There are a number of legislators > in the U. S. Congress who would be very interested in this assault on you. > > Roger Turk > Tucson, Arizona I doubt it. It happened around the time of Martin Luther King. > > Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: > > . > [Sam Heywood wrote:] > > . > > If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local > . > > police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her > . > > with assault. > > . > I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and > . > b) I was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:39:54 -0500 From: Howard Eisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Mailing list question On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 02:56:39PM -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > The problem with the Nettamer Mailing List is that it does not allow one > to post messages to the list from a remote server by one modifying his > "From:" header so as to indicate that the message is being sent from the > address from which one is subscribed. I'm not sure if it's the same deal, but The "Liferaft" list at tmonroe.com (ezmlm) also behaves like this. Your subscription is based on your envelope From_ not your From:. > When I am running PINE on my remote server account I can post messages > to the Arachne Mailing List if I modify my "From:" header so as to > indicate that the message was sent by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". > The Nettamer Mailing List does not recognize me as a subscriber when I > appropriately modifify my "From:" header in the same manner as for > posting to the Arachne Mailing List. I do not have a problem posting to > the Nettamer List as long as I do it directly from my real ISP and I use > my real "From:". When you send a message from your PC with DOS, the envelope From_ and From: are probably the same. When you send a message from PINE on your shell account, the system writes the envelope From_. The only way I know how to change that is to do something like: $sendmail -t -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] < message.txt (I'm not sure about all the switches). > A legitimate subscriber may solve this problem by subscribing > to the mailing list from his remote server email address too. On the Liferaft list you can "allow subscribe" (or something like that) another address which allows you to post with it without also receiving the list at that address. > The > problem with resorting to this solution is that he would be advertising > also the email address of his remote server account to the spammers who > harvest email addresses from the mailing lists. I don't know about the Nettamer list, but with other lists I see the envelope From_ of the list, not the poster. With the Liferaft list I can put any address I want in the From:. > I wonder what might be the majority opinion as to whether a mailing list > ought to have a feature for disallowing one to post to a mailing list by > modifying his "From:" header so as to indicate the email address of a > legitimate subscriber. I think the first order of business is to learn how to use both types of list. Howard E. P.S. I have given Clarence my email address, so I may not be on this list much longer. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:48:33 +1000 From: "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Arachne List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 7:15 PM Subject: Re: In Response to - (Re: Iraq vs. N Korea) > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 15:40:27 +1000, Ronald Bleckendorf wrote: > > >> If this woman spat in your face you should have gone down to the local > >> police station and sworn out a warrant for her arrest and charging her > >> with assault. > > > I tried, but was denied that privilege because a) I wasn't American and b) I > > was a German, who had the audacity to be Jewish as well. > > Anyone in this country has the right to swear out a warrant for the > arrest of anybody else in this country, regardless of the nationality, > race, and/or the religion of the complainant. > > >> If there were any witnesses to the incident she would have > >> been convicted if the witnessses tell the truth. If the witnesses lie > >> and say she didn't do it, then she might get away with it. The law can > >> get her if she dares do the same thing again. The law enforcement > >> authorities can set her up by orchestrating a similar incident in which > >> they would have a man playing the part of the foreign Jew and where the > >> suspected woman would be secretly under surveillance by the authorities. > >> As long as the victims of this kind of behavior allow the perpetrators to > >> get away with it the incidents will continue. > > > It wasn't the victim wanting to let her get away with it, but the > > authorities. > > In that case you could have filed a federal complaint charging the > local authorities with violation of your civil rights. You could have > contacted some anti-racist organizations such as the Jewish Defense > League or the Southern Poverty Law Center I suppose I could have done a lot of things. But don't forget, I was a tourist and did not grow up in the US. I didn't even speak much English. I didn't know of any anti-racist organizations, or that there was a possibility to to file a federal complaint. I didn't even know the word for "attorney". > >> Unfortunately racism is > >> still a force to be reckoned with in a few small areas of the USA, > >> especially in areas where there is a lot of Ku Klux Klan activity and in > >> areas that are being stirred up by Aryan Nations and New World Order > >> groups and other racist organizations. It is legal in the USA to hold > >> racist opinions. It is illegal to assault and to threaten people. > > >> > What I would like to see are UN weapons inspectors to go into the US and > >> > make sure THEY don't have any "weapons of mass destruction" lying around > >> > anywhere. > > >> The US does have weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear bombs and > >> warheads. The US admits to it. Several other countries have nukes and > >> they admit to it. If Saddam has nukes he should be disarmed because he > >> is a known madman. > > > Do you have proof that he is? If