fun with math
1. Grab a calculator. (you won't be able to do this one in your head) 2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code) 3. Multiply by 80 4. Add 1 5. Multiply by 250 6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number 7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again. 8. Subtract 250 9. Divide number by 2 Do you recognize the answer? Kevin T. - VRWC Slave to the grind ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Tyranny
David Hobby wrote: They are. One of the justifications for the brazilian coup d'etat in 1964 was that the then President had been the Vice President for two periods, and since reelection of the President was not allowed, he didn't have a legitimate claim to Presidency. Also, when he fled the armed forces, the Senate declared that the Presidency was vacant, because he was not there (!). You say when he fled the armed forces? Armed forces are not particularly subtle. Yes, but there was no _battle_. The armed forces could be just parading. There was no killing during the coup d'etat of 1964 [as there was no killing in the coup d'etat of 1889 that deposed the Monarchy - just one man was shot, but he was saved in time by a young caded and survived] Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
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 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Britain
Selective quoting of William's post below. William T Goodall wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/wtwtgod/3518375.stm A survey of people's religious beliefs in 10 countries suggests the UK is among the most secular nations in the world. Ten thousand people were questioned in the poll by research company ICM for the BBC programme What The World Thinks Of God. More than a quarter of Britons thought the world would be more peaceful with nobody believing in God, but very few people in other countries agreed. Those willing to die for their God, or their beliefs, included more than 90% in Indonesia and Nigeria, and 71% in Lebanon and the US. Among Israelis only 37% were willing to take this ultimate step, and only 19% of Britons, 29% of whom said the world would be more peaceful without beliefs in God. Very few people in other countries agreed with this. Israel and the UK showed a similar temperament when asked another question. On who was to blame for much of the trouble in the world, 37% of Britons and 33% of Israelis said it was people of other religions snip In Nigeria, Indonesia and Lebanon more than 90% of people said their God was the only true God. In Israel the figure was 70%, but it fell to 31% among Britons. In most countries well over 80% of the sample agreed that a belief in God or a higher power made people better human beings, with only 56% agreeing in the UK, by far the lowest figure. How many of the UK responses were from Northern Ireland? And how much has the Irish situation influenced the views of those in the UK? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Great Britain
On 27 Feb 2004, at 2:35 pm, Julia Thompson wrote: How many of the UK responses were from Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland makes up 2.9% of the UK population. I presume the pollsters followed accepted methodologies to include their views. And how much has the Irish situation influenced the views of those in the UK? I have no idea, though I suppose it must have had some influence :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Earth almost put on impact alert
I think it's a tad irresponsible, that there isn't a more concerted effort to thwart the possible extinction of our species don't you? Sure, every now and then they give us a decent documentary with someone like John de Lancie as the narrator, to give it a feeling of awe and mystery. But in the grand scheme of things, nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should. -Travis would rather die of old age than of an asteroid/meteorite impact Edmunds _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/040225/tech_summit_indecency_1.html Reuters Reuters Summit-FCC's Martin ponders indecency on pay TV, radio Wednesday February 25, 6:31 pm ET By Jeremy Pelofsky NEW YORK, Feb 25 (Reuters) - U.S. regulators should consider whether radio and television services carried by cable and satellite must adhere to indecency standards, Federal Communications Commissioner Kevin Martin said on Wednesday. Pressure has been building in recent months to address the growing coarseness on television and radio, with some lawmakers and regulators pondering whether the limits on over-the-air broadcasts can be applied to cable and satellite services. Speaking to the Reuters Technology, Media and Telecommunications Summit, Martin noted that shock jocks Opie and Anthony, fired after a stunt involving sex in famous places, were now on satellite radio. I think you are hearing from the radio side the complaint that 'We'll live by whatever rules, but we think the rules have to be fair to everyone who is in this medium,' and you're hearing from the broadcast television side as well, he said. I think that's a legitimate issue, which is why I think we need to try to take a look on a wider survey, Martin said. Satellite radio and television providers are licensed by the FCC, which could potentially hold them accountable, he said. But he conceded that companies like Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (NasdaqNM:SIRI - News) could argue that since consumers pay for their products, they would not have to comply. FCC officials have said court decisions have given cable and satellite companies free-speech protections much like newspapers. Congress so far has only authorized the FCC to go after the over-the-air broadcasters, since they hold licenses to use the public airwaves, but lawmakers have questioned whether the agency should also be looking at channels higher on the dial. The FCC has been clamping down on indecency incidents on television and radio in recent months, and the issues leapt onto the front burner after singer Janet Jackson exposed her bare breast during the NFL Super Bowl earlier this month, prompting promises of stiffer fines and demands for reform. Martin renewed his call for the FCC to affirm local television stations' right to offer alternative programming if they object to a show and for cable companies to allow customers to block channels they find offensive and not have to pay for them. Cable companies need some way to empower parents and families to have more choice, Martin said. I think that it has the potential to be a problem when they are receiving things they object to and have to pay for that. His comments come a day before six network television and radio executives are due to go before a congressional subcommittee for another grilling on indecency. Lawmakers are contemplating legislation that would increase fines for indecency incidents sharply. Earlier on Wednesday Clear Channel Communications Inc. (NYSE:CCU - News), the largest owner of U.S. radio stations, said it would enforce a new zero-tolerance policy against disc jockeys who commit indecency violations, one day after firing a popular on-air personality. In that case, the FCC has proposed fining Clear Channel $755,000 for a broadcast of Bubba the Love Sponge that contained purported cartoon characters describing explicit sexual activities at a time when children were likely to be listening. Clear Channel also said it would also conduct in-house training for employees and mete out automatic suspensions to anyone the FCC alleges has violated indecency rules. ___ 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: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Define Fascist. Do you believe, then, that the Freedom of SPeech clause should protect the right of broadcasters to drop F-bombs or other inappropriate material over the air on channels when sensitive viewers (i.e. children)are watching? Damon. __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 18:05:47 -0600 Is Erik leaving the group? Will other people complain? Will the penguins and the antelope join with the elephants and the aardvarks in opposition to the gay marriage amendment? The answers to these questions and more, on tomorrows episode of The Edge Of Dawn. xponent All Your Soap Are Ours Maru rob lol That was hilarious!!! -Travis just had to say it Edmunds _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Define Fascist. Do you believe, then, that the Freedom of SPeech clause should protect the right of broadcasters to drop F-bombs or other inappropriate material over the air on channels when sensitive viewers (i.e. children)are watching? Yes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Define Fascist. You still did not define the above. Yes. Well that's just asinine and immature. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Define Fascist. You still did not define the above. Yes. Well that's just asinine and immature. Whatever. When they came for my freedom from arbitrary search and seizure I said nothing because I was not a drug dealer. When they came for the right of habeus corpus I said nothing because I was not a muslim. When they came for the right to silence I said nothing because I was not a criminal suspect. Now they've come for my freedom of speech and I can't say anything. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Whatever. Then make a well structured, reasonable post, without using it as an ipportunity to launch attacks against whomever you have an agenda against, and explain your position in a form that does not involve posting random articles that seem to support your agenda. When they came for my freedom from arbitrary search and seizure I said nothing because I was not a drug dealer. When they came for the right of habeus corpus I said nothing because I was not a muslim. When they came for the right to silence I said nothing because I was not a criminal suspect. Now they've come for my freedom of speech and I can't say anything. Wonderful. I've heard this before. Care to add NEW content? Further, this is only legitimate if you believe that there is a conspiracy involved. Prove there is a conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt, and support it with verifiable evidence. In short, CONSRUCT AN ARGUMENT. Damon. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whatever. Then make a well structured, reasonable post, without using it as an ipportunity to launch attacks against whomever you have an agenda against, and explain your position in a form that does not involve posting random articles that seem to support your agenda. I've explained these things before. I'm not going to do so again, just because _you_ weren't reading. When they came for my freedom from arbitrary search and seizure I said nothing because I was not a drug dealer. When they came for the right of habeus corpus I said nothing because I was not a muslim. When they came for the right to silence I said nothing because I was not a criminal suspect. Now they've come for my freedom of speech and I can't say anything. Wonderful. I've heard this before. Care to add NEW content? Further, this is only legitimate if you believe that there is a conspiracy involved. Prove there is a conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt, and support it with verifiable evidence. In short, CONSRUCT AN ARGUMENT. All of these right have been attacked by this administration, and I've posted multiple articles about the administrations attacks against every one of these rights. I'm not going to do it again, right here and now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
