Re: Apostates!

On 24 Oct 2006 at 11:05, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 24/10/2006, at 10:32 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 23 Oct 2006 at 17:11, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >>> Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that > >>> less light has be

RE: Apostates!

On 23 Oct 2006 at 17:11, Dan Minette wrote: > > Meanwile, other - very well documented - research is showing that > > less light has been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of > > some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere. > > > > Let me offer a fairly good and balanced we

Re: Apostates!

On 18 Oct 2006 at 6:07, John W Redelfs wrote: > 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)

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 3 Oct 2006 at 9:54, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 03/10/2006, at 8:08 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > Every single contact I've ever had with the Mac community has been > > fanatically hostile (as opposed to the almost pathological > > helpfulness

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 2 Oct 2006 at 18:01, Robert Seeberger wrote: > Outlook Express is dead. It is replaced by Microsoft Windows Mail and > is much more like Outlook than the old Express version. (Matter of > fact, let me know how my emails are received by your mail program. I'm > interested in knowing if the pa

Re: How religion is destroying America

On 2 Oct 2006 at 22:21, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Oct 2006, at 10:08PM, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > > > William. > > 1. Stop lumping oranges and offal together; it makes > > one suspect that you have no sense of smell. > > > > Genius is seeing the similarities in things that other peop

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 2 Oct 2006 at 21:33, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > To you, maybe. To put it another way, I take a very engineering view, > > rather than a scientific one to technology. > > Well, that sounds like the sort of attitude that Mac people I know > take. And in my experience, I do not

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 2 Oct 2006 at 21:29, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Oct 2006, at 7:16PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 2 Oct 2006 at 17:57, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> Over 25 Windows PCs *every day* are hacked and added to botnets. > >> That's 25

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 2 Oct 2006 at 11:38, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > As I've said before, the Mac is for technosnobs. Pure and simple. > > Saying it over and over doesn't make it true. And if it were true, that > also doesn't mean that it's bad. > > Rich, who is a technosnob, but also just one dat

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 2 Oct 2006 at 17:57, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Oct 2006, at 12:31AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 2 Oct 2006 at 0:16, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> And they don't crash all the time either Maru > > > > Oh? They just have security

Re: PC Software - prices high, little choice

On 2 Oct 2006 at 0:16, William T Goodall wrote: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5396488.stm > > Obviously they didn't launch a range of Mac software since there is > already a huge range of reasonably priced software for Macs. No, obvipusly because they're a niche market segment for which t

Re: The Assumption

On 29 Sep 2006 at 8:38, Jim Sharkey wrote: > However, since we are done having kids, I got a snipping. And > as such, I think there are Catholics out there who would say she's > not a "good" Catholic because of that fact alone. Interesting. I mean... okay, yes, Jews are a people as well as a re

Re: Fwd: "Someone Must Tell Them"

On 27 Sep 2006 at 15:20, Deborah Harrell wrote: > > Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote & forwarded: > > > > ...These times don't call for a swaggering > > chicken-hawk, they call for an > > American Winston Churchill. Don't be afraid. In a > > generation, I want > > the bravery and stout-heart

Re: 9/11 conspiracies (WAS RE: What should we believe when there is no reliable information?)

On 24 Sep 2006 at 10:55, Charlie Bell wrote: > > I occasionally say that evolution is a theory in much the same way > > that gravity is. > > > >> How it works is a theory. > > > > Kind of a mystery, too, which is pretty cool when you think about it. > > Very cool indeed. Mysteries are what scie

Re: Brin: basic is evil, why it must be eradicated

On 22 Sep 2006 at 8:22, David Brin wrote: > Only a small minority seemed at all interested in even > looking at my core idea, which was how to create a > nice, comfortable starting point for millions of kids, > so they could use their computers to do a little > COMPUTING for mild classroom assignm

Re: Whose Ox is Gored?