not, than this is merely your opinion. > > Sure, he is at the very bottom of my list of favourite people. But so far, > > we have no tangible proof that he is either a madman, or has certain weapons > > stashed away. While he may well have them, I feel he is clever enough NOT to > > use them. > > He will use them. He has in the past used chemical weapons even against > his own people and with devastating results. This fact is not disputed. > > >> I don't think we need to worry so much about the > >> other nations that have them, but for evil regimes like the one in Iraq > >> we have quite a problem with that. > > > Well, I feel like most people in the western world (including the US). The > > regime is only evil because some right-wing madmen say it is. > > See above. > > >> > Then, if they find any, maybe the rest of the world should just > >> > attack America for having them. Iraq at the present time is NO threat to > >> > America in any way. Even if they have the necessary warheads, they have > > no > >> > means of getting them all the way to America. > > >> Yes they do. A nuke may be packed into a briefcase and somebody might > >> try to smuggle it onto our shores or across our borders. Also chemical > >> and biological weapons could be dispersed by aerosol spray cans carried > >> by terrorists. Consider all the tons of cocaine that criminals are > >> bringing into the country. Since the criminals can so successfully > >> conspire to import so much cocaine then they probably could succeed also > >> at importing nukes and large quantities of biological and chemical agents > >> also. > > > Maybe. But why would Iraq, or any other nation, want to do that? What would > > be the reason for them to do it? > > Because they want to kill Americans. Why did the terrorists hijack > some commercial airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers of the World > Trade Center? It is because they wanted to kill Americans. > > >> > For that reason alone it would > >> > be ludicrous to attack Iraq. Bush's statement that it has to be done to > >> > "restore peace in the region" is just as ludicrous, as there is no war > > in > >> > the region, and no peace needs to be restored. What is encouraging is > > that, > >> > apparently the majority of Americans are against this war. Anyway, I > > don't > >> > want to go on and bore everyone with my opinions... > > >> > Have a good day, > > Sam Heywood > -- > This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: > http://browser.arachne.cz/ > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 10:52:29 +0000 From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: ASSUME Hi Folks, On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 15:51:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Might I raise a point of protest to the methodology of making *logical > assumptions*? > Ricsi makes a valid point that people who lack *true evidence* should not > speak nonsense. However, I'm still waiting for the factual evidence to be > presented. That goes both ways in any argument. :) > Unfortunately, Ron, Steve, and myself (and others) have pointed out > several factual inconsistencies in some of the *true evidence* offered, > so much so that some issues lack any valid proofs. They are, to use > Steve's phrase, merely Urban Legends. My contribution was only in relation to embryonic development being mistakenly used to support evolution. As it happens, I have a very firm personal position on evolution, but I am not looking for bad arguments to support it. Just as those on the other side really shouldn't claim that Darwin said things he never said, just so they can discredit his work. But I take no pleasure out of baiting "Creationists" - they never seem to see the funny side of having their legs pulled. > And, so, I will challenge the assumptions. > During my undergraduate work, I once asked a PhD in Physical Anthropology > (these are the guys who try to date the origin and sequence of the > species) for the references of the research that outlined the repeatable > experiments which demonstrated the positive results of genetic mutation. > > The professor taught and insisted that the *scientific method* required > documented experimentation that could be repeated with identical results. > So, when he taught that biological evolution required both adaptation > over time AND genetic mutation, I thought it proper to ask for the > research references that proved (through experimentation) the existence > of positive results from genetic mutations. I didn't mean to offend, but > our text books had only given examples of destructive mutations. > > Unfortunately, the professor had no references. I made the mistake of > suggesting that he was not a very scientific scientist, which made for a > most uncomfortable semester. (The professor may not always be right, but > he's always the professor). As I recall, he too used words like > *nonsense* and *ignorance*. And, I'm sorry to say, he did so repeatedly > in public. Being a professor doesn't necessarily mean he was a clear thinker. :) > I still insist that he failed to PROVE his position using the scientific > method. And I still believe (if I'm allowed to use that word) that I was > right. We should have been given proof in the form of reputable data, not > the mere opinion of an individual (no matter how important his position). On the other hand, what replicatable experimental data have you found for the opposing position ? > I am not offended by Sam and Ricsi's assumptions. Their view is, after > all, widely held. I actually enjoy observing the ongoing dialog and, > especially, who interjects various comments on various subjects. I make no assumptions, as such. But I do lean towards observed data that tends to support what makes sense to me. And I favour evolution, in its supportable forms, over other explanations that seem (to me) to be based on "faith". And because "Creationism" is a matter of "faith", there is really no point in trying to change the other person's mind. I have learned that the hard way. Regards, Ron (who is not descended from monkeys, but who shares a common ancestor with monkeys, dogs, horses, whales, and Bob) Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2033 ******************************