I've explained these things before. I'm not going to do so again, just because _you_ weren't reading. I have been reading. You have not been constructing arguments. All of these right have been attacked by this administration, and I've posted multiple articles about the administrations attacks against every one of these rights. I'm not going to do it again, right here and now. You still have not been constructing arguments. Posting articles is not constructing arguments. You still have not defined fascism. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:01:20 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:14:15 -0600 Highway Star and Communication Breakdown (Led Zep) are probably the two most important songs in the history of Metal. There must BE a Communication Breakdown here!! Do you honestly mean that? AbsofreekinlutelyYou have no idea how influential that one song was at the time. It spawned tonnes of music that were basicly attempts to capture the same energy and sound. It was one of those wierd phenamena where every garage band could sorta play the song, but very few could really capture the feel of the song itself I fail to see the importance of that song. I really do. Yeah.thats a fair assumption for *you* to make really. The song has quite a bit of relavence historically and for those who lived through those times. But it is quite true that its relevance is mostly diminished with time even though echoes of it can still be heard from time to time. If it's relevance has diminished over time, then it can't be that important. As opposed to the likes of Iron Man or Paranoid of course, which have not faded in any way. What about some other Kansas tunes like Glimpse Of Home, Loner, or The Pinnacle? Good songs, but for those of us who lived through those times they were MOS. Actually, this is where your POV is usefull because you can see the groups whole catalogue simultaneously whereas we older folks tend to view the same catalogue temporaly. Have you ever noticed this effect where people like a bands first few albums immensely and their later albums somewhat less so? Thats where we old folks are at a disadvantage at least as far as decades old music is concerned. I have noticed what you mention. I have a question however. Is change a static thing? Supertramp Blah. Ever try Crime Of The Century or Crisis What Crisis? Actually no. But blah. Rush Very solid band. Way back when I hated Rush and Zepplin with a purple passion. I was wrong. Rush is not an easy band to get into. But when you do, the music speaks for itself. Aerosmith One of the greatest Rock bandsever. Tyler is an amazing vocalist. Joe Perry is one of the best at inventing guitar hooks. Really oustanding at times. Ok, Perry himself admits that he's not a guitarists guitarist, but to brand him as one of the best at inventing guitar hooks...ah...no... Lynard Skynard I love Skynard. Also seen them in 97. The bass player nearly spit on me! I hate Skynard, always have. Good band though. Too country? Horslips Heard of, I think, but never heard. You like Tull? I had a mind to look them up but I never. Seriously, I love Tull, but have never heard Horslips. Care to tell me a little? I could go on like this forever you know! G xponent More Yes Coming Soon Maru rob Me too. How about: -Nazareth -Steppenwolf -April Wine -Triumph -New York Dolls -Headpins -Heart -Judas Priest -Wings -Hendrix -Joplin -Doors -Iggy + The stooges -Styx -J. Geils Band -Rod Stewart -Boston -Iron Butterfly -Scorpions -Dokken -Cheap Trick -Sly The Family Stone -Ramones -Sex Pistols -Van Halen -Travis off the top of my head Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Matthew and Julie Bos [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 21:59:20 -0500 My favorite stuff, the stuff I keep in my iPod, would be from the 80's. Light happy stuff like Metallica, Anthrax, Megadeth, Slayer You like Slayer!? Neat. How heavy are you willing to go, if you don't mind my asking? Do you listen to the likes of Sepultura, Soulfly, Pantera, White Zombie, Coal Chamber, or newer bands like Godsmack, Papa Roach, Korn, Static-X, Andrew W.K., Sevendust, Drowning Pool, Flaw? I have seen Metallica about 18 times. Every tour from Hell on Earth on. Woah!! Fan(ATIC) alert!!lol I will try to see them on this latest tour, I just hope they don't play too much new stuff. Not that its bad musically, it just doesn't seem to be all there. It's missing solo's!! And it infuriates me!! What hard rock/metal is missing is good ole kick 'n the ass guitar. Few bands are carrying the flame. And when Metallica tries to reinvent themselves or something, and omits SOLOS...well it's sickening. But at the same time I like St Anger more than most of their older stuff. So I'm a walking contradiction... My other favorites are the guitar gods of Stevie Ray Vaughn and Joe Satriani. Satriani is one of my fav guitarists. Though he is behind Vai, Malmsteen, Buckethead, and a few other select band guitarists such as Slash, Bratta, Van Halen, Petrucci and perhaps a few others. About that grunge thing in the 90's...most of the bands from the 70's were musically superior. It just seemed that lyrical anger was more important than musical ability. YMMV. Although it was nice because it was the only time my ugly flannels I wore in high school were in fashion. From Vinyl to iPod, Matthew Bos I don't like the word Grunge. It's not really accurate. -Travis left out Black Label Society Edmunds _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/viruspgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
Travis Edmunds wrote: But in the grand scheme of things, nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should. Such is life, sadly. Nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should reminds me of Nothing succeeds as planned from Heller's Good as Gold, but without the conviction. Not that I'm accusing Travis of a lack of conviction. I've never seen his record, so as far as I know, he was never convicted. ;-) -Travis would rather die of old age than of an asteroid/meteorite impact Edmunds Dave Would rather be instantaly vaporized in an asteroid/meteorite impact than to be on the fringes of the impact area and live another 20 years in pain and misery, a burden to friends and family Land David M. Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] 408-551-0427 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: fun with math
Kevin Tarr wrote: 1. Grab a calculator. (you won't be able to do this one in your head) 2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code) 3. Multiply by 80 4. Add 1 5. Multiply by 250 6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number 7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again. 8. Subtract 250 9. Divide number by 2 = ((80X + 1)(250) + Y + Y - 250)/2 = (2X + 250 + 2Y - 250)/2 = (2X + 2Y)/2 = 1X + Y Do you recognize the answer? Yeah. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
my asking? Do you listen to the likes of Sepultura, What a great band! I haven't heard/listened to them in a long time. Not sure what era I like more (pre or post Beneath the Remains...). Really liked Max Cavalera as a drummer, but I heard the fired him(?). Oh well... Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
JDG wrote: 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 think this is common in some animal groups: there are bands of same-sex animals and rogue individuals of the other sex, who [during the mating season] comes to have procreational sex. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
From: The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 11:25:04 -0600 From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Whatever. Then make a well structured, reasonable post, without using it as an ipportunity to launch attacks against whomever you have an agenda against, and explain your position in a form that does not involve posting random articles that seem to support your agenda. I've explained these things before. I'm not going to do so again, just because _you_ weren't reading. IIIRC, the last time you did so with regard to freedom of speech was a very, very long time ago. Since then, you mostly seem to post articles, urls and extremely one-sided diatribes. I don't think asking you to back up blind statements with a cogent argument and not flood the list with ghostposts is an unreasonable request. Erik, on the other hand, agrees with you... but he's shown on more than one occasion that he's very capable of putting together a solid position to support his arguments. Incidentally, I disagree with Erik about how far freedom of speech should be allowed, but I respect that he's willing to discuss it and listen to other people's points of view. When they came for my freedom from arbitrary search and seizure I said nothing because I was not a drug dealer. When they came for the right of habeus corpus I said nothing because I was not a muslim. When they came for the right to silence I said nothing because I was not a criminal suspect. Now they've come for my freedom of speech and I can't say anything. Wonderful. I've heard this before. Care to add NEW content? Further, this is only legitimate if you believe that there is a conspiracy involved. Prove there is a conspiracy beyond a shadow of a doubt, and support it with verifiable evidence. In short, CONSRUCT AN ARGUMENT. All of these right have been attacked by this administration, and I've posted multiple articles about the administrations attacks against every one of these rights. I'm not going to do it again, right here and now. The articles are not an argument in and of themselves. I may be wrong, but that sounds like what Damon is saying. Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
The articles are not an argument in and of themselves. I may be wrong, but that sounds like what Damon is saying. That's exactly what I'm saying. I'm also asking The Fool to back up the assertation that the US Government is somehow Fascist by asking him to define fascism. Otherise its just hyperbole. I also heavily disagree with his assertation that Freedom of Speech defends one's right to use crude language or show inappropriate material where it may be exposed to minors. I think hiding behind this element of the Constitution is disgusting and demeaning to the purpose of that article. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
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. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: Oh yes thank you for reminding me, I had almost forgotten all about you Erick. Come to mention it I also forot these words: bully, adipose, corpulent, fleshy, gross, heavy, obese, overblown, overweight, porcine, portly, pursy, stout, upholstered, weighty, beefy, bulky, chunky, dumpy, full-bodied, heavyset, squat, stocky, stubby, thick, thickset; paunchy, potbellied; brawny, burly, husky, ass, damfool, donkey, imbecile, jackass, jerk, nincompoop, ninny, tomfool, ament, cretin, dullard, dullhead, dumbbell, dummy, ignoramus, moron, simpleton, stupid, ...rubber ...glue. IMO, your original post a lot more interesting than Erik's attempt at a pithy dismissal. Generally, that kind of response just makes me roll my eyes at how impressed he is with his own intellect, and I thought your little definitions were amusing and described most of the typical Internet argument tactics I see a lot of pretty well. Thank you. My core group of friends have a tendency to take word creation to a new level. I admit, mine are generaly the least amussing. My favorite I have heard recently is Stupiphany. Think Kelso on That 70s Show. However, while I enjoy unpacking my adjectives as much, if not more, than the next guy, I have to say, Jan, that falling back on fat jokes is not the best way to gain the sympathy of, well, anybody with two synapses capable firing in concert. That sound like a double standard Jim. It's ok to raz someone else about there mind, but not their body? I was taking Erich's raz in stride (hence the Thank you for reminding me of you rubber..glue buisness. However, you would think that if it's ok to raz someone claiming that they look pathetic becouse of something they did, why is it not ok to raz them back about looking pathetic becouse of something they did not do? (Namely get enough exercice for their caloric intake) Or if you prefer soemthing they did do, like eating too much for their level of physical activity. After all, razing is generlay done to make one's self feel better, If you know you may appear pathetic from time to time you might have a tendency to acuse others of looking pathetic, if you know you make typographical blunders you may find humor in the same mistakes others make. Personaly I find that razing others about something I am myself guilty of, simply looks hypocritical, and besides it never ends up making me feel any better. I always just end up feeling worse about myself. Erich obviously doesn't agree with this, but since I do, that left me nothing to raz Erich back about other than the way he treats his body. After all, if you only follow like tit for like tat when someone is using pasive agressivness, or logical inacuracies you always just end up in a frustraiting cycle and tipicaly you both look like idiots. On the other hand if you simply swipe back on a topic that the other is self concious about they tend to shut their trap, and move on. This seems to me in most cases to be the fastest way to end the whole mess without beeing walked all over. One's got to keep their personal dignity after all. I'm sorry if you take this personaly. Maybe being self concious about your fat index is why. However, someone else who is self concious about appearing pathetic may have taken Erich's raz personaly as well. Personaly I would have prefered no personal attacks at all, but if someone else is going to play dirty and without rules, well, that's just it then isn't it, no rules, no rules ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also heavily disagree with his assertation that Freedom of Speech defends one's right to use crude language or show inappropriate material where it may be exposed to minors. I think hiding behind this element of the Constitution is disgusting and demeaning to the purpose of that article. Well then, would it be inapropriate for me to ask you to please provide the definition of Free and Speech which allows freedom of speech to align with your doctrin? Also, why would a persons age, or rather why should a persons age have anthing to do with their possible exposure? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