On 18 Sep 2006 at 20:00, Dave Land wrote: > Folks, > > Time and time again, the charge is leveled by one Brineller against > another that the accused would not be so outraged (at least to the point > of posting to Brin-L) over some political or religious shenanigans if > the result had favored hi

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

On 15 Sep 2006 at 6:39, Nick Arnett wrote: > I hope and pray that the vast majority of people still believe that > making profits from death and destruction is wrong, that every red > cent is tainted with the blood of the fallen, even if it can be > justified by economics. And there are people ou

Re: unholy OS wars

On 14 Sep 2006 at 3:37, William T Goodall wrote: > OS X also has a significant share in this market with several > supercomputing clusters in use. > > http://www.apple.com/science/ Nope, don't see the American DoD listed there. AndrewC Dawn Falcon

Re: unholy OS wars

On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:58, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 14 Sep 2006, at 2:32AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> > >> On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >>>

Re: unholy OS wars

On 14 Sep 2006 at 2:22, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 14 Sep 2006, at 1:47AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote: > >> Agreed. Never made any other case except to point out a Mac is > >> better > >> secure

Re: unholy OS wars

On 13 Sep 2006 at 7:20, Gibson Jonathan wrote: > > Why do you have a problem with the fact that some people who can use > > technology don't view it as sacred? > > > > What, no answer, again?!? > Anyway, I don't worship at any alter. Why do you insist I do? Because it's evidently a creed for yo

Re: unholy OS wars

On 12 Sep 2006 at 6:38, Gibson Jonathan wrote: > Face it: If your making games you've forgotten more computer technology > than regular folk will ever know exists. Assuming this isn't your > first game job. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the *attitude* a person takes towards technolog

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

On 11 Sep 2006 at 10:39, Nick Arnett wrote: > > Some of it seems to be -- the Wiki piece has claims that could easily > > pass 100K already. The info at http://iraqbodycount.org/ seems to be > > about half that. But that's current numbers, and I think Nick was > > projecting through to the end of

Re: unholy OS wars

On 11 Sep 2006 at 12:47, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > >>[...] Evangelism of any particular > >>platform for anything but price/performance and functionality makes > >>me roll my eyes. > > Does "compatibility with other people whose stuff you have to be able > to read and run" fit in there somewhere

Re: unholy OS wars

On 11 Sep 2006 at 9:49, Gibson Jonathan wrote: > My, AndrewC, you are a prickly one aren't you? > You come out all fire and scorching brimstone from the get-go on this > topic. > Expect push-back. It's called reason, applied, and a defence of a tolerant view. And Except what I'm getting from yo

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

On 10 Sep 2006 at 10:45, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > On Sep 9, 2006, at 5:10 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > >> researchers will inevitably say that the body count > >> has crossed 100,000. > > > > N

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

On 8 Sep 2006 at 0:55, The Fool wrote: > A. I know more about 'scripture' than you do. Much more. Yes, well done, you can misreprisent unrelated quotes from it very well. Seen it. And? Unless there's something you'd like to tell us about yourself. *grins* AndrewC Dawn Falcon _

Re: Soldiers Die, CEOs Prosper

On 8 Sep 2006 at 7:37, Nick Arnett wrote: > researchers will inevitably say that the body count > has crossed 100,000. No, not really - it's disputed. > All of this madness to stop a madman, Saddam Hussein. Who was killing arround 175 of his subjects a day a rate which excluding the war

Re: Morality

On 9 Sep 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote: > For me unknowable/meaningless = knowable/false. So you reject quantum theory entirely? Interesting. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: Trusted minister who fleeced his flock

On 9 Sep 2006 at 11:06, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 9 Sep 2006, at 9:02AM, Matt Grimaldi wrote: > > > Corrupt people abuse power and > > authority no matter where they > > get it. You can find corrupt > > individuals in any type of > > organization: police, > > corporations, sports, prison

Re: Trusted minister who fleeced his flock

On 9 Sep 2006 at 4:21, William T Goodall wrote: > http://tinyurl.com/r22k8 > > > "By Nick Britten > (Filed: 09/09/2006) > > A church minister who befriended elderly parishioners before forging > documents to inherit their property and possessions was given 240 > hours community service yest

Re: unholy OS wars

On 7 Sep 2006 at 20:04, Gibson Jonathan wrote: > As an artist hovering around the computer industry since High School I > find it amazing that AndrewC initially claims to be a non-expert, yet > sells computers he regularly builds. Andrew, you undercut yourself on Go back and actually read it. W

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

On 6 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > Again, Jews believe there are universal standards for good and for > > righteousness (and that the most certainly don't need to be a Jew to > > be righteous) - and further, the Bible states that the Law of the > > Land is the Law.

