Re: Apostates!
On 10/17/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18/10/2006, at 2:31 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: (Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767) Global warming... just a theory... I've read that Mars and Jupiter are also warming, and that it has something to do with the output of the sun. Is that true? If so, then why should we suppose that human activity is responsible for global warming here on earth? I mean, we aren't responsible for the global warming that is happening on Mars and Jupiter are we? If the globe warms up, just move further north. If the seas rise, just live farther away from the coast. Isn't that what people did the last time the globe warmed up as it did at the end of the last ice age? Sure some currently productive agricultural areas will no longer be as well suited for agriculture as they are now. But as the globe warms up, won't areas that are not productive now because the weather is too cool become more productive? It ought to balance out shouldn't it. Somehow agonizing over global warming reminds me of a fairy tale I once read in which the king had his courtiers take his throne down to the edge of the sea at low tide. As the tide came in he commanded the water to stay back and not wet his feet as he sat upon the throne. Guess what? The tide came in anyway completely oblivious to the king's law, and this was supposed to show his sycophantic followers how silly they were to keep flattering him about how much power he had. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
On 9/13/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 13 Sep 2006, at 8:34PM, Dan Minette wrote: I think she used some four letter words in response to the poll that stated that somewhere about 30% to 35% of Americans believed that the US government was somehow involved in 9-11besides questioning the poll's methodologyshe was rather upset that very many people at all could subscribe to crackpot theories. Most Americans believe in prophetic dreams; four in 10 say there were once ancient advanced civilizations such as Atlantis. 91.8% say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force. Crackpot theories are *very* popular in America. True, oh so true. There are actually irrational people in America who think that somehow the universe created itself. LOL. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
On 9/13/06, Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thanks Dan, I guess I missed that message in the bustle of my life. As another after word, every single one of my Archt schoolmates contacted in no way buys the official story. Every one of them cited the pile-up of those vertical support beams should have tipped the building, any building, off to one side or another. None could think of examples of a zero footprint implosion w/o demolition. Confusion over the complete sell-off of all material that could be studied was a mystery that baffles many The same sort of thing baffled me after the fire that destroyed the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. How can anyone conduct an arson investigation to see who started the fire if the mess is cleaned up before the ashes are even warm? Isn't that called destroying evidence or something like that? I thought destroying evidence was illegal? And doesn't it seem like that is what happened after the WTC towers came down on 9-11? Why the big hurry to clear up the mess before an investigation can be conducted to see exactly what happened? Look how long they tape off a crash site for a downed airliner so they can figure out what happened. But the way the news came out on 9-11, it seemed they knew exactly what happened even before the dust had settled. They even knew Osama bin Laden did it before the day was out. Amazing! John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/12/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: JohnR said: I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. The Hundred Years War lasted from 1337 to 1453. The Reformation was started by Luther in 1517. Were you thinking of the Thirty Years War? Obviously I don't know what I was thinking. I took European history in 1970, and I have obviously forgotten a lot and gotten much of what I do remember confused. I just seem to remember some series of wars practically depopulating Europe at some time or other. I also read once that at one period in French history dueling with swords became so widespread that it almost eliminated the aristocracy. But that is probably baloney that I picked up somewhere and got wrong too. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
What should we believe when there is no reliable information?