JDG said: Another difference that I anticipate will develop will be the incentives for producing and raising children. These incentives will be applied to marriages, but not to civil unions. Civil unions, will however, acquire many of the rights of marriage that currently formalize the intimate partnership. Henceforth, I will read all my mail before posting anything. Honestly I will. Rich GCU Impatient ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
JDG said: At any rate, I find it has hardly been established that there somehow exists a universal right to marry a person of the same sex. If we start from the premise that men and women should have equal rights, then it's obvious, isn't it? After all, women have the right to marry men, therefore men must have the right to marry men too. And similarly, men have the right to marry women therefore women must also have that right. Or do you think that men and women should not have equal rights? (I suppose it could be argued that they should have equal but not *identical* rights, but that seems a dodgy position to me, because there doesn't seem to be any way to determine the equality of non-identical rights, and such a system would clearly be open to abuse.) Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Jan Coffey wrote: However, you would think that if it's ok to raz someone claiming that they look pathetic becouse of something they did, why is it not ok to raz them back about looking pathetic becouse of something they did not do? (Namely get enough exercice for their caloric intake) Or if you prefer soemthing they did do, like eating too much for their level of physical activity. You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. And it's not just the caloric intake and activity level -- my body is *trying* to hang on to a chunk of the extra weight I gained while I was pregnant, and will not probably not start dropping it until the babies are 9 months old or so, if what happened after my first pregnancy is any indication. (This is related to the fact that I'm breastfeeding the babies, which is a lot better for them in the long run, and was better for *me* at least initially.) And, dammit, I'm still hungry a lot -- hungry for stuff with the right nutrients to be making more milk for them. (At least I'm refraining from eating if I'm not hungry, and that is a luxury I didn't have 6 months ago.) And while a number of people who are overweight just have been eating too much, there are those with medical conditions that are contributing to their obesity, and some of that is just out of their control. You're not being fair to *them* -- after all, they didn't choose their condition, not the way someone chooses to do something stupid. (And I didn't choose to have twins, although I knew there was a reasonable risk of my having twins, so there's a point to which that *is* my own fault. But my genes aren't something I had any control over.) Julia Size 16 jeans, hoping to get down to 12 before the year is up, and down to 8 sometime next year ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Well then, would it be inapropriate for me to ask you to please provide the definition of Free and Speech which allows freedom of speech to align with your doctrin? My definition is freedom from persecution from the STATE for what one says. Specifically, I would define it as the freedom to criticize without fear of repercussions. I'm sure there are other ways you could define it, but I think definining it as the right to use obcenities without any regulation is just plain silly. Also, why would a persons age, or rather why should a persons age have anthing to do with their possible exposure? It doesn't really, but its normally assumed that children should be protected from such things. As adults, its assumed that we have the werewithal and development that we can cope with such things effectively. I was using it as an example, since I think often the decency standards the FCC puts out is justified with the idea of protecting children from unacceptable material. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 09:16:47PM +, Richard Baker wrote: 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; Sure they can. In several ways. I mentioned some before. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ 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: fun with math
At 01:25 PM 2/27/2004, you wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: 1. Grab a calculator. (you won't be able to do this one in your head) 2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code) 3. Multiply by 80 4. Add 1 5. Multiply by 250 6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number 7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again. 8. Subtract 250 9. Divide number by 2 = ((80X + 1)(250) + Y + Y - 250)/2 = (2X + 250 + 2Y - 250)/2 = (2X + 2Y)/2 = 1X + Y Do you recognize the answer? Yeah. Julia I was going to do that at work, but never got around to it. Remember a year ago where I'd go in and twiddle my thumbs for hours on end? Ha-ha, ha-ha those days are long gone. It's a good thing, I'm working on an out of bound problem right now with Access to track a resource. I have another project for my group, when they get there priorities straight. And we have a massive project on the horizon. Kevin T. - VRWC And summer is coming ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:38:32PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. Funny, the comment didn't even register on me. Most of it is because I don't pay a lot of attention to Jane's posts anyway since the S/N is so low, but also, what a ludicrous thing for a person who has never met me to write. Incidentally, my BMI is 22 kg/m^2, which is well within the healthy range of 20 - 25. So the whole thing comes out of right fieldanyway, not worth worrying about. If you're not currently feeling quite at the level you want to be, Julia, I'm sure you'll get there soon -- I can't imagine how hard it is to keep perfectly fit after what your body has been through! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ 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] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 21:19:58 - SNIP!! Personaly I would have prefered no personal attacks at all, but if someone else is going to play dirty and without rules, well, that's just it then isn't it, no rules, no rules Fight fire with fire... -Travis who agrees with Jan, and just loves to read Jan's posts Edmunds _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:39:19 -0800 (PST) Well then, would it be inapropriate for me to ask you to please provide the definition of Free and Speech which allows freedom of speech to align with your doctrin? My definition is freedom from persecution from the STATE for what one says. Specifically, I would define it as the freedom to criticize without fear of repercussions. I'm sure there are other ways you could define it, but I think definining it as the right to use obcenities without any regulation is just plain silly. Damon. What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being labled an obscenity of course. -Travis _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:38:32 -0600 Jan Coffey wrote: However, you would think that if it's ok to raz someone claiming that they look pathetic becouse of something they did, why is it not ok to raz them back about looking pathetic becouse of something they did not do? (Namely get enough exercice for their caloric intake) Or if you prefer soemthing they did do, like eating too much for their level of physical activity. You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. And it's not just the caloric intake and activity level -- my body is *trying* to hang on to a chunk of the extra weight I gained while I was pregnant, and will not probably not start dropping it until the babies are 9 months old or so, if what happened after my first pregnancy is any indication. (This is related to the fact that I'm breastfeeding the babies, which is a lot better for them in the long run, and was better for *me* at least initially.) And, dammit, I'm still hungry a lot -- hungry for stuff with the right nutrients to be making more milk for them. (At least I'm refraining from eating if I'm not hungry, and that is a luxury I didn't have 6 months ago.) Julia Biology taking precedence over society. And take some solace in the fact that we can't escape biology. -Travis _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Michael said: 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. There's a rough analogy here between state-supported marriage and patents. In the one case, the state gains the benefit of new citizens by granting tax breaks and other advantages to married couples. In the other, the state gains the advantage of widespread publication of ideas by the granting of a temporary monopoly. The case of childless married couples is analogous to published patents that don't spur the invention of further new products: a failure of the system that cannot be avoided. On the other hand, patents are to my mind a superior system to marriages, for without patents there would be secrecy and reduced innovation, whereas without marriages I doubt there would be fewer children. But in any case, I don't think the state should be privileging one type of relationship over another, which it would be doing even if it allowed gay marriages. (Even if we disregard polyamorous relationships or whatever, surely friendship is one of the bases of civil society - so why not formally recognise friendships in law?) 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. I think they should be phased out entirely. Rich ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Earth almost put on impact alert Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:12:08 -0800 Travis Edmunds wrote: But in the grand scheme of things, nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should. Such is life, sadly. Sadly, that's true. Nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should reminds me of Nothing succeeds as planned from Heller's Good as Gold, but without the conviction. Not that I'm accusing Travis of a lack of conviction. I've never seen his record, so as far as I know, he was never convicted. ;-) I was actually convicted once...ha!...thought I was gonna tell ya!!! Yeah... -Travis would rather die of old age than of an asteroid/meteorite impact Edmunds Dave Would rather be instantaly vaporized in an asteroid/meteorite impact than to be on the fringes of the impact area and live another 20 years in pain and misery, a burden to friends and family Land Good pointlol. -Travis _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 10:29:26 -0800 (PST) my asking? Do you listen to the likes of Sepultura, What a great band! I haven't heard/listened to them in a long time. Not sure what era I like more (pre or post Beneath the Remains...). Really liked Max Cavalera as a drummer, but I heard the fired him(?). Oh well... Damon. To be honest I was never a huge fan of theirs. However I would prefer post BtR. As for Cavalera being fired...I dunno. But they (Sepultura) are split up now, so it probably doesn't really matter. -Travis dust in the wind Edmunds _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