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

On 6 Sep 2006 at 14:43, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 6 Sep 2006, at 2:31PM, Richard Baker wrote: > > > > > Or: how does God Himself decide what is good and evil? Isn't He, at > > least, basically in the same position as us atheists? > > > > I think I have an advantage in not being imaginary.

Re: The Morality of Killing Babies

On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:31, Richard Baker wrote: > Isn't "might makes right" basically the religious position? "I > believe Nope. At least, not for Jews. > in an all-powerful God. That God says these things are good and >those are > evil, therefore I believe these are good and those are >evil." (An

Re: unholy OS wars

On 6 Sep 2006 at 4:38, John W Redelfs wrote: > 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 > > firewal

Re: unholy OS wars

On 6 Sep 2006 at 6:46, Richard Baker wrote: > JohnR said: > > > 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. > > That's called "OS X". Oh, except for the fact that OS

Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)

On 4 Sep 2006 at 20:50, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > Ah, yes, you're quite right. On a quick investigation, for some > > reason the external search I used gave me the *upgrade* price for an > > existing PC. > > That one isn't even remotely the same processor. It has a 533MHz > fro

Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)

On 4 Sep 2006 at 20:36, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > (Incidentally, the CPU's you are reference are only £320 each inc VAT > > from Insight). > > This Insight > > http://uk.insight.com/apps/nbs/index.php?K=xeon+5150&lang=en- > gb&M=&C=107&S=1042 > > or some other one? Ah, yes, you're

Re: Religious freedom

On 4 Sep 2006 at 0:30, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > ... > > Your basic lack of knowledge about dyslexia is glaring. It is not > > something which can be "overcome" by an educator. It is a literal > > perceptile gap on the part of the dyslexi

Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)

On 4 Sep 2006 at 18:43, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > Here's a hint: A base price of £1000 is more than I spend on an > > entire PC which is considerably more powerful than the one you > > linked. > > This seems somewhat unlikely when 2.66GHz Xeon 5150 processors cost > around £470 eac

Re: unholy OS wars

On 4 Sep 2006 at 14:06, William T Goodall wrote: > But most people aren't non-technophiles like you and don't know how > to protect themselves against malicious intrusions. And a computer > that's part of a botnet launching DoS attacks and mailing millions of > spams out through its unknowi

Re: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:38, maru dubshinki wrote: > On 9/2/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's just the best link again: http://www.xenu.net > > > > And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's > > Christ

Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)

On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:30, maru dubshinki wrote: > Could you elaborate on this? I'm kind of curious since I don't think > computer building has been discussed on list, and I've been > contemplating building a PC for some time now (following the template Not really - it's a catch 22, I'm not buying a

Re: unholy OS wars

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 suppor

Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design

On 4 Sep 2006 at 5:36, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the > > universe... > > ...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various

Re: unholy OS wars

On 4 Sep 2006 at 2:49, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2006, at 2:27AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote: > > > Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >>> A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a > >> > >> In Amer

Re: Religious freedom

On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:51, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2006, at 1:28AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: > >> > >> I'm being far politer to you than all the careless educators who > >> couldn't

Re: Religious freedom

On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:27, William T Goodall wrote: > Both my parents were teachers Maru Shame they didn't teach you the value of tolerence. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)

On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:33, William T Goodall wrote: > > In the UK, the difference for someone like me who builds my own is in > > the region of 60% more expensive for the mac in raw performance > > terms, and I cannot get a base spec Mac which suits me as a gamer. > > So by non-technophile you don't

Re: Religious freedom

On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:22, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 4 Sep 2006, at 12:58AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> Good spelling is polite Maru > > > > Not criticising people for disabilities is polite,

Re: unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)