On 9/9/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a vital point: ABC was _given_ the public airwaves -- a multi-billion dollar gift. People had to decide to drive to the theater and pay ten bucks to see the Moore film if they chose to. ABC will air Path to 9/11 for free for two consecutive nights to an audience that has a hard time discriminating between reality and fiction when the fiction is presented as reality. I think I see a way forward: ABC can run a crawler under the entire miniseries (giving it that breaking news feel) stating THIS PART HAPPENED ... THIS PART IS FICTIONAL ... THIS PART IS PROPAGANDA. I am deeply puzzled by the events of 9-11. I am a conspiracy theorist and have been from my earliest teen years in the 1950s. But I have always felt I could tell the likely conspiracy theories from the obvious bunk and baloney. I have never gone in for UFO testimonials, stories about pyramids and so-called Watchers, the hollow earth and other weirdness. I do find likely, however, that multibillion dollar banks and other private financial institutions have a great deal of influence on governments around the world and that they are involved in the financing of our wars throughout history. And since corruption in government is so commonplace in countries around the world and throughout history, it is reasonable to suppose that these vast accumulations of capital in private hands are in some cases involved in that corruption and that huge bribes take place that are never detected or prosecuted, and so forth. But I am really confused about the 9-11 attacks. What part happened? What part is fiction? What part is propaganda? Sure Osama bin Laden may have had something to do with it, but how sure are we that he was not working at someone's behest? If our government is genuinely concerned about terrorism, why do they continue to drag their feet in securing our ports and borders? If millions of illegal aliens come into our nation every year, how can our government be sure that there are no terrorists coming in and bringing weapons of mass destruction with them? Were controlled demolitions involved in the collapse of the WTC towers? How can we be sure one way or the other? If the towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, who could have done it? Why would they do it? Did not Hitler and his followers have something to do with the burning of the Reichstag in Germany during the rise to power of the Nazis in that country? Could the attacks on 9-11 have been something like that? My access to the Internet has caused me to become increasingly skeptical about virtually all information sources. I no longer know how to tell good information from bad information, something I used to think I was good at. I am now confused to the point where I do not know what to believe about anything. It seems like almost everything is smoke and mirrors and media hype. What do you think? Is the official government story about 9-11 accurate? Or are we being fed an official line that is covering up something far more sinister? I just don't know any more. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. B. I've read the bible, more times than you will for the entire rest of life. C. I've read more about the bible than you ever will. D. I Own more translations of the Bible than there are regulars on this list. E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll. It is not hard for me to see why you use the handle that you do in email. Think about what you have just written. How could you be sure you know more about scripture than I do when you do not know how much I know? How could you know you have read the Bible more times than I have when you do not know how many times I have read it? Ditto to your assertion labeled C above. As for your assertion labeled D, does owning many translations necessarily mean that you understand any of them? It seems to me that a person might become confused if he owned too many translations, especially if he had no criteria for knowing which of the translations were any good. Have you ever considered that all of the translations might be bad? If that were so, just how much would your knowledge of the Bible be worth then? Is every one you disagree with a lowbrow explitive deleted idiot and a troll? Or just me? You strike me as a person who thinks himself much smarter than he really is and much better educated than is the actual case. Your opinions might be a bit more convincing if they were expressed with a little more humility. As my Uncle Bob used to say, It isn't what you don't know that hurts you. It's what you know that's not so. Lots of people know a great deal more than I do. I'm sure that you do. I do not know very much. Hardly anything. But I suspect that a great deal of what you know is false, perhaps all of it or nearly all of it. If that is the case, then your lofty education really isn't much of an education at all. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So you want your brothers and sisters to die in large numbers through famine, pestilence and war? Or have you just failed to write clearly enough to convey what you really mean? I would rather my brothers and sisters, the whole human race, would stop killing each other unnecessarily. But if we are all just organisms, nothing more, then why would abortion and birth control be any better for controlling population than war, pestilence and famine? If we are in effect nothing more than so many bacteria in a petrie dish called Earth, what possible difference could it make which method is used for controlling the growth of the culture? In fact, when you consider how much disgusting and unnecessary slaughter, poverty and starvation there is. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to throw the petrie dish into an autoclave and have done with the bacterial culture within it. Nothing at all is better than what has been going on. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/8/06, Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John W Redelfs wrote: So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? No. Starvation and War have, historically, made no impact on the growth of population - probably they even had the opposite effect. And disease should be quite devastating - like AIDS in Africa - to have a significant effect. Well, when you consider that mankind has been around during historical times for over 6,000 years, and when you consider that accurate census data has only been available for a little of a hundred years, and when you consider that such data has been available only in those parts of the world where there are accurate censuses taken, I find it hard to take your above assertion seriously. How could you or anyone possibly know? I may be wrong, because I do not have a lot of confidence in history, but it is my understanding that the One Hundred Years War that took place in Europe following the Protestant Reformation had a huge impact on the population of Europe for many decades. Historical records seem to indicate that the Black Death of the 14th Century had an enormous impact. Some reputable paleoanthropologists who have made a life's study of prehistoric America now believe that when Europeans made first contact with the natives of America, that smallpox preceded them everywhere they went and was responsible for the relative emptiness of the Americas which actually had a much larger population than has been previously thought. But you may be right. I just have no confidence that you are. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote: William T Goodall wrote: The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet. There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is just a form of holier-than-thou for atheists. Rich, atheist and vegetarian. Me, atheist and omnivorous. Doesn't matter a damn to me what you eat. What does matter is that it's clear from your posts that you don't understand atheism, as you're repeating old and wrong canards about ethics and morality. Atheists have one thing in common, and one only - that they do not believe in gods. Beyond that, they're as diverse as any other random group of people. I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist does, or a least not as much that is correct. But neither do atheists know as much about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is correct. Some things you cannot understand correctly from the outside looking in. In all advanced fields of learning including both science and religion, most of the knowledge can be learned only after learning the prerequisites. Without those prerequisites, a student must remain ignorant. I know some science, but not much beyond the level of my mathematics which only goes as far as high school algebra, geometry and trigonometry. However, I know the scriptures rather well compared with most. And one thing I can state with dead certainty: The scriptures cannot be correctly understood unless you believe them. Therefore, statements made about religion (scriptures) by atheists are almost always made from a position of bustling ignorance. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Morality of Killing Babies
On 9/7/06, Richard Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And there in fact is a rational argument in favour of vegetarianism, because a given area of land can feed more vegetarians than meat eaters essentially because of thermodynamics. More solar energy gets into plants used as human food than into plant-eating animals used as human food. So what? In the USA people need to eat less anyway. And globally, there needs to be a reduction in population that could most easily be effected by widespread starvation. People extol the virtues of abortion and birth control, but doesn't starvation, disease and war control over population just as well? I fail to see the advantages of birth control and abortion. That is, I would if I did not believe that every human being on this earth is a child of the same Heavenly Father and hence truly brothers and sisters. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4 Sep 2006 at 0:41, William T Goodall wrote: It's nice that this topic has attracted some interest and that people are giving some thought to the sickening poisonous evil filth of religion and the ghastly damage it causes individuals and society. No, people are calling you a atheist zealot. There's a difference. However a number of people (you know who you are and I won't embarrass you by quoting you) have veered from the polite and civilised example I set when discussing this pernicious vileness and What, bigotry, intollerance, anti-sematism and police-state mentality? Yes, you givre a great civilised example - of precisely why laws against fanatics of any stripe should not mention religion, since you'd try to dodge on that basis. written some things that are simply gratuitously insulting or ad hominem attacks. Like the ones you constantly make against any beliver? I suggest those people stick their heads in a bucket of ice water until they regain their manners. I suggest that you use a few buckets of soap to wash your mouth out. I'm certainly not going to stop pointing out your blatent lies, distortions and intollerance of anything which you define as a religion (as YOU see fit). I agree with Goodall, us religious people are sickening poisonous evil filth. That is why we need the Atonement and forgiveness that can only come in one way. But I can see things from the atheist perspective too. Since all of us are nothing more than an accidental arrangement of atomic and subatomic particles, and such particles are of little intrinsic value any more than a fart, it would be morally acceptable for all of us to just slaughter anyone who doesn't agree with us about everything until none of us are left. Er... come to think of it, that is what we have been trying to do throughout human history. We just haven't been able to develop technology fast enough to get the job done. Kill everyone who doesn't agree with you. That's the solution to this meaningless mess. When we are all dead, we can stop fighting. Or course, that won't matter either. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Anti-Matter Collisions