At 04:39 PM 2/27/2004, you wrote: Well then, would it be inapropriate for me to ask you to please provide the definition of Free and Speech which allows freedom of speech to align with your doctrin? My definition is freedom from persecution from the STATE for what one says. Specifically, I would define it as the freedom to criticize without fear of repercussions. I'm sure there are other ways you could define it, but I think definining it as the right to use obcenities without any regulation is just plain silly. Also, why would a persons age, or rather why should a persons age have anthing to do with their possible exposure? It doesn't really, but its normally assumed that children should be protected from such things. As adults, its assumed that we have the werewithal and development that we can cope with such things effectively. I was using it as an example, since I think often the decency standards the FCC puts out is justified with the idea of protecting children from unacceptable material. Damon. I was siding with the other side just two weeks ago. I could see no reason why Howard Stern had to be careful what he said or the blowup over a teat on TV. But really, the public airwaves are not free. A station gets licensed to broadcast a certain frequency and power settings. In radio, if some wildcat started broadcasting at the same freq as a licensed station, that station would be all over the FCC to shut it down. But that licensed station wants to broadcast racy content and someone complains, that infringes on their freedom of speech! Nothing hypocritical there. I can see Fool's point. You start tightening the noose with regulations and there may be something that is no big deal now, but prohibited in the future because it offends someone. (Frex illegal alien is now a derogatory term? Sounds like a valid description of a non-resident that broke a law.) But the other side has been just as bad. Penis is a valid word, but in certain context it isn't a medical description of the male anatomy. The industries have not been policing themselves. Sure, we are adults. (Some of us). But a child above three can turn on a TV or radio. You can put channel blocks on cable signals, but not on a radio or over-the-air TV. The gov should not regulate the content of cable only broadcasts, other than general guidelines like ESPN shouldn't be showing TA at 8pm, but HBO can since it's content is billed that way. I hate thinking too much. If I bought a stack porno mags (not that I would know where to buy them) and set them outside an elementary school did I break any laws? The mags are legal. I'm not littering. I'm not handing them to kids directly. Could I be charged for the implied intent? I though there was a case, a minivan had a DVD player and they were playing an adult video. A person in another car complained about it. If I'm playing a music CD, heck an Eddie Murphy comedy CD, at loud volume (or clear enough) for the people in the next car to hear the swearing, should I be charged? Kevin T. - VRWC Jerking back and forth (Devon) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being labled an obscenity of course. That's a good question and perhaps one worthy of exploration. However, its also pretty academic IMHO. Whether you think the F-bomb or other obcenities are indeed unacceptable or not, I think the majority of people in the US, FREX, would define those words as obcene. Damon. = Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: __ Do you Yahoo!? Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
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 Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
Damon Agretto wrote: my asking? Do you listen to the likes of Sepultura, What a great band! I haven't heard/listened to them in a long time. Not sure what era I like more (pre or post Beneath the Remains...). Really liked Max Cavalera as a drummer, but I heard the fired him(?). Oh well... The drummer was Igor Cavalera, his brother; Max was vocals and he left the band because of some quarrels between his wife and the other members. Derek is the vocal now. Alberto Monteiro PS: did you know that there was some racist reaction here in Brazil against Derek? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
another riddle?
Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on your left side there is an abyss. On your right side you have a fire engine and it keeps the same speed as you. In front of you runs a pig, larger than your car. A helicopter is following you, at ground level. Both the helicopter and the pig are keeping the same speed as you. What will you need to do to be able to stop? Kevin T. - VRWC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
From: Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] patents. In the one case, the state gains the benefit of new citizens by granting tax breaks and other advantages to married couples. In the I'm not a tax expert, but AFAIK, there aren't any tax breaks for being married here in the US. In fact, it's generally been the opposite, where married people can end up paying more tax than two equivalent single people would. I think Bush's recent tax cuts may have reduced or eliminated the marriage penalty, but I don't know if it would be justifiable to now consider it to be a tax break. A friend of mine who is vaguely anti-SSM was just telling me that part of his objection was because he perceived it as a big handout to a specialized interest group, with no public benefits. I totally disagreed on several fronts, the most pertinent (to his argument) being that I don't think SSM really entails much additional governmental cost. As I see it, the primary benefits provided by the government for marriage are in terms of the automatic legal rights and standings it provides to married couples. I believe these legal rights and standings aren't provided by the government to reward baby production, or even as a reward at all, but because the government is recognizing that marriage joins two people together as next of kin for all legal intents and purposes. _ Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: another riddle?
From: Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on your left side there is an abyss. On your right side you have a fire engine and it keeps the same speed as you. In front of you runs a pig, larger than your car. A helicopter is following you, at ground level. Both the helicopter and the pig are keeping the same speed as you. What will you need to do to be able to stop? Seems the problem is a bit unconstrained... - Can't I just say Press the car's brakes or hit the bottom of the abyss? - Perhaps you're already stopped as the constant speed = 0 kph? - Jump out of the car onto the fire truck, then jump off the rear of the fire truck? - Wake myself up from the nightmare? -bryon _ Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
That's a good question and perhaps one worthy of exploration. However, its also pretty academic IMHO. Whether you think the F-bomb or other obcenities are indeed unacceptable or not, I think the majority of people in the US, FREX, would define those words as obcene. So we're going to put things like basic rights up for a majority vote? I thought one of the points of the First Amendment was to insulate potentially unpopular ideas from being trampled by the majority. What if the majority of people in the US wanted to ban left-wing opinions from public expression? What if they wanted to impose Christianity as the state religion? Well, they can't, because of the First Amendment. Granted, there's a difference between expressing a controversial opinion and spouting bad language for the sake of appearing daring and shocking. Still, I don't think delineating that difference from a legal point of view should be subject to what the majority of people in the US may happen to think at any one time. Want to protect kids? Fine. But there are so many other ways in this country that we don't do a damn thing to really help kids that it strikes me as hypocritical to espouse censorship in order to protect children while millions of children have no access to basic healthcare (to point out just one example). It reminds me of the woman in The Simpsons (Helen Lovejoy, the minister's wife) who hysterically screams Think about the children! no matter the topic of discussion is. American kids face far more serious threats than hearing Howard Stern utter some smut on the radio. Tom Beck I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never thought I'd see the last. - Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: another riddle?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 06:15:34PM -0500, Bryon Daly wrote: Seems the problem is a bit unconstrained... I predict a pun may is in the offing... -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: I think it's a tad irresponsible, that there isn't a more concerted effort to thwart the possible extinction of our species don't you? A big impact like the one that ended the Cretaceous would _not_ cause the extinction of our species. Or do you think three - or even fifty - years with _no_ production of food would kill us all? The Earth would die and resurect, but humans would still rule it. Perhaps so, perhaps not: See The Carbonist Manifesto -- http://www.sonic.net/~ric/go/church/carbonist.htm -- for an opposing view. It's a tongue-in-cheek meditation on the Gaia hypothesis that posits the idea that humans are just a tool that Gaia is using to adjust the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Read it as truth, read it as satire, read it as the ravings of a madman. If it offends you, I believe the author's email address is on the page somewhere. Dave Always on Impact Alert Land A: Because it destroys context. Q: Why do some people hate top-posting? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: fun with math
At 05:10 AM 2/27/04, Kevin Tarr wrote: 1. Grab a calculator. (you won't be able to do this one in your head) FWIW, I suspect that there are at least some here who are capable of performing the calculations below without a calculator (or even pencil and paper). (I probably would have started that way if this had been the first post I had read in this thread instead of Julia's analysis which confirmed what I immediately suspected the answer would be . . . ) 2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code) 3. Multiply by 80 4. Add 1 5. Multiply by 250 6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number 7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again. 8. Subtract 250 9. Divide number by 2 Do you recognize the answer? Kevin T. - VRWC Slave to the grind A question for the other mathematical types on the list: do most of you enjoy doing mathematical puzzles as recreation, or do you consider them kind of a waste of time and effort because you're not really coming up with something new or at least something applicable to a particular situation of interest to you rather than just playing? (I'm not sure if I'm putting this clearly: let me know if I need to clarify it.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