On 4 Sep 2006 at 1:02, William T Goodall wrote: > A low-end Mac Pro will cost you $2,124 compared with $3,071 for a In America. For one specific model. And with a very expensive Windows PC make for comparison. And without similar options for warranty, etc. In the UK, the difference for someone l

Re: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall 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

Re: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:00, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:45PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > And no, I can't spell. I'm dyslexic. Your point? > > > > It's harder to read your incoherent babbling when it's full of &

Re: Manners (was Re: Religious freedom)

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

Re: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 17:19, William T Goodall wrote: > I doubt that the heads of most religions believe. These are > intelligent college educated people after all. Belief is what they > use to gull money and power from the ignorant and superstitious > people that they prey on. There's only one

unholy OS wars (was Re: history is evil, why it must be eradicated)

On 3 Sep 2006 at 12:51, Dave Land wrote: > On Sep 1, 2006, at 9:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote: > > > And yes, OSX is marvelous. Its merest bootlace, Windows is not > > worthy to kiss. - David Brin > > With all the things that you and I have to disagree about, it is nice > that we > have thi

Re: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 21:45, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 3 Sep 2006, at 8:28PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > IMHO, that's not surprising when people are discussing sets of > > presuppositionsespecially when one of the people is convinced > > that his > > own set is Truth. > > I'm glad you're pre

Re: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:31, William T Goodall wrote: > > Perhaps if you read the origional again? I gave plenty of evidence, > > which starts with the fact that they operate as whatever sort of > > organisation better suits the area. They not a religion, they are a > > form of organised crime (especial

Re: Police hunt for terror training camp at a faith school in Tunbridge Wells

On 3 Sep 2006 at 8:54, William T Goodall wrote: > 'Faith school' - hah! Why mince words - let's call it what it is, a > murder school! And exactly typical of the filthy evil of religion. And let's call you a potential murder, since you follow the faith of militant atheism yourself... > 14 men

Re: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:53, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 10:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> > >> On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >>>

Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design

On 2 Sep 2006 at 20:04, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > ... > > You won't actually get many Rabbis willing to hold forth on pure > ... > > That's why I brought up many-words/multiverse - in that, we are not > > unique snowflakes at all. Ther

Re: Religious freedom

On 2 Sep 2006 at 21:57, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 9:34PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > No, the issue is that some people are blind bigots and others are > > not. It is a plain fact that scientology is not a religion. > > > > "

Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design

On 2 Sep 2006 at 19:28, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > "inevitable" is a word which is loaded in itself, and as to > > "outcome", I don't think we're quite at the end of the river yet. > > This being the case, it seems to me that these religions imply that > humanity was supposed or

RE: Religious freedom

On 3 Sep 2006 at 0:27, Ritu wrote: > > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > Straw man. I don't know who you have in mind but *I* > > certainly am not > > > a relativist and my ethical principles have immovably solid > > foundations. > > > >

Re: Religious freedom

On 2 Sep 2006 at 16:08, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >>> No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - > >>> there are a variety of non-religious cree

Re: Religious freedom

On 2 Sep 2006 at 19:46, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 6:53PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > Militant forms of zealotry - militant atheism among them - and free > > goverment are incompatible by the base principle, and I for one > > happen t

Re: Religious freedom

On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:42, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > The ONLY given with a militant atheist is that he is driven by hatred > > and intolerence. Whuch you are. > > But am I? I don't see you posting constant slams and digs at the slightest opportunity against religious people, you d

Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design

On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:39, Richard Baker wrote: > Andrew said: > > > Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the > > universe...I, as many Jews, believe that G-d created..evoloution, and > > set in chain the process which lead to Man. > > Do you believe that God chose the ini

Re: Religious freedom

On 2 Sep 2006 at 18:17, William T Goodall wrote: > > No, of course they don't have the same teachings. That's the point - > > there are a variety of non-religious creeds which vary from > > Scientology to Communism and so on. > > Scientology is a religion. Communism is a quasi-religion. Again, p