If our Milky Way were to collide with an anti-matter galaxy of equal mass, perhaps one that our astronomers had somehow overlooked, and tomorrow our whole galaxy were to cease to exist, what difference would it make? Is the universe benefited in any way from having the Milky Way as part of its mass? Or would the net loss amount to nothing of any importance? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
The Morality of Killing Babies
My atheist father used to tell me that might makes right is a bad philosophy? Why? Unless there is a God who is against it, why would that philosophy be any better or worse than any other? Upon what do atheists base their morality? I've never been able to understand this. If selection of the species is determined by survival of the fittest, isn't might the ultimate good, biologically speaking? The strong are just doing nature a favor by rubbing out the weak, preferably before they have a chance to reproduce. Following this line of reasoning, would not killing babies be one of the moral things a person could do? That way only the babies of the strongest parents would be able to survive, and that would improve the bloodline, isn't that so? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Global warming on Mars
On 9/4/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/grin.asp I wonder what the Barsoomians are doing to increase green house gases like this? For shame! John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/3/06, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: I do dual-boot windows 2k and linux, but I don't feel that Linux is ready for most home users, unlike projects like OpenOffice, which I've recommended for some years... it's a shame that I can't move away entirely because of some of the more arcane Excel spreadsheets used by friends of mine don't translate to Calc well. I have dual-boot Windows XP and Linux, and Linux is increasingly more useful for my home users than Windows. For most tasks there is only Linux, and Windows is relegated to games. It's a pity that there's no way to play The Sims 2 with Linux, or I would thrash Windows completely. My system is a dual boot XP/Ubuntu machine, and I 'm using Ubuntu as I write this. But it took me days of struggle to get my xorg.conf file in my /etc/X11 directory edited correctly before I could get the 1440x900 display I'm using to work properly. And that is even though in Dapper Drake, the latest and greatest Ubuntu version, the right Nvidia driver was automatically installed when I installed the operating system. On the XP side of my machine, by contrast, all I had to do was download and install the Nividia driver and everything worked perfectly. It took me maybe five minutes. What is better on the desktop, a two day struggle editing a text file of technical jibberish and searching online forums and user groups to learn what to do, or a five minute download and install? Linux is going to take off when it is better than Windows, not merely just as good. Both operating systems are pieces of crap compared with what we really need. Twenty years from now people will shake their heads in wonder that anyone could use a desktop computer back in first decade of the century. We can't even keep malware, the RIAA and abusive governments out of our machines. And tomorrow, Google will be forced to turn over all our search history to George Bush just so he can make sure he approves of where we visit on the web. Why are these companies keeping sensitive data on us anyway? Are there laws that require them to? I don't think so? Why aren't there laws that prohibit them from collecting such data? What ever happened to our rights to be secure in our persons and effects as guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? And how come none of these free men and women in this country seem to care? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/4/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those people either buy from people like me (who pre-install the software), or they buy a brand..which allready has antivirus and firewalls loaded. I have not seen a PC sold in the last 4 years without that software...the ones loaded with infections are older than that, IME. Moreover, a 70-80 minute process lets me reinstall a fresh windows install from scratch without deleting any data. Infections are no problem on a PC, just reinstall the operating system. You have to do that every couple of months anyway just to replace the system files that are damaged every time it crashes and you have to do a cold reboot without shutting down properly. If you are backed up, no big deal. I wonder if a guy could keep all his most important files on one of these new 2GB flash drives, and boot his operating system from a read only DVD or CD-ROM like these Live CDs that some Linux distributions come on? How would malware get you then? You wouldn't even need to have an operating system on your computer, maybe not even as hard drive. Wouldn't that give the makers of spyware, viruses, etc. the fits? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/4/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sep 3, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: No: I'm afraid WTG made a mistake in making that equation, so I won't throw my lot in with him on that account. They're both valid points, however: Macs *do* tend to have a longer productive life than PCs and Macs *are* significantly less prone to attack than PCs for reasons that are far too boring to discuss here. Besides Unix and its variants are el spiffo. Unlike Windows, they actually make sense. There is only one right way to do something, and if you do it like that it always works. With Windows there are a dozen ways to do anything, and none of them work all of the time. What a confusing mess. What we really need is an OS with all of the advantages of XP and Ubuntu and none of the disadvantages of either. Then maybe we would have a decent operating system. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/3/06, Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3 Sep 2006 at 20:01, Dave Land wrote: On the contrary, there may well be better words for it, such as better informed about the current state of the Macintosh line than you seem to be. Or, not just shooting his mouth off without being in possession of the facts. Okay, you're supporting the direct comparison of component lifetime vs unprotected time connected to the internet without catching nastyware? Just to be clear. From the page: The brilliantly redesigned Mac Pro enclosure accommodates up to four drives and 2TB of storage; offers 8 DIMM slots to fill with up to 16GB of RAM; provides up to two SuperDrives. You also have four PCI Express slots, and more I/O ports - including two additional ports up front. That's nice. I can't change the motherboard, there are seriously limited drivers avaliable for graphics cards, sound cards...forget it, and so on. And when I upgrade, I can't take much of it with me, with a Mac, compared to a PC. There are no options just to get a new Motherboard and RAM, if everything else would still be useful. Marketing hype aside, I think if you actually look, you'll see that not only do Macs come equipped with a lot that you'd have to _add_ to most PCs, Like what? Remember I build my own PC's, so that's not something I'm bothered about. The premium for pre-assembly is a direct strike against Mac's for me. And you'll find that opening up a Mac and accessing all that expandability is a darn sight easier than most PCs: Entirely based on case choice. My case is very well designed and I have no issues working with it. Blithering. Retard. Don't be so hard on yourself: lots of Windows users are uninformed about how far the Mac has progressed. Yes, it's only 60% more expensive, as I said. Only. Given another, what, twenty years, it might even become avaliable for sale in a form I'd consider buying - one that dosn't tying me to a specific base box. And hard on myself, right. I'm REALLY enthused about getting a mac when all its zealots seem unable to stop themselves from taking cheap potshots about the superiority of their machines when I have zero dogma and are interested in precisely what they do - and how friendly and helpful the community are (which is why I picked SuSe Linux over Red Hat, for reference). Given a lot of the professional programs I run are DirectX/.NET based, and will not run on a Mac without installing Windows (and no, I'm not a good coder and am not prepared to port them), there is absolutely no reason for me to consider one. And no, I'm not changing profession just so I can use a Mac. I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC? That way you could use whichever one seems to be doing best whatever you want to do. I used to have a Linux machine and a Windows machine side by side on my computer desk. I used both of them. Right now I've got both Linux and Windows running on my PC, and I use both sides of the machine every day. When our computers get past the horse and buggy stage, we won't have to do all this switching around. Everybody's machine will do everything. All it takes is software. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: unholy OS wars
On 9/4/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't think anybody's suggesting that you change careers just so you can use a Mac, but you could always run Windows via Parallels (http://www.parallels.com) and enjoy the best of both worlds (on a box that you did _not_ build yourself, I understand). CrossOver Mac (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/), which is in Beta, lets Windows apps run under Mac OS X without having to run Windows itself. This probably wouldn't cover your need for .NET stuff, though. Or you could buy a machine with lots of RAM, hard drive and a fast chip. Then install VMware and a half dozen operating systems and use all of them at the same time. I wonder if anyone finds doing that to be useful? John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be interested in seeing William provide evidence that the Catholic Church has been running a pedophile ring for centuries... There are many things that are true for which no evidence can be produced. In fact, I would suggest that no evidence can be produced for most of what is true. I've got two objects in my left, front pocket as I type this. What are they? You have no evidence at the moment to prove one way or another what I have in my left front pocket. Does that mean that nothing is there? No, it just means that there is not evidence, or at least no evidence that you have access to. This constant demand for evidence is unreasonable. It is narrow minded. A person who believes only the evidence doesn't believe much. This is especially true when it comes to religion. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Religious freedom