At 04:01 PM 2/27/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 13:39:19 -0800 (PST) Well then, would it be inapropriate for me to ask you to please provide the definition of Free and Speech which allows freedom of speech to align with your doctrin? My definition is freedom from persecution from the STATE for what one says. Specifically, I would define it as the freedom to criticize without fear of repercussions. I'm sure there are other ways you could define it, but I think definining it as the right to use obcenities without any regulation is just plain silly. Damon. What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being labled an obscenity of course. Didn't a former justice of the SCOTUS give a famous answer to that question, which AFAIK has not been superseded . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
At 04:05 PM 2/27/04, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: A few new words of which this list is in need Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:38:32 -0600 Jan Coffey wrote: However, you would think that if it's ok to raz someone claiming that they look pathetic becouse of something they did, why is it not ok to raz them back about looking pathetic becouse of something they did not do? (Namely get enough exercice for their caloric intake) Or if you prefer soemthing they did do, like eating too much for their level of physical activity. You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. And it's not just the caloric intake and activity level -- my body is *trying* to hang on to a chunk of the extra weight I gained while I was pregnant, and will not probably not start dropping it until the babies are 9 months old or so, if what happened after my first pregnancy is any indication. (This is related to the fact that I'm breastfeeding the babies, which is a lot better for them in the long run, and was better for *me* at least initially.) And, dammit, I'm still hungry a lot -- hungry for stuff with the right nutrients to be making more milk for them. (At least I'm refraining from eating if I'm not hungry, and that is a luxury I didn't have 6 months ago.) Julia Biology taking precedence over society. And take some solace in the fact that we can't escape biology. Isn't that essentially the same answer some are giving about SSM (and SS activity in general)? Insert Tab A Into Slot B Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
At 12:12 PM 2/27/04, Dave Land wrote: Travis Edmunds wrote: But in the grand scheme of things, nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should. Such is life, sadly. Nothing is proceeding the way that perhaps it should Just as a matter of interest, who is it who decides how things should be proceeding? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
- Original Message - From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 2:33 PM Subject: Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't I also heavily disagree with his assertation that Freedom of Speech defends one's right to use crude language or show inappropriate material where it may be exposed to minors. I think hiding behind this element of the Constitution is disgusting and demeaning to the purpose of that article. On one hand I don't note any exceptions for crude language in the amendment. On the other I find repetitious use of such language to be either a sign of stupidity or a sign of some psycho/social personality defect. Beyond that, I find the protection of the children argument to be quite weak. 1 Children use this kind of language already, because they hear it from..other children. It's an everyday kind of thing that has very little to do with what they hear adults do and say. A little eavesdropping can be very educational.G 2 It is the parents responsibility to protect their children to the degree that the parents require. It is a big big big mistake to relinquish that responsibility to the government. Each parent is responsible for what their children listen to and watch in exactly the same way that parents are responsible for their children's behavior. 3 (1) is as prominent as it is because it is *forbidden* and therefore desirable. Once the desirability of forbidden things is eliminated it goes away or generally becomes innocuous. I'm fairly sure that if these rules were dropped and the market were allowed to decide what wares to display, most of the shockjocks would be out of a job in a year. xponent Reverse Psyche Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
In a message dated 2/27/2004 5:41:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. bob z the current trend seems to be to view the hominids of the last millenia as seperate species. the dna evidence suggests that neanderthal was a seperate species and erectus was pretty different from sapien. In fact, early sapien may have been different from the more recent version. We know that there was a great leap forward about 100,000 years ago when culture possibly related to language exploded. this probably was the result of some change in the human brain. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Earth almost put on impact alert
Ronn! wrote: Just as a matter of interest, who is it who decides how things should be proceeding? I believe that would be me, and for a small monthly subscription I can keep you up to date. -- Doug 8^) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: fun with math
Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 05:10 AM 2/27/04, Kevin Tarr wrote: 1. Grab a calculator. (you won't be able to do this one in your head) FWIW, I suspect that there are at least some here who are capable of performing the calculations below without a calculator (or even pencil and paper). (I probably would have started that way if this had been the first post I had read in this thread instead of Julia's analysis which confirmed what I immediately suspected the answer would be . . . ) 2. Key in the first three digits of your phone number (NOT the area code) 3. Multiply by 80 4. Add 1 5. Multiply by 250 6. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number 7. Add the last 4 digits of your phone number again. 8. Subtract 250 9. Divide number by 2 Do you recognize the answer? Kevin T. - VRWC Slave to the grind A question for the other mathematical types on the list: do most of you enjoy doing mathematical puzzles as recreation, or do you consider them kind of a waste of time and effort because you're not really coming up with something new or at least something applicable to a particular situation of interest to you rather than just playing? (I'm not sure if I'm putting this clearly: let me know if I need to clarify it.) What I did was play for me. And I really needed a little break right about then. Julia still having one of those weeks, but if I get enough sleep tonight, tomorrow will probably be fine ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
Kevin Tarr wrote: Sure, we are adults. (Some of us). But a child above three can turn on a TV or radio. Above? Try under. We had to put a shield over the TV controls to keep Sam from playing with the power switch on the big TV. There's a small TV upstairs set up so's we can watch in the den, and he knows exactly where the power switch is on that. And sometimes he remembers to turn it on after he's shoved a tape in the VCR. He hasn't gotten his hands on any radio yet, though. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Bryon Daly wrote: I'm not a tax expert, but AFAIK, there aren't any tax breaks for being married here in the US. In fact, it's generally been the opposite, where married people can end up paying more tax than two equivalent single people would. I think Bush's recent tax cuts may have reduced or eliminated the marriage penalty, but I don't know if it would be justifiable to now consider it to be a tax break. It depends. If both people are working, sure there can be a penalty. But if only one is earning a paycheck and the other is not, there's real savings in filing jointly (married) than in filing as a single individual. I won't go into the SS part of the tax mess because that's a rant best left for a time I don't have a baby between my body and the keyboard. (He's fascinated by my hands as I type, and he's mostly stopped fussing. We'll see what happens when I put him down so's I can eat my dinner, though.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Bryon wrote: I believe these legal rights and standings aren't provided by the government to reward baby production, or even as a reward at all, but because the government is recognizing that marriage joins two people together as next of kin for all legal intents and purposes. We get a deduction for every dependant and there are credits for child care and education expenses, but I imagine you can get these whether or not you are married. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
At 06:44 PM 2/27/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Sure, we are adults. (Some of us). But a child above three can turn on a TV or radio. Above? Try under. We had to put a shield over the TV controls to keep Sam from playing with the power switch on the big TV. Heck, a *cat* under three can figure out how to turn the TV (or other appliances) on . . . Though Admittedly Any Cat Who Lives In A House Where There Is A Computer Is Probably Already Used To Hearing Offensive Language Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ 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: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
- Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 11:42 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 19:01:20 -0600 - Original Message - From: Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:36 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:14:15 -0600 Highway Star and Communication Breakdown (Led Zep) are probably the two most important songs in the history of Metal. There must BE a Communication Breakdown here!! Do you honestly mean that? AbsofreekinlutelyYou have no idea how influential that one song was at the time. It spawned tonnes of music that were basicly attempts to capture the same energy and sound. It was one of those wierd phenamena where every garage band could sorta play the song, but very few could really capture the feel of the song itself I fail to see the importance of that song. I really do. Yeah.thats a fair assumption for *you* to make really. The song has quite a bit of relavence historically and for those who lived through those times. But it is quite true that its relevance is mostly diminished with time even though echoes of it can still be heard from time to time. If it's relevance has diminished over time, then it can't be that important. As opposed to the likes of Iron Man or Paranoid of course, which have not faded in any way. Those have faded in relavence also. You must not be exposed to people who are really into Zepplin. What about some other Kansas tunes like Glimpse Of Home, Loner, or The Pinnacle? Good songs, but for those of us who lived through those times they were MOS. Actually, this is where your POV is usefull because you can see the groups whole catalogue simultaneously whereas we older folks tend to view the same catalogue temporaly. Have you ever noticed this effect where people like a bands first few albums immensely and their later albums somewhat less so? Thats where we old folks are at a disadvantage at least as far as decades old music is concerned. I have noticed what you mention. I have a question however. Is change a static thing? I don't know that that is the proper way to phrase the question, to be honest. But I know what you mean. I would have to say that change is a constant thing. The only thing that really changes about change is the rate of change. (What a weird sentence!) And over the past century, the rate of change has increased significantly. You can see this in almost every mode of human endevour. Travis? Are familiar with the term The Singularity? It is an important concept and one it would help to be familiar with, just in case such an occurance pops up during our lifetimes. (No snide remarks! We all know it is a possibility) Supertramp Blah. Ever try Crime Of The Century or Crisis What Crisis? Actually no. But blah. Give them a chance someday. There is some really good stuff in there.G Rush Very solid band. Way back when I hated Rush and Zepplin with a purple passion. I was wrong. Rush is not an easy band to get into. But when you do, the music speaks for itself. Aerosmith One of the greatest Rock bandsever. Tyler is an amazing vocalist. Joe Perry is one of the best at inventing guitar hooks. Really oustanding at times. Ok, Perry himself admits that he's not a guitarists guitarist, but to brand him as one of the best at inventing guitar hooks...ah...no... Guitar hooks have very little to do with a players quality. Perry is a good guitarist, but not a great one. What he does have is an exceptional ear for a catchy guitar phrase, hence my comment. Lynard Skynard I love Skynard. Also seen them in 97. The bass player nearly spit on me! I hate Skynard, always have. Good band though. Too country? Too cracker. Horslips Heard of, I think, but never heard. You like Tull? I had a mind to look them up but I never. Seriously, I love Tull, but have never heard Horslips. Care to tell me a little? Absolutely on of my all time favorites. What Tull did with Scottish music, Horslips did with the Irish. The early albums are very energetic Irish folk rock, but the later albums are just great. Almost every album is a concept album. My favorite is Aliens, which is about refugees from the potato famine coming to America. I could go on like this forever you know! G
Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
Speaking of strange and probably unintended consequences of changing the subject line . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
On 27 Feb 2004, at 2:35 pm, Julia Thompson wrote: How many of the UK responses were from Northern Ireland? And how much has the Irish situation influenced the views of those in the UK? The USA was largely founded by people seeking religious freedom - freedom from the established Catholic Church of the Old World. This zealotry is still apparent in the fact that the USA is by far the most religious of the developed countries. Interestingly the demographics are quite clear that the USA will become a predominantly Catholic nation within the next twenty years. Those same fervent cults that left the Old World because they considered the Pope to be the AntiChrist (or whatever) will remain as the beleaguered old guard in this new version of America. I think they will be blowing things up and generally doing the whole terrorist thing quite soon. (That was a prediction BTW). If someone wants to explain why that won't happen... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible. - Bertrand Russell ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jan Coffey wrote: However, you would think that if it's ok to raz someone claiming that they look pathetic becouse of something they did, why is it not ok to raz them back about looking pathetic becouse of something they did not do? (Namely get enough exercice for their caloric intake) Or if you prefer soemthing they did do, like eating too much for their level of physical activity. You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. And it's not just the caloric intake and activity level -- my body is *trying* to hang on to a chunk of the extra weight I gained while I was pregnant, and will not probably not start dropping it until the babies are 9 months old or so, if what happened after my first pregnancy is any indication. (This is related to the fact that I'm breastfeeding the babies, which is a lot better for them in the long run, and was better for *me* at least initially.) And, dammit, I'm still hungry a lot - - hungry for stuff with the right nutrients to be making more milk for them. (At least I'm refraining from eating if I'm not hungry, and that is a luxury I didn't have 6 months ago.) And while a number of people who are overweight just have been eating too much, there are those with medical conditions that are contributing to their obesity, and some of that is just out of their control. You're not being fair to *them* -- after all, they didn't choose their condition, not the way someone chooses to do something stupid. (And I didn't choose to have twins, although I knew there was a reasonable risk of my having twins, so there's a point to which that *is* my own fault. But my genes aren't something I had any control over.) Julia, The body goes through a lot of changes to produce offspring. There is no reason you should be touchy about the shape 3 people's vessle is in after 2 leave that vessle and that vessle is still the main source of nurishment for them. What you have done is a butiful thing, and the shape you are in now is now less butiful than the thing you have done. This is very differnt though. Some people do have thyroid conditions and the like which causes them to have more body fat than most would in they ate and exerciezed properly. However, this may have been the case in our society at one time that most obease people fit this discription, but I am not so sure that it is still that way. Never the less, we are still talking about a double standard. If it is OK to raz someone about their use of language even though they have a condition which causes them definincy, then why is it not OK to raz someone if they have a condition which causes obesity? No one seems at all preturbed about how our president or anyone else is constantly razed for using the wrong word, or a less appropriate word, or phrasing something in a way that is caloquial, or makeing a statment which is intended to express a specific concept, but which is phrased in a clumbsy way and allows for too much misunderstanding. These are of course the communication dificulties experienced by Dyslexics and to some extent Autistics. Why is it that it is acceptable to make fun of these peopel, or worse, acuse them of beliefes they do not have, or intentions they do not have, to twist their intent against them for no good reason, but it is a horendous offence to make fun of someone who has a very high likelyhood of simply not caring for the only body they have. Sorry, but this seems like a double standard, and it seems so heavily wieghted twards the absurd that it makes me wonder what exactly our society favors. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 06:44 PM 2/27/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Sure, we are adults. (Some of us). But a child above three can turn on a TV or radio. Above? Try under. We had to put a shield over the TV controls to keep Sam from playing with the power switch on the big TV. Heck, a *cat* under three can figure out how to turn the TV (or other appliances) on . . . Though Admittedly Any Cat Who Lives In A House Where There Is A Computer Is Probably Already Used To Hearing Offensive Language Maru Use a password protected screensaver. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thruout Gov't
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What exactly makes an obscenity obscene? Aside from something obscene being labled an obscenity of course. That's a good question and perhaps one worthy of exploration. However, its also pretty academic IMHO. Whether you think the F-bomb or other obcenities are indeed unacceptable or not, I think the majority of people in the US, FREX, would define those words as obcene. How does that matter? It's free speech right? Doesn't that mean freedom to express ones ideas even if the majority doesn't agree with it? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?]
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 6:34 PM Subject: Re: Homo [was: Thoughts on gay marriage?] In a message dated 2/27/2004 5:41:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. bob z the current trend seems to be to view the hominids of the last millenia as seperate species. the dna evidence suggests that neanderthal was a seperate species and erectus was pretty different from sapien. In fact, early sapien may have been different from the more recent version. We know that there was a great leap forward about 100,000 years ago when culture possibly related to language exploded. this probably was the result of some change in the human brain. I recommend Evolution by Steven Baxter. Its outstanding!!! xponent Topicality Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The case for gay marriage
http://economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2459758 The case for gay marriage Feb 26th 2004 From The Economist print edition It rests on equality, liberty and even society SO AT last it is official: George Bush is in favour of unequal rights, big-government intrusiveness and federal power rather than devolution to the states. That is the implication of his announcement this week that he will support efforts to pass a constitutional amendment in America banning gay marriage. Some have sought to explain this action away simply as cynical politics, an effort to motivate his core conservative supporters to turn out to vote for him in November or to put his likely Massachusetts liberal opponent, John Kerry, in an awkward spot. Yet to call for a constitutional amendment is such a difficult, drastic and draconian move that cynicism is too weak an explanation. No, it must be worse than that: Mr Bush must actually believe in what he is doing. Mr Bush says that he is acting to protect the most fundamental institution of civilisation from what he sees as activist judges who in Massachusetts early this month confirmed an earlier ruling that banning gay marriage is contrary to their state constitution. The city of San Francisco, gay capital of America, has been issuing thousands of marriage licences to homosexual couples, in apparent contradiction to state and even federal laws. It can only be a matter of time before this issue arrives at the federal Supreme Court. And those activist judges, who, by the way, gave Mr Bush his job in 2000, might well take the same view of the federal constitution as their Massachusetts equivalents did of their state code: that the constitution demands equality of treatment. Last June, in Lawrence v Texas, they ruled that state anti-sodomy laws violated the constitutional right of adults to choose how to conduct their private lives with regard to sex, saying further that the Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code. That obligation could well lead the justices to uphold the right of gays to marry. Let them wed That idea remains shocking to many people. So far, only two countries -- Belgium and the Netherlands -- have given full legal status to same-sex unions, though Canada has backed the idea in principle and others have conferred almost-equal rights on such partnerships. The sight of homosexual men and women having wedding days just like those enjoyed for thousands of years by heterosexuals is unsettling, just as, for some people, is the sight of them holding hands or kissing. When The Economist first argued in favour of legalising gay marriage eight years ago (Let them wed, January 6th 1996) it shocked many of our readers, though fewer than it would have shocked eight years earlier and more than it will shock today. That is why we argued that such a radical change should not be pushed along precipitously. But nor should it be blocked precipitously. The case for allowing gays to marry begins with equality, pure and simple. Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? Not just because they have always lacked that right in the past, for sure: until the late 1960s, in some American states it was illegal for black adults to marry white ones, but precious few would defend that ban now on grounds that it was traditional. Another argument is rooted in semantics: marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and so cannot be extended to same-sex couples. They may live together and love one another, but cannot, on this argument, be married. But that is to dodge the real question -- why not? -- and to obscure the real nature of marriage, which is a binding commitment, at once legal, social and personal, between two people to take on special obligations to one another. If homosexuals want to make such marital commitments to one another, and to society, then why should they be prevented from doing so while other adults, equivalent in all other ways, are allowed to do so? Civil unions are not enough The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals' doing, not gays', for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage. But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say
Re: another riddle?
