On 09/11/2006, at 11:47 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I
don't know what provisions those are that you are talking about,
To answer this bit - provision for the children means inheritance
and child support in case of one partner leaving the relationship
through divorce or death. And support for
On 07/11/2006, at 11:18 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
They're not free to marry someone of the same orientation, so they're
being treated differently.
But that's only for a definition of marriage as a partnership between
any two people, that's not true for a definition of marriage as a
partnership
On 07/11/2006, at 11:46 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 6 Nov 2006 at 23:48, John D. Giorgis wrote:
An oddly on-topic article..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm
And as ever it COMPLETELY misses the point. Yes, public areas are
covered with cameras. Private areas are not.
On 07/11/2006, at 2:49 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference
On 07/11/2006, at 4:15 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Or is it moral, just
and a good idea to treat someone differently because of their sexual
orientation?
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
They're not
On 07/11/2006, at 5:08 PM, pencimen wrote:
JDG wrote:
Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but everyone in New Jersey was and is
free to marry, regardless of their sexual orientation
If the partner of choice isn't involved then the word free is
somewhat misplaced.
In any case, it's
On 07/11/2006, at 5:56 PM, pencimen wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Still got a long way to go, especially in countries where they're
specifically enacting legislation to forbid gay marriage. Round and
round we go.
I agree, but younger people have more tolerant attitudes and are more
likely to
On 06/11/2006, at 7:40 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
So what is it with all these right-wing evangelical anti-gay-
marriage nutcases being in the closet? I see Ted 'New Life Church'
Haggard has been outed for his sordid drug and rent-boy antics.
Is there anyone against gay marriage that
On 06/11/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 6 Nov 2006 at 7:56, Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm guessing the server problems with Brin-L ate the end of the
previous thread on this topic, but I still haven't heard a good
argument for discrimination on gender preference for marriage.
I
On 04/11/2006, at 11:11 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
I'd already stopped eating shrimp some years back,
because of large by-catch loss (undesirable marine
animals caught in the nets and tossed back, usually
dead), (...)
Shrimps are created in farms now
On 29/10/2006, at 12:44 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Its the creation of law that did not previously exist before.
Is it? It's only since homosexual couples have been trying to get
married that they've been told No you can't. In fact, in the UK and
Australia they had to add legislation to
On 27/10/2006, at 9:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority
On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal
marriage
isn't going to be a wildly popular idea
Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate
On 27/10/2006, at 9:48 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
So, in other words, the Republicans increased their budget from $6.5
million in 2001 to $12.7 million (2001 dollars) in FY 2006. Close to
DOUBLED it in five years in *inflation-adjusted* terms.
...and the budget for 2007 is back to 7M, which
On 27/10/2006, at 11:14 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 27 Oct 2006, at 12:46PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 27/10/2006, at 9:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Do weddings automatically confer legal
rights in the UK?Are religious ceremonies required in the UK?
Until very recently it had
On 28/10/2006, at 12:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
the majority, especially those on
On 28/10/2006, at 9:40 AM, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
I agree, there's nothing wrong with calling it a
civil union, and that should maybe be the
official name. But I confess that I'd personally
call such things marriages, just to upset
traditionalists.
Eventually, they'll be called that
On 28/10/2006, at 12:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
And what has been invented and imposed out of whole cloth here?
Is it really not obvious to you?
No, it's not.
The NJSC decision in a nutshell is that it ordered the NJ
Legislature to
either:
1) Create gay marriages
2) Create gay
On 28/10/2006, at 1:05 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what on earth is your problem with the ruling, as you seem to
agree with it.
I am appalled at the way it was handed down.
I've looked over a bit of the decision, and the ruling
On 28/10/2006, at 2:47 PM, Horn, John wrote:
St. Louis Cardinals, World Champions.
*cough* Time they allowed other countries in, eh?
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 26/10/2006, at 1:30 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Seems like the NJ SC is not willing to push the Full Faith and Credit
issue. But I imagine it's a good-sized win for gay rights activists.
If you consider maneuvering outside of the democratic process to get
what you want to be a good-sized
On 26/10/2006, at 11:59 PM, David Hobby wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
...
From my personal point of view, as a registered NJ voter, I don't
really mind the idea of extending protections to committed gay
couples
similar to committed straight couples, in general. I'm still not
a fan of calling
On 27/10/2006, at 5:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
There WERE useful weapons. Period. A program, possibly. But your
historical revisionism is plain and bluntly sickening. As of *2004*,
Saran shells were still potentially lethal in roadside ambushes.
Once, as far as I can find.
Yes, 2 1/2
On 27/10/2006, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Your name-calling doesn't exactly go far to convince me that all
those
Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical progression,
from the little popular
On 27/10/2006, at 11:01 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
An interesting idea - but I somehow think that abolishing legal
marriage
isn't going to be a wildly popular idea
Well, it's a good job that's not what I said. I said separate the
legal and religious portions. Make the legal agreement
On 27/10/2006, at 11:12 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Rather constitutional rights are drafted in a democratic process,
by the
majority, to be a future, binding restriction on the majority.
So the views of the Founding Fathers which prevailed were those of
the majority, especially those on
On 27/10/2006, at 11:41 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
Further, I would note that you and everyone else here has, in any
number of discussions in the past, chosen to ignore some questions
or comments on any topic. This may be tacitly ceding a given point,
or (as in my case this time) not really
On 27/10/2006, at 9:14 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Your blatent lies and historical revisionism.. well, when do we get
to the holocaust denial? Because THAT is another logical
progression,
from the little popular historical re-writings to the major ones, as
paranoia progresses. Seen it all
On 25/10/2006, at 2:16 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
How about:
E) Global warming, caused by greedy oil company executives in
cahoots with a Republican President.
Hmmm.
While Bush has an appalling environmental record, I think it's hard
to say that climate change is his fault, or the
On 24/10/2006, at 2:04 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
I underlined the key phrase here. There is no doubt that the law
states
that alien UEC do not have habeas corpus rights. This phrase was
clearly
intended to exclude citizens...by the use of the word alien. As I
said
elsewhere, this has
On 24/10/2006, at 2:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
But their next friend can...and this has happened in both cases
where a
citizen was declared an unlawful enemy combatant. Both cases have
been
reviewed by the courts. The potential hole in habeas corpus, someone
rotting in prison has no
On 24/10/2006, at 2:21 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Can't you see how insidious this is?
No, because the American legal system doesn't work that way.
...doesn't work *what* way? Bad laws have been used in the past to
detain people that haven't done anything wrong. It takes years to
right
On 24/10/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote:
On Oct 22, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 01:27 AM Sunday 10/22/2006, pencimen wrote:
For those few of us who saw the disaster that is Bush coming,
While some voted for Bush primarily because they thought that
President Gore
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 been hitting the Earth. By a degree, on average, of
some 22% in Israel - with comparative figures elsewhere.
Let
On 24/10/2006, at 11:44 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Meanwhile, you spend 4 years in a jail, possibly in Syria, and get
tortured. Great.
Charlie
Charlie, why are you mixing up cases of the treatment Syrian/Canadian
citizen who was sent to Syria (under the well established legal
precedent)?
On 24/10/2006, at 12:05 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Well point us at it, because while you may disagree with their
conclusions, they are indeed scientists. It's possible to disagree
with an analysis without casting someone as a lackey of whatever
conspiracy you want, Especially without
On 22/10/2006, at 6:26 AM, Dave Land wrote:
If I read (e)(1)(B) correctly, you don't even have to be actually
_determined_ to be an enemy combatant, merely _awaiting_such_
determination_, in order to have habeus corpus suspended, but you
_do_ appear to have to be an alien... I'm not taking a
On 21/10/2006, at 8:10 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
As I stated in my correspondence with Rob in this thread, this
pretty well
sets the boundaries. Americans who fight overseas against US
soldiers can
be treated like the other soldiers. American citizens who are not so
engaged cannot, even
On 21/10/2006, at 12:00 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
This would seem to exclude citizens. However, it actually doesn't,
because if you are declared a UEC because you have been deemed to
have provided material support to terrorists (say you'd rented an
apartment to the 9/11 hijackers), then you are
On 19/10/2006, at 12:07 AM, 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)
Global warming
On 19/10/2006, at 12:56 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Horn, John wrote:
On Behalf Of Charlie Bell
Global warming... just a theory...
Bunnies... I think it's bunnies...
- jmh
Don't swerve for the bunnies. If you hit one and it dies, at least
whatever genes it was carrying for stupidity
On 19/10/2006, at 1:50 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
... and won't mess up your tires with their blood guts.
:)
Julia
who probably shouldn't post after a margarita, really...
Too right you shouldn't.
Go drink a pitcherful, THEN post.
Charlie
Bad Influence Maru
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...
Charlie
Deja Vu Maru
___
On 18/10/2006, at 10:57 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/17/2006 5:41:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Printed in the local paper this morning. I found it on-line at
Jewish World Review Oct. 16, 2006 / 24 Tishrei, 5767)
Global warming...
On 16/10/2006, at 3:06 PM, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
Or is the best option to try to move one of the big 2 closer to the
middle?
Can that even be done? I've heard some moderates say that it takes
both
wings for the American eagle to fly. But what good are the wings
without a
body in
On 13/10/2006, at 9:26 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I'm looking for a program or method to be able to copy a CD-ROM
onto the HD and install it and run it from there. Someone on
another list said there is a program called Liquid CD which does
this on the Mac. I of course am looking for
On 14/10/2006, at 12:59 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 07:54 AM Friday 10/13/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 13/10/2006, at 9:26 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
I'm looking for a program or method to be able to copy a CD-ROM
onto the HD and install it and run it from there. Someone on
another
On 14/10/2006, at 8:42 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
It does. Thank you for mentioning that, since I use it all the
time for burning discs. Duh. Didn't even try to find it there
(mainly because someone on another list mentioned something else
but as yet hasn't followed through with a
On 13/10/2006, at 1:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
In this case, the anthropologist doesn't impart any information to
anyone. Everyone knows that N(blue) = 1.So, presuming that the
island existed in a steady state before the anthropologist's arrival,
then her arrival with the announcement
On 10/10/2006, at 10:15 PM, Ray Ludenia wrote:
In the original context of whinging pom, it definitely means
complaining or whining in Australia. It was applied to those poms
who migrated out here, and who were disappointed that things were
different from home. A commonly accepted
On 11/10/2006, at 6:15 AM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
Alberto Monteiro wrote:
http://kidbasic.sourceforge.net/
Oooh, Sourceforge! They're the same guys who got the 3DO port of
Star Control 2 and have been made it pretty playable in Windows.
Those guys rule. I'll have to check out the site.
On 08/10/2006, at 12:55 AM, pencimen wrote:
Ronn! wrote:
Which is where I heard it from.
However, if anyone did find it offensive, I apologize, as that was
not my intent.
I'm not generally oversensitive to this kind of thing and I understand
that most people aren't aware that these terms
On 05/10/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really think that I think the Democrats are any better?
Hypocrites and liars on both sides.
You did leave me with that distinct impression.but maybe I'm
just used
On 06/10/2006, at 11:15 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Anyway - in an ideal world, my disagreements with Republicans would
be on policy. But at the moment it's not, it's with the ideology of
the current administration and the damaging shortsightedness of that.
And the Democrats have been complicit,
On 04/10/2006, at 4:04 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
So, really, what did you have in mind?
Have relatives in high office?
That doesn't work, not until they have the same ideas as you. Even
then,
given that they came up within the system, following the usual routes
On 04/10/2006, at 4:16 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
I know. I was being funny and throwing rotten fruit at you,
metaphorically speaking. :-)
:p
Meanie!
Being nasty and all, and just because I have good taste in books
I have good taste in books!
I also, simultaneously, have
On 04/10/2006, at 9:22 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Time to kick out the people who have thrived on a policy of fear
then, and choose some representatives who value freedom and liberty
more than they value power through fear.
So
On 05/10/2006, at 12:03 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
Hence my comment about a choice (?) between Tweedledumb and
Tweedledumber.
Yep. I get that. It's a depressing thought, really.
I'm starting to wonder whether the United States can continue in its
current form, or if there's going to
On 04/10/2006, at 3:38 AM, Dave Land wrote:
On Sep 29, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
I've been working on a poem with some friends. Perhaps some
of you will appreciate this.
We Will Not Be Afraid
Our country will be attacked
And we will know outrage
But we will not be afraid.
On 04/10/2006, at 7:22 AM, Dave Land wrote:
When you are not afraid, they can't do anything (except try to
terrorise
you again). When people hold their heads in memory of the lost, then
carry on with their lives, then we've won.
I suppose I should have put a smiley face after my comment.
On 04/10/2006, at 9:16 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
C) Both can be eaten, however:
i. Oranges are part of a healthy, nutritious diet.
ii. Offal is not - unless you are a vulture.
Yes it is. But then I was born in Britain, where haggis, tripe, black
pudding and liver hotpot are regulars
On 04/10/2006, at 10:03 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Yes it is. But then I was born in Britain, where
haggis, tripe, black
pudding and liver hotpot are regulars on the menu.
And we have another different interpretation of a word
from GB to US; the first definition below implies
edibility,
On 04/10/2006, at 3:50 PM, Dave Land wrote:
So, really, what did you have in mind?
Stand? Support a third option? Create a coalition of like-minded
folks? Get involved at a municipal level? Have relatives in high office?
Charlie
___
On 03/10/2006, at 6:49 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
Debbi
who has no confidence in voting this next election, as
Colorado has chosen not to have certifiable
machines...no, this is not a joke. Or perhaps it is.
Request an absentee ballot, and vote that way. At least it's on paper.
Charlie
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 of the Linux community, for example).
Really? *Every Single Contact Ever*? Seems to me you're using
On 03/10/2006, at 9:01 AM, 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
On 03/10/2006, at 10:00 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
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
On 03/10/2006, at 10:05 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006, at 12:54AM, 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
On 30/09/2006, at 1:43 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/29/06, Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, it's the SAME SIZE as each of the first two. THAT'S the one
that
took me a week or two to wrap my head around. :)
No, they're not the same size. I'm sure of it.
On 29/09/2006, at 12:58 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote:
This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke.
Then
she said: You know, I've lived in America since shortly after
World War
II. It disturbs me to see
On 28/09/2006, at 7:24 AM, Deborah Harrell wrote:
What I think has me 'smelling something rotten' are
the various other oddities and discrepancies (as
others have already listed, frex the Saudis flying out
unquestioned AFAIK); I think it is far more likely
that 'the conspiracy' (instead of
On 28/09/2006, at 4:03 AM, Dave Land wrote:
This beautiful woman in her early 80's sat proudly as she spoke. Then
she said: You know, I've lived in America since shortly after
World War
II. It disturbs me to see the current leaders talk so much about the
dangers of terrorists, and talk so
On 25/09/2006, at 9:31 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
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
On 25/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think that what Pinker meant was that natural selection explains the
presence of useful functions in creatures. All of the other
mechanisms exist for
sure but to get good and useful doohickeys one needs selection.
If he's using
On 24/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Sep 19, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/18/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.
I'm fairly
On 24/09/2006, at 3:12 AM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Oh good. Soon we'll be able to cure blackness as well as
homosexuality. Let's hear it for progress!
If the destruction of the ozone layer is not a myth, maybe it's
time to seriously consider curing
On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote:
OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code:
x := 1 / 3.
x := 3 * x.
x inspect.
Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999 - but Smalltalk
insists
on 1.
Um, .9* *is* 1.
Charlie
On 23/09/2006, at 7:21 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The relationship between
fact and theory (or maybe data and hypothesis) is dynamic and not
easily
seperated.
So is it a fact that evolution occurs because of natural selection
or is that a theory? After all the data to support
On 23/09/2006, at 11:52 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 08:20 PM Friday 9/22/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 23/09/2006, at 1:11 AM, Klaus Stock wrote:
OTOH, consider the following Smalltalk code:
x := 1 / 3.
x := 3 * x.
x inspect.
Common sense tells us that the result is 0.999
On 20/09/2006, at 6:04 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie said:
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM,
On 21/09/2006, at 11:59 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well according to Karl Popper there are no absolute facts in
science. All
scientific facts are in theory provisional since scientific facts
are by
definition falseafiable. Many things are so well established and
so imbedded in a
net
On 21/09/2006, at 12:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not sure things are so simple in differentiating fact from
theory. The
facts of evolution are that there is change over time in the type
and nature
of living things.
That's the fact part of evolution, yep.
This implies that
On 21/09/2006, at 1:13 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/20/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But it's often used wrongly, to state that the
probabilitical nature of scientific proof means we can't be certain
of some things.
Hey, you have inspired a neologism.
Creationism
On 19/09/2006, at 10:24 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
I've always had some admiration for Jimmy Carter, because
his speech about Human Rights resonated quite well here
in Brazil, when we were burying the dictatorship.
But I have just read now that he received bolivian president
Evo Morales - is
On 20/09/2006, at 1:01 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/18/06, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...'cause there's no such thing as something that is so well
supported it can be considered a fact. Like gravity. Just a theory.
I'm fairly certain that gravity is a fact.
How it works
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
Somewhere the person who justified war via economics is
On 20/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie said:
Ritu wrote:
That has nothing to do with economic justification for war.
To say the same thing differently, if there is such a
thing as a just
war, economics isn't how it is justified.
On 20/09/2006, at 10:33 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
On 19/09/2006, at 2:52 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/18/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't that not a tautology at all, but one of the basic assumptions
about peer-review in science?
Only for scientists who treat theories as if they were facts.
...'cause there's no such thing as
On 17/09/2006, at 9:12 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
The first thing I want to address is the idea that folks who have the
knowledge needed to demonstrate something is clearly wrong with an
official
report fail to do so out of fear of losing work because they are
lumped with
the tinfoil hat
On 15/09/2006, at 3:29 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs jredelfs@ wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage
On 15/09/2006, at 11:52 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Charlie,
You've turned the whole thing in it's head. Your asking me to
prove support for your position that the official story, du jour,
holds true.
No, I'm asking you for evidence to support your claim that it doesn't.
The point we
On 14/09/2006, at 7:26 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Hey, there was a lot of mass and volume to be those structures and
it is little wonder some of it spread out. The point we are all
scratching our heads over is how they didn't topple off to one
side. None of these buildings {though
On 14/09/2006, at 8:58 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
That's a good answer.
Of course, under
On 14/09/2006, at 8:59 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On 9/14/06, jdiebremse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John W Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People extol the virtues of abortion
Not *all* people, Maru.
Not anybody that I know of. At best, it is a triage decision.
On 08/09/2006, at 7:16 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Probably you haven't asked the right person. I base my ethical
decisions on my ability to empathize. If I know a given action
would cause me misery, I know that it's an action I shouldn't
perpetrate upon another.
...unless you've asked
On 08/09/2006, at 7:54 AM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I confess that I do not know as much about atheism as an atheist
does, or a
least not as much that is correct.
Yes, that's clear.
But neither do atheists know as much
about religion as religious people do, at least not as much that is
On 08/09/2006, at 2:31 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I think you are neglecting the possibility that one might actually be
true and another might actually be wrong.
I think he was neglecting it out of politeness, and because a you're
wrong... no, you are type series of posts doesn't go anywhere.
On 08/09/2006, at 2:20 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
I hesitate to write the following, as while I have been thinking about
this post for some time, the recent thread on religion makes this
post
somewhat dangerous. So I'll just say up front that I am not going to
get involved in an atheism vs.
On 08/09/2006, at 2:51 PM, Ritu wrote:
As atheists, we see all religions the way you see all religion other
than your own. Doesn't mean we need to be rude about it, or point
and laugh or whatever.
That means that it would be rude to say anything about the notion of
'One and Only True Way',
On 08/09/2006, at 2:53 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Good question. Where does devout become fanatical? I think you
may be onto something here.
When the choices of others are involved?
That's a good answer.
Charlie
___
http
601 - 700 of 1013 matches
Mail list logo