On 9/3/06, William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote: It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove me wrong go ahead and knock yourself out. Otherwise we'll just have to differ on the matter. Just to clarify that: since they are quite obviously an active and dangerous pedophile organisation *now* the only part you could disprove is that they were in the past also. Since it's a clear pattern of ongoing behaviour that's documented for the past half century or so as victims have begun to come forward you'd have to come up with some reason that pattern *shouldn't* be expected to continue further back into the past. Given the Church's ongoing efforts to cover up the issue any lack of published scandal prior to the well-known present day cases can't show that molestation wasn't going on then too. I really don't see how you could disprove it actually, but good luck. I belong to a church that teaches a very strict Law of Chastity. And after my divorce when I was 23 years of age, I was celibate for 8 years while I tried desperately to find the wife that I have now been married to for 28 years. Anyone who has tried to live a perfectly chaste life after having once been sexually active, especially a young male as I was and as most priests are when they start out in their vocation, can tell you that such celibacy is extremely difficult to achieve and even more difficult to maintain. It is preposterous to suppose that the legions of Catholic priests are able to accomplish this. By enforcing a strict rule that Catholic priests must be celibate, the Catholic church virtually ensures that sexual hypocrisy will be the rule of the day among priests. I am dead certain that a great many of them are either misbehaving with young boys, other priests, nuns, or the wives of parishioners. Celibacy is simply too difficult to accomplish successfully for it to be effectively practiced on such a wide scale as many suppose. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Warlords of Barsoom
Just a note to let fellow list members know that the Warlords of Barsoom is now an officially registered World of Warcraft guild on the Sentinels server. If any of you share my admiration for the science fiction and fantasy of Edgar Rice Burroughs, and also play World of Warcraft, check out our website at http://warlordsofbarsoom.wordpress.com or contact me, Morskajak, in the game for further information. -- John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] * Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. * All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Warlords of Barsoom
On 8/31/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: D'oh! Wrong server for me! Speakking of which, any Brinnell users on the Thunderhorn server? My main character, a level 50 Dwarf Priest (Holy) is on Boulderfist, a PvP server. But I have started a new character named from the Mars novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs on the RP server Sentinels just so I can relax with friends in a guild that is more casual, and made up of players that are more mature, than many I meet on Boulderfist. I intend to play both characters as the mood strikes me: my main when I'm hot for some hard core gaming, leveling and high level instances. My Warlords of Barsoom alternate character on Sentinels when I just want to relax, chat with friends, do some crafting and so forth. Almost everyone in the guild has higher level characters on other servers. Here are our URLs: Guild Website http://warlordsofbarsoom.wordpress.com Guild Forum http://groups.google.com/group/warlords-of-barsoom/about You have to be 21 years old to join. And you have to start a new character with a name taken from the Mars novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs. Also, when you reach level 60, you have to leave the guild. So don't be in a big hurry to level. We are a casual, family guild and not specialists in power leveling and the endgame. Instead we are focused on the lower and mid levels of the game. Later on, if we get a lot of high level players in the guild, we might form a new guild just for Warlords of Barsoom graduates. Anyway, you are certainly welcome. Don't feel like you can't play just because your main character is on another server. My main character is on another server too. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi Channel sinks to all new low.
On 7/25/06, Gary Nunn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's with a heavy heart that I must report the SciFi Channel has sunk to a new all time low. I can only guess that SciFi Channel felt as if they had to do one worse than Tremors: The Series, and Scare Tactics. [Deep sigh here] As I type this, the SciFi Channel is showing professional wrestling. Gary Who just doesn't have the heart to create a witty closing line after this traumatic event. How I love my Tivo. I can just cherry pick the science fiction channel movies that I want to watch and never even see the other crap. I don't even know how I watched TV before I had a Tivo. I've quit renting from Blockbuster or Netlflix. I don't buy DVDs anymore. I just keep trying to watch the stuff I've already recorded on the Tivo. And because I would much rather spend my time on the Internet anyway, I can never catch up. -- John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi Channel sinks to all new low.
On 7/26/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How I love my Tivo. I can just cherry pick the science fiction channel movies that I want to watch and never even see the other crap. I don't even know how I watched TV before I had a Tivo. Some of us look in the program guide¹ ahead of time and make decisions for ourselves . . . :) I used to try an avoid the crap using the TV Guide, but it was so much work compared with doing the same thing with Tivo that I rarely made the effort, and I ended up watching whatever was on whenever I felt like watching TV, which isn't all that often. Now, whenever I feel like watching, there is something waiting on the hard drive that I really wanted to see. And I don't have to do a lot of research or remember when it comes on and all that bother. -- John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: SciFi Channel sinks to all new low.
On 7/26/06, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But you may also miss things that you might have chosen for yourself . . . 0 Huh? Maybe you don't know how Tivo works. I give them a wishlist of films I want to see based upon category, director, actor, or keyword, and then it computes a list to choose from of everything coming up in the next two weeks on all the channels I receive. I get to review the list with complete information available for every program, and schedule each one that I want for being automatically recorded when it comes on. They it just does its thing, and I end up with dozens of films and programs that I wanted to see and that I chose myself. They are already on my hard drive so I can watch them whenever I want. And being able to skip the commercials is just frosting on the cake. The fact is, I get to watch what I wanted and picked myself, and I get to watch it from the beginning of the show, and I get to watch it whenever I feel like sitting down to watch TV. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
On 7/22/06, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can say it's not human if you like, but genetically you are just wrong. It is distinctly human and not of any other living species. Furthermore, it is alive. If it were not, there would be no need to kill it. --JWR It is not a free-standing individual but is at the stage of a symbiotic parasite. My definition of live human begins at a later stage. If there is a God, I wonder where his definition of a live human being begins, and does he feel it is morally OK for each of us to have our own personal definition that is different from his? Is there any way to find out without merely guessing or theorizing? If we place the point at which the organism is viable, and can survive outside the womb without a mother's love and care, then we deny the label human to many children and even some adults. Perhaps we should just kill every human organism that is helpless and cannot sustain itself. It would certainly solve a lot of the problems with the elderly, the homeless, the handicapped, and the starving poor of Africa and North Korea. I'm not sure that even atheists and agnostics would find that morally acceptable, although I cannot imagine why not. From my perspective, God is the source of all moral law. And if there is no God, or if his will is unknowable, then all things are equally moral. And to be more precise, the concept of morality ceases to exist. Of course, that is just from my perspective. People think and believe in a marvelous variety of ways. It seems to be as much a unique quality for each individual as his face or his fingerprints. We love to think that our attitudes are all the result of reason, logic and carefully though out positions. But my observation over 61 years indicates to me that people don't even know why they feel and believe as they do. It is all determined by mental processes that take place far deeper than that part of the mind which we are aware of or have conscious control of. And happiness for each individual depends on how well we are able to live according to what we really believe on this deeper, involuntary level. People who outrage their inner most convictions, the ones we are not even aware of on a conscious level, can never be happy and often end up either suicidal or self-destructive or both. Just to be on the safe side, I personally opt for preserving all human life from a zygote to a completely senile person well over a hundred years of age. Why kill them? They are going to die anyway. Every living thing does. All we have to do is be more patient. That some are unwilling to wait for natural death seems morally risky to me. Some women who abort their children never recover emotionally but spend the rest of their lives agonizing over the choice they made. And this is undoubtedly true regardless of what stage of development the unborn child was. Not being a woman who has ever aborted an unborn child, I cannot speak from experience. But I imagine that for some women recovering from a youthful and foolish decision to get an abortion is like trying to recover from sexual child molestation. There is a sense in which all of us are children and always will be. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: RFK Jr. interview
On 7/22/06, The Fool [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] difficult for non-citizens to vote. One example that I just read was the opposition to a picture ID voting card, which requires proof of citizenship to vote. Requiring citizens to get an ID card from one single statewide office that is never open, to be able to vote is the essence of jim crow. Which is why that law has bee struct down, in both state and federal court. Maybe it would make more sense to shoot down the laws that permit a state government to keep difficult office hours. Why don't the people in this country stop kidding themselves about states rights and just admit that the various states are administrative units of the federal government? The Tenth Amendment is obviously repealed without due process simply by ignoring it. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Do you play World of Warcraft? Let me know. Maybe we can play together. *** All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