Re: Religious freedom

On 2 Sep 2006 at 17:29, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 2 Sep 2006, at 5:07PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > Yes, amazing how different it is if you, say, follow the teachings of > > say Marx, or L. Ron Hubbard, or your grandma... Oh wait, it's not. > &g

Re: Religious freedom

On 2 Sep 2006 at 16:54, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 1 Sep 2006, at 7:10PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > Aggressive atheists cannot be trusted since they believe right and > > wrong are entirely relative and their ethics are based on no firm > > prin

Re: Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design

On 1 Sep 2006 at 22:10, Warren Ockrassa wrote: > On Aug 27, 2006, at 7:41 PM, William T Goodall wrote: > > > There have been growing signs the Pope is considering aligning his > > church more closely with the theory of "intelligent design" taught in > > some US states. > > So ... JPII wasn't infal

Re: Religious freedom

water and land rights. NOT about religions or peoples. > Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are > the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. Aggressive atheists cannot be trusted since they believe right and wrong are entirely relative

Re: On scientology

On 31 Aug 2006 at 18:26, David Hobby wrote: > O.K., if it's purely a money making venture, why all > the wacky UFO doctrine? Seriously, with all that money, > L. Ron could have hired a GOOD writer, who would have > come up with something guaranteed to work better than > the Xenu volcano story! I

Re: Religious freedom

On 31 Aug 2006 at 19:53, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 31 Aug 2006, at 7:27PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 31 Aug 2006 at 16:40, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >> 'Cult' is a derogatory term used by members of one religion to > >> de

Re: On scientology

On 31 Aug 2006 at 15:19, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > > Okay, apparently some people on the list don't know about > > scientology. Scientotology itself is a UFO cult founded by a mentally > > ill science fiction writer. > > Andrew-- > >

Re: Religious freedom

On 31 Aug 2006 at 16:40, William T Goodall wrote: > > On 31 Aug 2006, at 4:09AM, Charlie Bell wrote: > > > > > On 31/08/2006, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > >> On 31 Aug 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote: > >> > >>>>

On scientology

Okay, apparently some people on the list don't know about scientology. Scientotology itself is a UFO cult founded by a mentally ill science fiction writer. It's arguable that the independent, "Freezone" Scientologists are not dangerous. However, the vast majority of Scientologists belong to t

Re: Religious freedom

On 31 Aug 2006 at 10:32, David Hobby wrote: > What I've been thinking about is the future state of world > society (if all goes well). We could get to a place where > there was one larger society on Earth (with LOTS of diversity > within it). And then there would be small groups that were Heh.

Re: Religious freedom

On 31 Aug 2006 at 13:16, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 31/08/2006, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > On 31 Aug 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote: > > > >>> What's your point? The guy was [allegedly] responsible for forcing > >>> girl

Re: Religious freedom

On 31 Aug 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote: > > What's your point? The guy was [allegedly] responsible for forcing > > girls as young as 12-y.o. to "marry" older men, giving the girls no > > choice in the matter. Are you suggesting that under "religious > > freedom" he should have been

Re: Thoughts on Martian timekeeping

On 26 Aug 2006 at 19:57, Julia Thompson wrote: > http://lihan161051.livejournal.com/28786.html > > He hasn't read any of the KSR Mars books. > > (If you comment, don't shred him - I'd like to be able to have lunch > with him again! Thanks.) I admit I don't understand changing the referants. T

Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate

On 5 Aug 2006 at 23:49, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On 05/08/2006, at 11:34 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > It was not an "error" to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied > > to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for

Re: First Freedom First

On 3 Aug 2006 at 11:43, Dave Land wrote: > Folks, > > I just signed a petition at http://firstfreedomfirst.org/ aimed > at ensuring freedom of -- and from -- religion in America. It is > sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, > among others. I'm for that, too. 'Far as

Re: More From the National Intelligence Estimate

On 4 Aug 2006 at 8:48, Nick Arnett wrote: > Now that you have read this, surely you cannot still believe that the > administration's arguments for the were supported by the intelligence. How > do we deal with this? An easy answer would be to blame conservatives and > run to the left. But blame