Kevin Tarr wrote: Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on your left side there is an abyss. On your right side you have a fire engine and it keeps the same speed as you. In front of you runs a pig, larger than your car. A helicopter is following you, at ground level. Both the helicopter and the pig are keeping the same speed as you. What will you need to do to be able to stop? Kevin T. - VRWC Too easy. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:30 PM Subject: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain On 27 Feb 2004, at 2:35 pm, Julia Thompson wrote: How many of the UK responses were from Northern Ireland? And how much has the Irish situation influenced the views of those in the UK? The USA was largely founded by people seeking religious freedom - freedom from the established Catholic Church of the Old World. This zealotry is still apparent in the fact that the USA is by far the most religious of the developed countries. Interestingly the demographics are quite clear that the USA will become a predominantly Catholic nation within the next twenty years. Those same fervent cults that left the Old World because they considered the Pope to be the AntiChrist (or whatever) will remain as the beleaguered old guard in this new version of America. I think they will be blowing things up and generally doing the whole terrorist thing quite soon. (That was a prediction BTW). If someone wants to explain why that won't happen... Well.they were also escaping the Church of England, and the Luthern church also I think. Other details of those tiffs explain why we have (and had) a separation of church and state over here. I think it was bit more complex than you have postulated. xponent Quakers Sow their Own Oats? Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 03:38:32PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: You know, I'm a little touchy about this right now. Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am. Funny, the comment didn't even register on me. Most of it is because I don't pay a lot of attention to Jane's posts anyway since the S/N is so low, but also, what a ludicrous thing for a person who has never met me to write. Incidentally, my BMI is 22 kg/m^2, which is well within the healthy range of 20 - 25. Wrong again E-Rich (TLN) Two people can have the same BMI, but a different percent body fat. A person with adiquate muscle mass and a low percent body fat may have the same BMI as a person who has a lot of body fat because BMI is calculated using weight and height only. It also doesn't take into consideration body type, bone dencity etc. So someone can be fat and still have a BMI of normal. A naturaly skinny guy with a big head and a big tummy for instnace. AFAIK BMI was developed mainly for children and is not so usefull for those who have passed puberty. Of course, BMI has nothing at all to do with performance, so maybe BMI is a good mesure for you. We simplply don't have the information at hand, so how could we say? Are you left handed or right handed E-Rich? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: another riddle?
- Original Message - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:47 PM Subject: Re: another riddle? Kevin Tarr wrote: Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on your left side there is an abyss. On your right side you have a fire engine and it keeps the same speed as you. In front of you runs a pig, larger than your car. A helicopter is following you, at ground level. Both the helicopter and the pig are keeping the same speed as you. What will you need to do to be able to stop? Kevin T. - VRWC Too easy. But at least its Freudian. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Kinship registry? Was: Thoughts on gay marriage?
Richard Baker wrote: I seriously find it very hard to imagine being freaked out by the idea of gay marriage. It's in the same category as seriously believes in Creationism. I suppose that's more evidence that those of us on this side of the Atlantic are godless degenerates. Hey, I believe in the Elder Gods! My Cthulhu smite you! : ) Rich, who has, however, argued elsewhere that he thinks that states ought to introduce a kinship registry and cease recognising marriages altogether, leaving them as a private and/or religious matter. Interesting, but I'm not sure what you mean. (Where's elsewhere?) So is kinship symmetric? Do I have to have one kinship that is closer than the rest, so next of kin is defined? ---David (Mathematician.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: another riddle?
At 09:07 PM 2/27/2004, you wrote: - Original Message - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 7:47 PM Subject: Re: another riddle? Kevin Tarr wrote: Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on your left side there is an abyss. On your right side you have a fire engine and it keeps the same speed as you. In front of you runs a pig, larger than your car. A helicopter is following you, at ground level. Both the helicopter and the pig are keeping the same speed as you. What will you need to do to be able to stop? Kevin T. - VRWC Too easy. But at least its Freudian. :-) Dan M. No, if you are talking about last nights answer in Final Jeopardy. Kevin T. - VRWC but the answer will make your head spin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
I want my nine minutes back!
I just came back from watching The Return of the King--again. It was only 201 minutes long. Not 210 as in all other times previously watched. I want my nine minutes back! William Taylor Damn gollum theatre chain! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: another riddle?
In a message dated 2/27/2004 7:35:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kevin Tarr wrote: Q: You are sitting behind the wheel in a car keeping a constant speed, on your left side there is an abyss. On your right side you have a fire engine and it keeps the same speed as you. In front of you runs a pig, larger than your car. A helicopter is following you, at ground level. Both the helicopter and the pig are keeping the same speed as you. What will you need to do to be able to stop? Kevin T. - VRWC Too easy. But at least its Freudian. :-) Dan M. No, if you are talking about last nights answer in Final Jeopardy. Kevin T. - VRWC but the answer will make your head spin This is of course a big lie. If the fire engine is on the outside of the Merry-go-round, it is traveling faster than you are. Shame on you Kevin for teaching bad physics. William--still pissed at ROTK--Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: another riddle?
In a message dated 2/27/2004 7:35:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: . A helicopter is following you, at ground level. If it's at ground level then that Merry-go-round has a hole in it, or somebody stuck the Merry-go-round into a hole to bring it down to ground level. More lies. Damn orcs. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: another riddle?
In a message dated 2/27/2004 7:35:47 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: . In front of you runs a pig, Now the definition of an animal running, usually involves the movement of legs, and the displacement of the animal from one location to another. The Merry-go-round pig is probably moving up and down, but the plaster, plastic, or if you're lucky, hand carved wooden legs will not be functioning, and in fact, the pig will not be running, walking, or even snuffling relative to the deck of the Merry-go-round. It is, in fact, not moving. So it is in point of Einsteinian relativity, not running. The Merry-go-round is doing all of the spacial displacement. More lies. ...and the IMDB now lists the ROTK as 201 minutes. Forget any controversy about Republicans, religion, or Mel Gibson. This 'rewriting' of history is more gruesome. There is now a nine minute gap. We need a congressional investigation. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Federal Marriage Amendment
Culled from the MCMedia archive as my email program seems to be eating old messages in my brin-l folder. JDG wrote: As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is despite the fact, as noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay marriage is this imminent threat to heterosexual marriages. Anyhow, for those of you who are not familiar with it, the text of the only proposed Amendment with a chance of passage is here: 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 Despite the rhetoric of some opponents, I find it very difficult to read the above amendment is making civil unions unconstitutional. Rather, it says to me that no Constitution can be interpreted by the Courts as *requiring* civil unions, but that legislatures are free to instutiute civil unions through the appropriate democratic processes.At any rate, this is certainly the outcome I am advocating - and the outcome that is advocated by the Amendment's primary sponsors. What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby second class citizens. IMO it is therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment. Furthermore, because there are religious aspects to the concept of marriage, the proposed amendment is also in conflict with the second amendment. I support this amendment for the following reasons: As Dan Minette has noted earlier, any move to permit homosexual marriages would constitute a radical redefinition of marriage. Meanwhile, as I noted in a previous message, I think that the current judicial activism on this subject benefits noone - not even those who favor the eventual legalization of homosexual marriage.Thus, I support the above amendment because it takes this issue out of the Courts and into the Legislatures - where this issue very firmly belongs. There are times when some segment of the population requires protection from the tyranny of the majority. The civil rights struggles of the '50s and '60s was one such time. This is another. If laws that discriminate against homosexuality are unconstitutional then they should be wiped off the books. Furthermore, this isnt happening overnight, the change in attitude towards homosexuality has been going on for years and we have been moving towards its legitimacy. The liberalization of the definition of marriage is a logical next step towards normalization. The marriage amendment is a step backwards. Beyond that, due to the difficulty of the process, it has just about zero chance of being adopted anyway. The above amendment does go a bit further than that, however, in that it prevents Legislatures from ever considering homosexual *marriages* (while permitting civil unions) - barring a subsequent Constitutional Amendment. I do, however support this provision as well - although my case for it is quite complicated. 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. Even if this is true, so what? 2) Marriages are recognized by governments and given special benefits by governments, because marriages promote the siring and raising of the next generation.I think that we are starting to see across Europe that there is perhaps a natural human tendency to not maintain the 2.2 births per women needed to sustain the next generation.As such, it strikes me as more important than ever for governments to produce incentives for parenthood and the raising of responsible adults. First of all, special benefits, such as deductions for dependants and credits for childcare and education are bestowed to people that raise children whether or not they are married. In fact the only special benefits for marriage that I can think of don't have anything to do with the raising children. Secondly, it may be the business of governments like the former Soviet Union or communist Cuba to stick their nose in the bedroom, but traditionally we don't do that kind of thing here 3) Homosexual
Re: A few new words of which this list is in need
Jan Coffey wrote: Two people can have the same BMI, but a different percent body fat. A person with adiquate muscle mass and a low percent body fat may have the same BMI as a person who has a lot of body fat because BMI is calculated using weight and height only. In fact, I have had the same BMI at a time when I was woefully out of shape as I had a few years later when I'd gotten into the best shape of my life, because I'd lost as much fat weight as I had gained muscle weight. :) Now, I haven't lost any weight in the past couple of months, but I'm probably in slightly better shape from having bulked up some muscles here and there, most notably in my arms. Still have some ways to go, though. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
X-proofing a computer Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 06:44 PM 2/27/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Sure, we are adults. (Some of us). But a child above three can turn on a TV or radio. Above? Try under. We had to put a shield over the TV controls to keep Sam from playing with the power switch on the big TV. Heck, a *cat* under three can figure out how to turn the TV (or other appliances) on . . . Though Admittedly Any Cat Who Lives In A House Where There Is A Computer Is Probably Already Used To Hearing Offensive Language Maru Use a password protected screensaver. A fairly simple password will prevent a toddler from doing interesting things to the system. There are CPU guards you can install to prevent accidental use of the power button on the computer. http://www.onestepahead.com/jump.jsp?itemID=68767itemType=PRODUCTlGen=detailiMainCat=117iSubCat=27181iProductID=68767change=117 or http://tinyurl.com/2mu48 And depending on the kind of power strip you use, there may be something to protect that, as well. http://www.onestepahead.com/jump.jsp?itemID=27181itemType=CATEGORYiMainCat=117iSubCat=27181page=5change=117 or http://tinyurl.com/3feld Of course, if the cat isn't the problem and the computer is, there's no catproofing (or even mere catresisting) advice I can offer. :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: another riddle?
In a message dated 2/27/2004 8:11:24 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What will you need to do to be able to stop? Instantly, or when the ride's over? Standing up and dropping your pants might instantly end the Merry-go-round ride, but get you a ride in the black moria instead. And with that pig directly in front of you, someone's bound to start playing air banjo music. Need is entirely relativistic. You need do nothing but wait for the ride to end. Or are your needs so great that you have the right to spoil the ride for all of the other people who paid to ride that Merry-go-round. And are you so amoral that you'd consider opening up the cental axcess panel to throw a small child into the gearwork? That'd stop the Merry-go-round. Kevin is obviously showing anti-social tendencies tonight by posing such a dangeroulsy ambiguous question that plays upon the needs of the one outweighing the needs of the many or the few. And he's also being insensitive to people who suffer from inner ear imperfections who cannot take the head spinning of even the mildest of carnival type rides. An action about as insesitive as going to an art museum, walking up to a picture of a pleasingly plump naked woman, pointing at the painting's signiture, and shouting, Hey, Rube! Now, as to my ranting tonight. What will it take for me to be able to stop? A simple look at the time. I have a ticket for the 10:50 showing of The Passion, and then a slow overnight drive to Phoenix for a booksale. William Taylor Thank you Keven, for providing such a source for the perverted channeling of opinions of cutting room editing. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Federal Marriage Amendment
From: Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Culled from the MCMedia archive as my email program seems to be eating old messages in my brin-l folder. JDG wrote: As I have hinted earlier, if I were forced to cast a vote, I would vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. This is despite the fact, as noted earlier, that I don't particularly buy into the argument that gay marriage is this imminent threat to heterosexual marriages. Anyhow, for those of you who are not familiar with it, the text of the only proposed Amendment with a chance of passage is here: 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 Despite the rhetoric of some opponents, I find it very difficult to read the above amendment is making civil unions unconstitutional. Rather, it says to me that no Constitution can be interpreted by the Courts as *requiring* civil unions, but that legislatures are free to instutiute civil unions through the appropriate democratic processes.At any rate, this is certainly the outcome I am advocating - and the outcome that is advocated by the Amendment's primary sponsors. What it says to me is that it is OK to outlaw civil unions or any aspect of them. That SSUs can never expect to have the same rights conferred upon them that traditional marriages do and that homosexuals are thereby second class citizens. IMO it is therefore in conflict with the 14th amendment. Furthermore, because there are religious aspects to the concept of marriage, the proposed amendment is also in conflict with the second amendment. What it says to me is that it is a ban on ALL new marriages both heterosexual and homosexual. It will remove all 1049 'marriage' rights that now exist for all existing married couples. It will make it so that _only_ religions can 'marry' people, and only heterosexuals. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Fascist Censorship spreading like Cancer thru out Gov't
At 07:33 PM 2/27/04, The Fool wrote: From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 06:44 PM 2/27/04, Julia Thompson wrote: Kevin Tarr wrote: Sure, we are adults. (Some of us). But a child above three can turn on a TV or radio. Above? Try under. We had to put a shield over the TV controls to keep Sam from playing with the power switch on the big TV. Heck, a *cat* under three can figure out how to turn the TV (or other appliances) on . . . Though Admittedly Any Cat Who Lives In A House Where There Is A Computer Is Probably Already Used To Hearing Offensive Language Maru Use a password protected screensaver. On your TV? (The remark about the computer in the house was meant to say that the cat has probably already heard the human(s) in the house frequently swearing a blue streak at the computer. After all, they even call the place where you enter your input into the computer a cursor . . . ) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interestingly the demographics are quite clear that the USA will become a predominantly Catholic nation within the next twenty years. Really? I've never heard that before - Is this due to immigration or rapid population growth in certain Catholic communities? Those same fervent cults that left the Old World because they considered the Pope to be the AntiChrist (or whatever) will remain as the beleaguered old guard in this new version of America. I think they will be blowing things up and generally doing the whole terrorist thing quite soon. (That was a prediction BTW). If someone wants to explain why that won't happen... Julia already mentioned a few points, but I will add: - The political differences between Catholic Church leadership and most Protestant leadership these days are rather small, leaving them mostly on the same side of the political aisle. - Separation of church and state, and constitutionalized protection of religious freedom should continue to keep the religious intolerance and persecution abuses of the past (such as those the Puritans fled from) from being repeated here. - I think American Catholics, especially those under 40, tend to be more liberal/ independent of and far less bound by Catholic Church doctrine (ie: on things like divorce, birth control, homosexuality, and maybe even abortion, etc) than those in some other nations. For example, I went to a Catholic school, and yet was taught homosexuality was OK, and birth control was OK. Also, there's Catholic politicians like Ted Kennedy who is strongly pro-choice, drawing a line between his faith's doctrine and his political vote. In other words, I think: 1) Catholic politicians that politically advocate the Church's teachings IMHO don't differ that much politically from, say, evangelical politicians that advocate their faith's teachings, (at least compared to what they're opposing) so no blowing things up is necessary. 2) I'm guessing that the trend of American Catholics differing from Church doctrine will continue to increase, so that Catholic voting trends won't be substantially different than the US as a whole. Of course, I don't have any statistics here to back this up, so it's all just my own speculation. JDG may have (and probably does have) a very different perspective. -bryon _ Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
On 2/27/04 1:04 PM, Travis Edmunds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You like Slayer!? Neat. How heavy are you willing to go, if you don't mind my asking? Do you listen to the likes of Sepultura, Soulfly, Pantera, White Zombie, Coal Chamber, or newer bands like Godsmack, Papa Roach, Korn, Static-X, Andrew W.K., Sevendust, Drowning Pool, Flaw? I have never had the response of neat whenever I say I listen to Slayer. That's a new one. How heavy do I go? Well for short periods of time I can handle some Napalm Death...but most of the other death metal has no appeal to me. Too fast to be useful, and the lyrics are downright stupid. About the other bands, I have listened to them all...but I can't recall any song by Flaw. My favorites on that list would be Mr. Zombie, Pantera, Static-X, AWK, and Sevendust. Other current faves are Fear Factory, KMFDM, and Type 0 Negative. So I'm a walking contradiction... Music isn't a rational enjoyment...we like what we like. No contradiction there. Although I might have to cut down on the Slayer and the Lords of Acid if I am elected Deacon in my church. Satriani is one of my fav guitarists. Though he is behind Vai, Malmsteen, Buckethead, and a few other select band guitarists such as Slash, Bratta, Van Halen, Petrucci and perhaps a few others. We are going to have to agree to disagree about this...the teacher has yet to be bettered by the pupil. Joe is simply more incredibler* in my opinion. If you have a good home theater spend the 15 bucks or so to get the DVD Live in San Francisco. Get the volume past 30% and make your mind happy. Joe is so technically perfect, I still have a hard time believing he plays that well. My list of guitar masters are Hendrix, Vaughn, Satriani, and Carlos (you may call him Mr. Santana) The world is a better place because of them. New cool guitar orientated rock groups? The Darkness, and Los Lonely Boys. Long hair no more, Matthew Bos * - I voted for Bush, I can do that :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain
From: Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Domestic Terrorism: was Great Britain Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 00:39:54 -0500 From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] Interestingly the demographics are quite clear that the USA will become a predominantly Catholic nation within the next twenty years. Really? I've never heard that before - Is this due to immigration or rapid population growth in certain Catholic communities? That'd be quite a feat. Protestants outnumber them approx. 2 to 1 right now. Based on that alone, I kinda doubt this is an accurate prediction. Unless the Church is attracting record numbers of converts in spite of the scandals Jon Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