Re: Internet Archive Wayback Machine

On 17 Jul 2006 at 20:30, Gary Nunn wrote: > > I'm not sure if this archive is cool or disturbing. Cool for historic > purposes, but a bit disturbing if you once posted things you may not want > potential employers to find. Then don't post it under a traceable name... And it respects the usual

RE: Introductions

For those of you who don't know me of old... I'm a 26-year old game designer who lives in Oxford, one of the best parts of England to visit and one of the worst to live in. Among other oddities, I own upliftwar.com (after the book, yes), have worked on a number of RPG's and a pen and paper 4X g

Re: Wind Power Redux

On 24 Jun 2006 at 20:33, Robert G. Seeberger wrote: > There has been a lot about wind power in the news lately. If this and > similar reports are true, then alternative sources of energy just > might be able to solve many of the problems we face WRT energy. I don't think so, bluntly. There's a

Re: New Brin

..I missed that one. Okay, I think this finally sold Universe to me, I've been pondering it for a month. And given how impatient I am, that meansTitan club... On 15 Jun 2006 at 2:15, William T Goodall wrote: > http://www.baensuniverse.com/ > > The new online SF magazine has a serial by David

RE: Let your fingers do the computing . . .

On 4 Jun 2006 at 14:43, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > And the second time you use it, it'll be revolting. > > But it does sound interesting . . . at least if > it becomes affordable. Wonder how well it works > as a graphics tablet? If nothing else, it would > be bigger than this 4"×6" one I currentl

Re: When BatLeths Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have BatLeths

On 31 May 2006 at 8:40, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: > How would you rate your chances with a regular sword versus someone > with a batleth who was in practice with it? Or, IOW, is a batleth in > the right hands likely to be superior or inferior to a garden-variety > pig-sticker which may be easier

RE: Drug patents

On 19 May 2006 at 18:40, Dan Minette wrote: > > Deborah Harrell wrote: > > > > > So if gov't researchers _on their own time_ come up > > > with something novel, they should be 'owners' of that? > > > > Depends. > > > > If my husband comes up with *any* sort of software while he's with his > > c

Re: Online games (was: Xbox 360)

On 8 May 2006 at 15:07, Nick Lidster wrote: > Well with the expression of interest in gaming that was put forth on the > console side of things, I figured it was just as well to see what games that > you all play online. Eve Online. Maya Rkell of Jericho Fraction... Andy Catching up a week of 11

Re: Depleted Uranium, Floridated Water, and Bisphenol Food Wrapping

On 22 Apr 2006 at 16:22, The Fool wrote: > osteosarcoma, a bone cancer that strikes about 400 children nationally > each year. Right. Osteosarcoma is actually one of the more common bone cancers for children, (the other being Ewing's sarcoma). (Yes, overall incidence is low). There was no lin

Re: Depleted Uranium, Floridated Water, and Bisphenol Food Wrapping

On 19 Apr 2006 at 17:42, The Fool wrote: > < > > Young boys who drink fluoridated tap water are at greater risk for a > rare bone cancer, Harvard researchers reported yesterday. Yes, how much more. If it's 2 in 10 million comp

Re: Great Sam Harris Interview

On 11 Apr 2006 at 7:22, The Fool wrote: > If you ingore some minor gibberish about buddism: > > <> I find your faith in atheism is touching. I wonder why you need so strongly not to believe. As I said to a communist friend of mine the other day, he takes his Marx a lot more seriously than I ta

Re: Great Sam Harris Interview

On 11 Apr 2006 at 15:31, Dave Land wrote: > On Apr 11, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: > > > On 11/04/2006, at 6:33 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > >> He also seems to fail to recognize the difference between > >> irrational and > >> non-rational beliefs. And this statement, " Religious mod

Re: News

On 29 Mar 2006 at 5:29, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2006, at 5:06 AM, Dave Land wrote: > > > > Thank you for sharing your story with us. I suppose that the rest > > of the list knows you much better than I do, so I appreciated > > learning a little more about you and your peregrination

Re: Is it just me....

On 22 Mar 2006 at 22:02, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > ... > >>This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those > >>of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi > >>people, and doing what's best for them is about

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >