text:
Joseph M. Emmanuel wrote in message
<65mu6h$[email]>...

Nothing has been proven to me.   I do not believe in God, nor in Thoth.
An interesting point, the so called "book of thoth" is a term often used for
the Tarot.   The issue being way off topic in a buddhist newsgroup, but then
you have never had a problem with that, have you!?    If a having a "god" is
a reality to you, then he/she/it is a reality to you.

Buddhism is a system in which that concept is not there, and it is important
to understand that it is not there for a reason.   Buddhism works with ones
own experiential stuff, not externals.  Belief in a god is an external
matter.   No matter what you say, it is not, nor will it be, a part of
buddhist teachings.   You are so far off topic in the buddhist newsgroups
that you have become a joke here.   I suggest you and your little clonettes,
trim your list of newsgroups and go where they like you and your drivel.
Although I can hardly imagine where that may be!

Knowing yourself would be quite enough, but it seems you personally only
know your image of yourself, or you would know that you are way off topic
here.   Trim the buddhist newsgroups off your postings please.    I
suggested before, that perhaps if you did some reading first, you might be
conversant here, or at least lurk a while first.   Instead all you do is
come onto a buddhist newsgroup and spout your junk at us.    Is it any
wonder you are "misunderstood" here?

Thanks very much...... not interested.   I am so glad that you have had
something revealed to you somewhere, with a head made of cement, it is
astounding that anything ever got in at all!!!   I am bringing you a message
now......tune in......get this..... YOU ARE OFF TOPIC HERE. .......got it?

Good for them....... but you and they are both blind in that you have been
told and re-told that you are off topic here.   That you have become a joke,
that you are an annoyance, and you don't listen, read, hear anyone but your
own clamoring...... that is blindness for sure!!!!!!!

to
"Hank"
found
you
owns
money,
a
the
times
Hank's
philanthropist
far
doesn't
is
he's
around
way.
be
la,
that...."
counting


author: Joseph M. Emmanuel

subject: Re: Maitreya posts - a joke of great similarity !

text:
On 29 Nov 1997 09:41:31 GMT, "The Puddies" <[email]> wrote:

You may want to change your view on this.  God is not only external, it is
also internal (Know thyself to Know God!).

You mean Buddhist's dogmas.  Buddha never said there is no God.  Buddhists
do!

If you Know yourself, you would have no choice but to Know Him.

-Joseph ([email])
One God, One World, One Humanity
Unity Of All Under One God
http://www.maitreya.org (in English and French)


author: Debbie Miller

text:
On 29 Nov 1997 09:41:31 GMT, "The Puddies" <[email]>
wrote:

Many terms or words have more than one meaning.  So just because a
term can be used in another context does not mean they are meant to be
interchangable.  Our book THOTH does not have anything to do with the
Tarot.
By the way, THOTH was also the name of a mythological Greek god.
However, again this has no relation to our teaching.
You should read our THOTH to see how God is proven to exist.

But you also have been told and retold that Buddhism is a part of the
teaching that we share that unfies humanity.  But like the other
religions you are content in the narrowness of hanging into only what
you have, instead of expanding into something of greater Truth and of
great benefit to humanity.


author: [redacted]

text:
"The Puddies" <[email]> wrote:

Though the Truth, it could not be proven ANYWAY.

Almost NO ONE does. They believe in an IMAGE of God which is the
result of the fear of death and the desire for pleasure.

Well, it is mostly the creation of an image--although that image
can be projected externally, of course.

Neither would any serious Christian, or Jew or Muslim be interested
in such drivel.

Precisely. How is it possible to know the Unknowable--which is one
of the names of God to the Sufis?

If a person cannot here and respond to the words of a person, how
can it be believed that he has heard or responded appropriately
to the Word of the Creator?

A bald-faced LIE or DELUSION--among many others.

Maybe he will listen if you say this is a Revelation from God...that
he is off topic in the Buddhist newsgroups.

Nothing can be proven. This is merely another deslusion of the
gullible.

Or arrogance, or the lust for power, or greed, or SOMETHING
unsavory.

Mi cha el (Daniel 12:1, Sura 2:98 of the Koran, Column XVII of
"Thee Scroll ov thee Wor ov thee Suns ov Light")


author: Grunge Bitch

text:
Actually, Thoth was the Greek name for the Egyptian god Tehuti, commonly
depicted as an ibis-headed man...

Just wanted to let you know... no big deal...


subject:
#Olbermann Worst: Dick Morris, Rand Paul, Dana Loesch - Kick!
 Making Politics Fun - A liberal dose of political humor

text:
http://rackjite.com/archives/8210-Olbermann-Worst-Dick-Morris,-Rand-Paul,-
Dana-Loesch.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9x9rOCvFpE&feature=player_embedded

--
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of
Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
- S&P, explaining why they lowered America's credit rating

--
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of
Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
- S&P, explaining why they lowered America's credit rating


subject:
Re: #Olbermann Worst: Dick Morris, Rand Paul, Dana Loesch
 -Kick!Making Politics Fun - A liberal dose of political humor

text:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:57:37 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:

And yet, here you are, whining your cuntish little ass off, and I'm
laughing at you.

In other other words, he doesn't pitch at all.

Nor is Sharpton.  He's on radio.

He appears on that show sometimes.  So what?

You could have mentioned any of dozens of liberal talk show people, but
you didn't.  You did the dog whistle because you're a cowardly little
anonymous right wing bigot, identifiable only by your moral stench.

No, I'll just get bored with you.  You offer nothing, you know.

Kissy kissy.  Now run along, little troll.

--
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of
Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
- S&P, explaining why they lowered America's credit rating

--
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of
Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
- S&P, explaining why they lowered America's credit rating


subject:
Re: #Olbermann Worst: Dick Morris, Rand Paul, Dana Loesch -
 Kick!Making Politics Fun - A liberal dose of political humor

text:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 21:24:17 +0000, BeeSting Alergy wrote:

Somehow, I don't believe your whiny little excuse.  There's hundreds of
people on Cable news.  You could have mentioned Bill O'Reilly.  You could
have mentioned Montel Williams if you were intent on listing someone who
is black, or even Oprah Winfrey.

Instead you picked someone who doesn't even host a cable talk show but
whose name is a dog whistle to every third rate toothless and mindless
bigot on the far right, and when called out on your nasty little bigotry,
tried whining that it was "cable news" rather than anything else.

You won't admit it, because like all far right wingers, you are a
vicious, abject little coward, but it doesn't mean you didn't just get
called in it, and spanked.

Now run along, you little piece of shit.

--
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of
Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise
revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
- S&P, explaining why they lowered America's credit rating


author: Steven Canyon, still slapping hippies around

subject:
Re: #Olbermann Worst: Dick Morris, Rand Paul, Dana Loesch - Kick!
 Making Politics Fun - A liberal dose of political humor

text:
On Sep 29, 12:37 pm, "6250 Dead, 1393 since 1/20/09" <[email]>
wrote:

<LOL> Olbermann who?


author: BeeSting Alergy

subject: Re: #Olbermann Worst: Dick Morris, Rand Paul, Dana Loesch-Kick!Making Politics Fun - A liberal dose of political humor

text:
6250 Dead, 1393 since 1/20/09 wrote:

"Laughing at you" -- I'm sure you've live that many times before, Zepp.

Bill O'Reilly is "center-right" -- as is most Americans.

Al Sharpton is a cable news personality, dumbass.

Didn't you read (or have someone with brains) read to you what I
posted, nimrod?

The name of the show on MSNBC is "PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton".
This is his show, stupid ass.

You read my reply. One would think that before you replied to my
message, you would've gone on the MSNBC Web site.

No... you are just that stupid, Zepp. Don't ever change.

Al Sharpton is the host of a nightly cable news show, idiot.

Answer the question about Al Sharpton, MSNBC and his nightly show, Zepp.

Does he have one or not?

"Troll" -- to be a troll is your LIFE, Zepp. It's what wakes you out of
your otherwise stupor.

Answer the question about Al Sharpton, MSNBC and his nightly show, Zepp.

Does he have one or not?

It's an easy question to answer. Perhaps not for you because you're a
brain-dead idiot.

But -- please try.


subject: Re: #Olbermann Worst: Dick Morris, Rand Paul, Dana Loesch -Kick!Making Politics Fun - A liberal dose of political humor

text:
6250 Dead, 1393 since 1/20/09 wrote:

I didn't whine, Zepp -- you did, asshole.

This is true.

Bill O'Reilly pitches for my side of thought, dumbass.

Jeez, you are stupid.

Montel Williams is NOT a cable news personality -- neither is Oprah.

Now here is where your stupidity kicks into high-level, brain-dead
idiocy:

MSNBC - 6:00pm to 7:00pm (ET) - PoliticsNation with Al Sharpton.

The thing is, you do this all of the time, Zepp. You spout out bullshit
that you don't know about and then you run away like a 6 year-old child
who just saw "Barney" for the first time up close and personal.

Pretty soon, you will <plonk> me because you're that much of a coward.

Sad.

"Spanked"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are the joke of the day, Zepp.

"Little piece of shit"?

You obviously just looked into some mirror, Zepp.

But you continue to remain stupid. Don't ever change. lol


subject: Re: #Olbermann Worst: Dick Morris, Rand Paul, Dana Loesch - Kick!Making Politics Fun - A liberal dose of political humor

text:
Steven Canyon, still slapping hippies around wrote:

Liberals are a joke. Liberals now put all of their hopes into Al
Sharpton.

I take that back... liberals are sad. Very sad indeed.


text:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:59:34 +0000 (UTC), "BeeSting Alergy"
<[email]> wrote:

Trying to pander to the racists now by bringing up Al Sharpton apropos
of nothing?
--
"So called payroll taxes aren't taxes at all"  -- Steve Canyon, trying to explain
why millionaires don't actually pay less taxes than median income families.


author: Steve

text:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 13:56:06 -0700, "6250 Dead, 1393 since 1/20/09"
<[email]> wrote:

"Not only that, but both of us have epilepsy and various sorts of brain troubles.
"
Mrs. Greywolf Jamieson AKA PJwolf...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.startrek.creative.erotica.moderated/msg/c52ce26745b74c75?hl=en&


text:
6250 Dead, 1393 since 1/20/09 wrote:

Zepp, you are very stupid. Don't ever change.

I brought up Al Sharpton (cable news) because you brought up Keith
Olbermann (barely cable news anymore).

Al Sharpton was mentioned "apropos" to "cable news", dumbass. There was
nothing "racist" about the mention. You still call Justice Clarence
Thomas "Slappy" -- isn't that racist, moron?

Are all leftists as dumb as you, Zepp? lol


author: His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle

subject: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
(This is a little bit of a teasing because it was Jesus who said that.
I say my wisdom is infinite because it is of this world. Don't miss
the episodes below)

On Oct 16, 9:11 am, e_space <[email]> wrote:

Yes, the Wisdom of the Jungle is infinite.

But Jesus said, "My wisdom is not of this world," thus it's good for
nothing.

It is claimed that it's all you need when you die, but nobody has
confirmed so.

My Wisdom of the Jungle stands.

***

On Oct 16, 8:07 am, Mike Jones <[email]> wrote:

It takes a Christian to be genuinely stupid because then you dismiss
any wisdom as evil. That why Adam & Eve fell...

Anyway, back to the real world, I was watching last night some
episodes of...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/

"Taken" & "In Broad Daylight" show you the unpredictable, savage,
opportunistic PREDATOR, and how our penal system does a poor job at
PREVENTING THEM & THEN PUNISHING THEM. People like that shouldn't be
walking this earth or breathing this air.

The sexual predator in "In Broad Daylight" should have been in jail or
secured by better means, ie. his whereabouts should have been known to
the community. Maybe we can be creative if we don't want to
exterminate these pests: PUT A CHIP IN HIM and keep him on a leash. Is
that too cruel?

Then I'd send a PREDATOR DRONE and do it easy for him.

ENJOY THE EPISODES! The last episode shows how a "successful lawyer"
bred a human rat and then he hit them! Beware of human rats!

WISDOM OF THE JUNGLE FROM 'TAKEN':

Never go with the criminal from point A to point B. It may cost you
your life.

-------------------------------------------------------------

THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS

"My wisdom is of this world"

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION


author: B Sellers

subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On 10/16/2010 07:39 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
the Jungle wrote:
	Eat or be eaten.

	Actually Jesus said something more like "My kingdom is not of
this world".  Further he said that "the Kingdom of God is within each
of us" if any of the translators can be trusted that far.

	It was one Zen patriarch or the other maybe me that says
that "Perfect enlightenment gains you nothing.  That is how you
can tell it is Perfect Enlightenment."
	Imperfect enlightenment is bought and sold in various
brands as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto, Taoist
  and Buddhist and all of course have several sub-brands.

	Wisdom of this world?  This world has no wisdom.
Except of course for the physical laws that ultimately make
people possible.

	later
	bliss


author: Mr President

subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On Oct 16, 12:31 pm, B Sellers <[email]> wrote:

I have seen you repeat that numerous times.

I feel it should be explained.

The first statement was when he was on trial for his life against
sedition,
the second was given to his enemies the pharisees:

http://www.godrules.net/library/kjv/kjvluk17.htm

 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God
should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not
with observation:

   21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the
kingdom of God is within you.

   22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye
shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall
not see [it].

   23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after
[them], nor follow [them].

   24 For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one [part]
under heaven, shineth unto the other [part] under heaven; so shall
also the Son of man be in his day.

   25 But first must he suffer many things, and be rejected of this
generation.


subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On Oct 14, 10:00 am, Mystic Merman <[email]> wrote:

If Jesus had such great wisdom, we would assume the Christians to be
smarter than the Greeks or Romans of the time. I don't think they are
smarter, even with the vantage point of 2000 years.

Far more wisdom in buried in Aesop tales. Actually he could be the
greatest source of wisdom in human history.

(A story courtesy of the Banana Revolution and the Wisdom of the
Jungle, which is infinite and omniscient)

The Boy Who Cried Wolf
An Aesop Fable

There once was a boy who kept sheep not far from the village. He would
often become bored and to amuse himself he would call out,

"Wolf! Wolf," although there was no wolf about.

The villagers would stop what they were doing and run to save the
sheep from the wolf's jaw. Once they arrived at the pasture, the boy
just laughed. The naughty boy played this joke over and over until the
villagers tired of him.

One day while the boy was watching the sheep, a wolf did come into the
fold. The boy cried and cried,

"Wolf! Wolf!"

No one came. The wolf had a feast of sheep that day.

***

Apply the story now to WMDs in Iraq and Iran.


subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On Oct 16, 12:31 pm, B Sellers <[email]> wrote:

That's unwise. You will live in fear in such a world.

Wisdom is "YOU SCRATCH MY BACK, I SCRATCH YOURS."

Wisdom of the world? How about SIMPLICITY (say in enjoying nature),
COOPERATION (united we stand), NEVER TRUST THE BEAST (as in the
episodes above).

In the case of the lawyer's son he's obviously an animal without
feelings. He deals with drugs right from his father's home, and shows
no remorse when his mother is killed and his father is left blind
(apparently under his own orders).

Again, it's not wise to create so much GREED and TEMPTATION in the
heart of man, which our UNWISE DRUG POLICIES create.


subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On Oct 16, 12:31 pm, B Sellers <[email]> wrote:

True, my wisdom admits mistakes and rectifications, just as science.
Science is true wisdom, even when it doesn't help you survive. ;)

Jesus brought very little world wisdom, even when they try to stretch
the truth...

The Wisdom of Jesus

One of the most influential human beings of all times?  The founder of
Christianity? A messiah  or savior sent by God to redeem humanity of
its sins? What were His teachings? Is our knowledge of Jesus limited
to what is recorded in the Bible?  What has modern historical research
to say about what Jesus did and taught? Have there been other
spiritual masters in India whose teachings are similar to those of
Jesus? If so, what light can they shed on the teachings of Jesus?

http://www.wisdomofjesus.net/

***

Wisdom of the Jungle is practical wisdom for the world.


author: Spencer Spindrift

subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On 16 Oct, 17:31, B Sellers <[email]> wrote:
The Rabbi Yeshua said a lot of very cool things and some very far out
things beyond what any other religious leader said. "Love your enemy".
Wow!

Samsara and Nirvana are non-different - there is nothing to be
attained. Know that and you are liberated.

Actually real Buddhist enlightenment is perfect but very rarely seen.
HH XIV Dalai Lama is the closest to it I've seen. I was in his
presence in Manchester Free Trade Hall [ the same venue The Sex
Pistols played where everyone who was there formed a band ].

The Laws of physics are not wisdom AKA Sophia.
It's people who make wisdom possible. We have to wise up now or
perish.


subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
Sorry but this counts as Wisdom of the Jungle too!

(I quote)

Well-Aged Wisdom from “The Jungle”

I’ve just finished reading Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”.  I was
mesmerized by it.  I couldn’t put it down.  I can see why it caused
such an uproar nearly 104 years ago.  It shows capitalism at its
worst, exposing the brutal working conditions of turn-of-the-century
laborers and the horrors of the meat industry (you’ll think twice
about buying your next package of hot dogs… well, I won’t, but you
might).

Hidden in the middle of this classic is a scene where the main
character, Jurgis, is out on the street in the dead of a brutal
Chicago winter.  Trying everything to stay warm, Jurgis hears of a
revival taking place down the street.  The revivals were known for
attracting the poor and homeless simply because they were indoors and
provided warmth.  Look at Sinclair’s words, now over a century old, as
he describes Jurgis’ experience (emphasis mine):

'The evangelist was preaching “sin and redemption,” the infinite grace
of God and His pardon for human frailty.  He was very much in earnest,
and he meant well, but Jurgis, as he listened, found his soul filled
with hatred.  What did he know about sin and suffering–with his
smooth, black coat and his neatly starched collar, his body warm, and
his belly full, and money in his pocket–and lecturing men who were
struggling for their lives, men at the death-grapple with the demon
powers of hunger and cold!–This, of course, was unfair; but Jurgis
felt that these men were out of touch with the life they discussed,
that they were unfitted to solve its problems; nay they themselves
were part of the problem–they were part of the order established that
was crushing men down and beating them!  They were of the triumphant
and insolent possessors; they had a hall, and a fire, and food and
clothing and money, and so they might preach to hungry men, and the
hungry men must be humble and listen!  They were trying to save their
souls–and who but a fool could fail to see that all that was the
matter with their souls was that they had not been able to get a
decent existence for their bodies?'

How might this century-old scene apply to the church here in American
culture?  How should it affect our perspective on “outreach’?  Is it
possible for us to really put ourselves in the shoes of others if we
haven’t experienced what they have?

http://aaronsaufley.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/well-aged-wisdom-from-the-jungle/

***

Good analysis of the jungle... Why the lions love this message of hope
given to a hungry audience? The good life begins when you die,
according to the Christian "wisdom." ;)


subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
(We certify that the following wisdom has been attained without
psychedelic drugs --maybe marijuana)

On Oct 16, 5:06 pm, Spencer Spindrift
<[email]> wrote:

It's so unbelievable that even Gandhi struggled with it. We need
realistic stuff, like practice NONVIOLENCE whenever possible. Often
violence serves the enemy.

Jesus did inspire nonviolence in Gandhi though.

You may even reach Nirvana with a banana... ;)

Try "LIFE'S A BEACH." Swimming with the sharks is unwise.

BEING WITH YOUR GIRL AND CHILLING AT A QUIET BEACH sounds like Nirvana
to me. Monks are not wise in being without partner.

He knows how to stay out of trouble too!

This much we know:

Between the ignorant and the scientist, it's wise to choose the
scientist.

This sure sounds like good wisdom to me.


subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On Oct 16, 10:24 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
the Jungle" <[email]> wrote:

So are you gonna buy my eBook on Evolution a General theory, before
and after the Darwinian stage.
Read my blog: http://absinthefortheking.blogspot.com/ oh that's
someone elses very good blog.
http://spindrift-evolove.blogspot.com/ is mine, Buy from my biz site
spencerspindrift.com. Google my old posts from when I had a PC with a
witty .sig gen and check me on FB and MySpace?
And while you;re @ it come and visit me and take me to a gig.


subject: Re: My wisdom is not of this world

text:
On Oct 16, 9:55 pm, Spencer Spindrift
<[email]> wrote:

This is next topic around seem to be in the same tune with your blog.
This is only based on the picture of the woman. ;)


author: An Metet

subject: The Big Deal About Abortion?

text:
NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

This subject gets far more attention than it's worth.  It's none of your
fucking business unless it's you getting the abortion.  You sleazy little
people with no lives are always trying to horn in on everyone else's
business.
I have abortions and will have others and it's out of your control!
Stay out of my cunt!
Susan
[email]


subject: Re: The Big Deal About Abortion?

text:
Unfortunately, yes it does. It shouldn't, but some radical imbeciles can't
seem to get a clue.

business.

That's one of so many social problems that we suffer in today's world. There
are too many misfits who cannot help but possess some sort of sadistic lust
to interfere with the private lives of others and who will not be the ones
bearing the consequences of such. Unfortunately some of those misfits hold
positions of power and influence. We are the ones who have to deal with the
decisions imposed upon us by these nut jobs who seem to have no sense of
restraint or propriety.

Some people have a problem with sexual freedom. Except in cases of
paedophilia, incest, and non-consensual acts such as rape, how one deals
with their own sexuality should not concern anybody else.

It's probably been going on for thousands of years. I can't see why it
should be any more of an issue today than it was all those years ago. The
only difference is major changes in technology. Just because we have more
advanced technology to exercise our freedoms does not give others the right
to interfere with those freedoms. A perfect example is the war on
recreational drug use and the imposition of outrageous punishments for
people caught with recreational drugs for personal use. Drugs have been
around for a long time, people have been using them for thousands of years
without having any problems, unless they get addicted, and when addicted
they can seek help to combat the addiction, and drugs will be around for a
long time to come unless, for some odd reason, drugs suddenly disappear from
the supply and demand chain - very, very unlikely.

Apart from illogical insane reasons behind the war on drugs such as the
religious radical lunacy, the only logical reason behind this war on drugs
would be big vested interests in the pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol
industries - much more likely. Hands up anyone who believes this? I'd be
putting my hand up so bloody high I think I'd dislocate my elbow! Those who
deny us our freedoms without reasoned and justifiable cause deserve to burn
in hell! For their time on earth they should be sentenced to life, with hard
labour. These days there is just no excuse for such abuses of governmental
power. It's time the government was controlled by the people, for the
people, not by a bunch of religious radical control freaks and financial
oligarchs!!!

noyb


author: John Savard

subject: Re: The Big Deal About Abortion?

text:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 22:38:05 +1000, "N.O.Y.B." <[email]> wrote, in
part:

What about infanticide or genocide?

Abortion is one person *killing* another living human being, who just is regarded
as not really a human being because of his or her age.

So why shouldn't there be a big deal about abortion?

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html


author: Paul Anderson

subject: Re: The Big Deal About Abortion?

text:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 16:35:50 GMT, [email]
(John Savard) wrote:

This is not true.  Abortion is not the killing of another human being.
The fetus is not a human being and the reason it is not has nothing to
do with it's age.

Given that you cannot make an argument against abortion without
resorting to lies -- why should there be a big deal about abortion.


author: Aviroce

text:
PALESTINIAN ISRAELIS HOLD THE FINAL CARD TO DESTROYING ISRAEL
By Aviroce

You should stop eating tomatoes because a murderer has been eating
tomatoes.  Wow. That is your argument and surely is a propaganda stunt
based upon absolute deception.

There are Jews who oppose Israel and one of them is the man who wrote
"Manufacturing Consent."  (Chomsky)  There are other Jews that feel
Israel and Zionism are destructive to Jews and Judaism in all forms.
But..

There is a concept in Mathematics which goes like this "Condition is
true except on a set of measure zero."  When you read HHW's post, the
author is talking about a general phenomenon about Jews which is true
except on a set of measure zero.  Now what is this measure zero mean
in this case?  It means among Jews these people are not important as
the majority rules.  Their voice and its effect has no value.  Thus
you cannot say that a great disagreement exist among the power groups
as the dissent has zero power. "Stop killing my people"  I would say.
But "You keep killing my people.  Sober up boy.

Helen Thomas and Corrie are great women who told your general Jews you
are to withdraw from Palestine.  You disagree with them because you
want to kill the Palestinians and steal their land and resources.  I
did write a plan that Palestinians can pursue to destroy Israel
internally using Palestinian Israels as a base.  I have not heard much
from Jew media how this plan is playing out.  I heard two stories one
first hand and another from the news.  First hand, a Jew air forec
bomber pilot who was enjoying Palestinian fish in Gaza found a
Palestinian attempting to cut his throat off.  He showed me where his
throat was cut.  But this Jew reached for his automatic gun and killed
him.  The other news story where a Palestinian invaded a Jew family
and killed man, woman and child and sent to prison for life so that
you pay in blood and treasure.  Palestinian Israelis should burn Jew
businesses, kill atrociously Jew families.  I summerized it by saying
"Palestinian Israelis should kill their bosses."  You have been
killing Palestinians systematically.  Why not killing you?  You
deserve it.  (Read my original plan for the salvation of Palestine)

Aviroce


author: Dave U. Random

subject: William Grosvenor Sings: "Roddie Dickie, toy of joys"

text:
Aviroce <[email]>  wrote in news:f80be10e-b7d2-400c-96aa-
[email]:

Roddie Dickie, you're the one,
You make whacking lots of fun,
Roddie Dickie, I won't let you go;

(woh woh, bee doh!)

Roddie Dickie, toy of joys,
When I squeeze you, you make noise!
Roddie Dickie, you're my very best friend, it's true!

(doo doo doo doooo, doo doo)

CHORUS:
Every day when I
Make my way to the bed
I find my little rodd what's
Cute and yellow and dead

Roddie Dickie, you're so fine
And I'm lucky that you're mine
Rubber duckie, I'm awfully fond of you.

(repeat chorus)

Roddie Dickie, you're so small
And I'm lucky that I have ya at all
Roddie Dickie, I'm awfully fond of -
Roddie Dickie, I'd like a whole pound of -
Roddie Dickie I won't let you go!

(doo doo, be doo.)

Who is William Grosvenor?

Google "william grosvenor edmonton" and find out.


text:
PALESTINIAN ISRAELIS HOLD THE FINAL CARD TO DESTROYING ISRAEL
By Aviroce

You should stop eating tomatoes because a murderer has been eating
tomatoes.  Wow. That is your argument and surely is a propaganda
stunt
based upon absolute deception.

There are Jews who oppose Israel and one of them is the man who wrote
"Manufacturing Consent."  (Chomsky)  There are other Jews that feel
Israel and Zionism are destructive to Jews and Judaism in all forms.
But..

There is a concept in Mathematics which goes like this "Condition is
true except on a set of measure zero."  When you read HHW's post, the
author is talking about a general phenomenon about Jews which is true
except on a set of measure zero.  Now what does this measure zero
mean
in this case?  It means among Jews these people are not important as
the majority rules.  Their voice and its effect has no value.  Thus
you cannot say that a great disagreement exist among the power groups
as the dissent has zero power. "Stop killing my people"  I would say.
But "You keep killing my people.  Sober up boy.

Helen Thomas and Corrie are great women who told your general Jews
you
are to withdraw from Palestine.  You disagree with them because you
want to kill the Palestinians and steal their land and resources.  I
did write a plan that Palestinians can pursue to destroy Israel
internally using Palestinian Israelis as a base.  I have not heard
much
from Jew media how this plan is playing out.  I heard two stories one
first hand and another from the news.  First hand, a Jew air force
bomber pilot who was enjoying Palestinian fish in Gaza found a
Palestinian attempting to cut his throat off.  He showed me where his
throat was cut.  But this Jew reached for his automatic gun and
killed
him.  The other news story where a Palestinian invaded a Jew family
and killed man, woman and child and sent to prison for life so that
Jews pay in blood and treasure.  Palestinian Israelis should burn Jew
businesses, kill atrociously Jew families.  I summarized it by saying
"Palestinian Israelis should kill their bosses."  You have been
killing Palestinians systematically.  Why not killing you?  You
deserve it.  (Read my original plan for the salvation of Palestine)

Aviroce

On Jun 22, 10:18 am, Dave U. Random <anonym...@anonymitaet-im-
inter.net> wrote:


subject: Re: PALESTINIAN ISRAELIS HOLD THE FINAL CARD TO DESTROYING ISRAEL

text:
I KNOW THE SECRET OF COOKING HARD BEANS AND DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL
By Aviroce

There is a common knowledge among Egyptians in their cooking of fava
beans and beans in general.  To cook the beans you need to place it in
jar over candle fire.  You would think that is crazy.  But try to cook
beans over high temperature.  What happens is more hard to cook beans
until the beans catch on fire! I found out why.  That is Israel
destruction.

To destroy Israel arouse local "so-called Resident Palestinians in
Israel" called Arabs who are theoretically Palestinian Israelis and
because there are no Israelis in Israel only Jews, Arabs and none of
these according to Israel constitution.  Gaza to Jews is like high
temperature fire.  They get hardened until they burn.  The best method
is to get resistance and rebellion from inside to destroy Israel
inside-out.  That is how to cook beans and that is how to destroy
Israel.

Palestinian Israelis can cook Israel to the point of melting by
killing viciousl Jew families, killing their bosses, burning Jew
businesses, demonstrating in large numbers, attacking police, burning
governmental buildings.   Palestinian Israelis are the secret of the
destruction of Israel.  Palestinian Israelis should not sit still when
Gaza is attacked by Jews.  On the contrary they should demonstrate and
should begin their assault in Jews in their and around their
neighborhoods.

Aviroce

On Jun 22, 8:23 am, Aviroce <[email]> wrote:


author: Psycho Dave

subject: Re: Commentary: Does questioning evolution violate U.S. Constitution?

text:
On Oct 25, 2:47ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

(1) INtelligent design is not a scientifically informed opinion. It is
nothing
more than Paley's watchmaker argument for the existence of God,
re-worded in more modern terms.

(2) None of the proponents of intelligent design have ever considered
the idea of space aliens being the intelligent designer. Pretty much
all of
them are from a very narrow Christian Fundamentalist Evangelical
worldview, and all of their literature and media pushes the idea from
that
perspective.

(3) If Intelligent design were scientific, it would have a predictive
model
that works reasonably well and meshes with different branches of
science,
without having to redefine or deny the validity of inconvenient
facts.

If you check the literature of both Creationism and Intelligent
design,
you will see that ID is nothing more than creationism with Christian-
specific
terms removed and substituted for generic or religion-neutral
language.
Virtually all of the arguments are identical to creationism, and tend
to
amount to nothing more than arguments from ignorance ("if you can't
explain 'X',
then there must have been an intelligent designer..."), or arguments
like
"If we think it looks intelligently designed, then it must have been
intelligently designed.

Do we teach the flaws of calculus in math class to be fair to the
dissenting voices
of the mathematical establishment (like Andrew Schlafly)?

Do we teach Holocaust revisionism in history class to be fair to the
dissenting voices
of the hisotrical establishment (like David Irving and Arthur Butts)?

It would be inaccurate to call ID "dissent from within the scientific
establishment",
since the proponents are not really members of it, nor do they
actually participate
in the scientific process. The proponents of ID do not publish
research in peer-reviewed
journals or perform the work that the scientific establishment
typically does. They seem
to be mostly people who have a college diploma in one of the sciences,
who spend
most of their time creating phoney factoids, and who never correct
their mistakes. ID
proponents have a history of getting caught making falsehoods and
promoting facts
that are found out to be untrue.

Widely accepted scientific facts like evolution are very different
from the alleged
"widely accepted facts of ID". ID proponents' scientific facts and
arguments have not been
able to stand up under even the simplest scrutiny. The Bacterial
Flagellum argument, for example,
was shown to not be valid almost as soon as it was published. Other
arguments from ID claim
that an intelligently designed organism would be genetically
indistinguishable from one that
inherited it's genes from a lineage of ancestors, which implies that
paternity testing shouldn't
be able to distinguish between parents and offspring.

ID is not about fairness to dissenting voices. ID proponents have been
shown
plenty of fairness, and have a voice (otherwise they would not be
getting discussed
at all, have no website, and publish no literature).

The problem with ID is that in being allowed to speak, and to freely
discuss their
 views, they have failed to make their case to the scientific
establishment, and have
seen nearly all of their arguments fall under simple scrutiny. What ID
proponents
seem to be pushing for is not an equal voice, but for all of their
embarrasing mistakes
to be ignored, for their history of false statements to be swept under
the rug, and
for all of their ties to American Christian Fundamentalist Evangelical
groups to be
overlooked. In short, they are asking for inclusion in public schools
because
THEIR VIEWS ARE INCAPABLE OF SURVIVING ON THEIR OWN MERIT IN THE
SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY.

They are essentially the kid on the block that nobody else wants to
play with, whose mother
tries to force the other kids to play with against their will, or who
tries to sue their parents for
inclusion.


author: Andre Lieven

text:
On Oct 25, 2:47ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

The 'writer' of this piece of ignorant offal is clearly too stupid/
lazy
to look up the case law on the issue.

ID IS creationism, see Kitzmiller.

Given the false/ignorant start of this twat's screed, the rest of it
is only useful as toilet paper.

Andre


author: Kalkidas

text:
"Jason Spaceman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

[snip]

I have a problem with this statement: from the blog writer:

"....In an ideal world, Church and State function in separate domains
without interference. For instance, Church should not orchestrate
imprisonment, capital punishment, etc. and State should not have to be
burdened with ministering to the poor. Thus, ï¿½Separation of Church and
 Stateï¿½ is reasonable systematically."

This is an "ideal" world? With capital punishment, imprisonment, and the
poor in need?


author: Desertphile

text:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:47:47 -0700 (PDT), Jason Spaceman
<[email]> wrote:

How very odd that its promoters think it is.


author: Ron O

text:
On Oct 25, 1:47ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

The ID perps finally (earlier this year) took the claim that they had
a scientific theory of intelligent design off their intro to their web
site.  It is likely still in their bogus propaganda, but if someone
wants to check out what they are about, they no longer claim to have a
scientific theory.  7 years of running the bogus bait and switch scam
and half a decade after Dover, and we still have stupid rubes that
talk about the theory of intelligent design.

When I was coming home, I listen to a radio station that has 5 minute
Fox News pieces every hour.  O'Donnell was on claiming that the left
was being mean to her because she was a woman.  Stupidity knows no
bounds.

Ron Okimoto


author: [redacted]

text:
"Jason Spaceman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Calling bull shit, science, does not make it so.

Bigotry?
Is deciding not to listen to someone who doesn't know their ass from a hole
in the ground - bigotry .. or common sense?
Teaching the "flaws" in any kind of science does not make any other "belief"
more truthful.
I.D. has to stand on it's own evidence - not on slamming, distorting and
blatantly lying about real science.
It has none, so it can only "play dirty".

What flaws? Oh, you mean the ignorant whines and bitches of totally brain
dead religious fanatics - or the "mistakes" that science already admits to?

Since it is apparent you don't know ..... a "philosophy" is nothing like a
scientific theory.
The evolutionary theory is valid because that is what the real evidence
tells us.
How Coons defends it is irrelivant.

He


author: David Hare-Scott

text:
...snip....

...snip.....

I would be interested in the views of those well versed in the history and
philosophy of science if this is correct.  In my view the comparison is
quite inappropriate as Aristotle and his successors during that 1900 years
did not test his ideas rigorously against observation unlike ToE.

David


author: Boikat

text:
On Oct 25, 1:47ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

PppffffT!

Okay.  Get an ID proponant to publicly state that he thinks the ID
agent was an alien.

Which would be.....?

Who are....?

It has everything to do with presenting actual science, not baseless
speculation based upon cloaked religious belief or unsupported
assertions rooted in arguments of incredulity and ignorance.

So, Coons is not an idiot.  And?

Boikat


author: Mark Buchanan

text:
On Oct 25, 2:47ï¿½pm, Jason Spaceman <[email]>
wrote:

The author of this article Amanda Read seems to be just as ignorant as
O'Donnell herself.

The final judgement of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case makes the
following conclusions about ID (among many others0:

1. ID is creationism with a different name.
2. As per 1 ID is religion.
3. ID is not science in fact it stops scientific inquiry in its tracks
when used.

If O'Donnell knew a bit of the history of this issue it would help -
but as the article you posted shows she doesn't even know the
constitution.

Read all about it:

http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover

Mark


author: John Harshman

text:
Kalkidas wrote:

It's an ideal world for the Washington Times, which is published by the
Moonies.


author: Harry K

text:
On Oct 25, 4:03ï¿½pm, "Kalkidas" <[email]> wrote:

Ever study what religious run countries have done (and are doing , cf
Shariya Law)?

Harry K


author: Glenn

text:
On Oct 25, 5:03ï¿½pm, Ron O <[email]> wrote:

What are you babbling about? If it is still likely that they claim ID
to be a theory, they why would they no longer claim to have a theory?
Who specifically are you referring to, what does "intro to their
website" mean, and what does "what they are about" mean? Provide at
least some screen shots and urls to support your claims, rather than
use this post as an excuse to continue ranting.

Like this:
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/whatisid.php


author: Nashton

text:
On 10/25/10 9:03 PM, Ron O wrote:[snip]

My condolences to your wife, if she still resides with you.

I listen to a radio station that has 5 minute


author: John S. Wilkins

text:
David Hare-Scott <[email]> wrote:

Aristotelian natural philosophy is a large and ill defined target.
Mostly, in the west, Aristotle's scientific books were unknown until
around 1230 or so, when Michael Scot arrived at Oxford with his
translations (and those of others, including, if memory serves,
Avicenna, with whom he worked).

In the interregnum, Arabic, and Persian scholars tested Aristotle as
best they could. Likewise, slavish adherence to Aristotle was a myth.
For a start, most medicine was Galenic and most astronomy was Ptolemaic,
both from the Roman era. And constant revision was undertaken.

After Aristotle was adopted by the western scholastics, he inspired
research in astronomy, physics, natural history, medicine, and various
other fields, without which science would not have begun. Moreover, by
presenting a position to argue against, he provided the nominalists like
Ockham and Buridan a target and opportunity, and later [Francis] Bacon.

Without Aristotelian physics, the issue of impetus and later inertia
would have been inconceivable, and hence Galilean physics and then
Newton's. Also note that *during* the scholastic period, Buridan, Oresme
and [Roger] Bacon challenged his physics and astronomy.

A good case could be made that overall his influence was more than
benign. I think *now*, post-Dalton, that his philosophy is irretrievably
broken, but at the time it was better than one might have expected, and
it led rather directly to science.


text:
On Oct 25, 2:07ï¿½pm, Boikat <[email]> wrote:

And anyhow it just pushes the creationism back one or more steps.
Where did the aliens come from is the problem in that juvenile
reasoning.

Usually carefully not enumerated or if they are, very distorted.

all the scientists not named 'Steve' I presume.

<snip>

Harry K


author: Walter Bushell

text:
In article <ia58e9$kjm$[email]>,
 "David Hare-Scott" <[email]> wrote:

The concept "ideal world" depends on who gets to define ideal. Usually
"ideal" is defined by the rich or for them, when they hire philosophers
or economists.


text:
On Oct 26, 9:51ï¿½pm, Glenn <[email]> wrote:

Glenn, I hope that you are feeling better.  You've been around long
enough to know the scam.  The ID perps never had a scientific theory
of intelligent design.  Even Philip Johnson admitted that after the
Dover fiasco, but several years after the bait and switch was going
down.  What is your explanation for the ID perps running the bait and
switch instead of presenting their scientific theory to teach?  You
know that they were running the bait and switch for almost 3 years
before they lost in court, so what was their excuse?  Where is the
scientific theory of ID?

They still make the claim on your link that I had never gone to, but
they don't make it directly on the frequently asked questions on the
discovery csc page as they used to.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/faq.php

This is sort of screwy.  The frequently asked questions that you can
access directly from the csc Discovery Institute web page has changed
quite a bit from years ago, and does not directly claim that ID is a
scientific theory, but it still claims that there is a theory of ID.
If you go to your link that for some reason is at
intelligentdesign.org instead of their discovery address the faq still
claims that they have a scientific theory.  They also still make the
claim that they are "developing" a scientific theory of intelligent
design on their about csc page.  "Developing" likely gives them some
freedom to fool the rubes a bit and ease their conscience.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/aboutCSC.php

All this means is that they are still lying to the rubes.  It just
means that they are still running the bait and switch scam.  They
claim to be selling the science of intelligent design, but what do the
rubes get?  All they get is a stupid obfuscation scam that doesn't
even mention that ID ever existed.  You know that this is a fact, so
why bother trying to defend the ID perps?  Heck, all you have pointed
out is that they are still lying, what good does that do you?

Can you demonstrate that they are not lying when ID perps like Nelson
and Johnson have admitted that the ID science doesn't exist?  Nelson
specifically stated that the ID perps should come clean and admit that
they never had a scientific theory of ID.  Heck Behe and Minnich
couldn't even put up a testable ID hypothesis let alone a scientific
theory while they were under oath in Dover.  About the best that
Minnich could do was to claim that irreducible complexity "might" be
scientifically testable, but he hadn't gotten around to testing it.
Behe just claimed that it wasn't up to him to scientifically test his
junk.  There are no scientific theories that have not been tested and
validated.  ID is worse than the "theory" that since the corn harvest
is bad this year the NFC is going to win the superbowl.  We will soon
test that "theory," but when is that going to happen for ID?  Just
another year of running the bait and switch is about all you can look
forward to. Calling something a theory isn't the same as it being a
scientific theory.  You know the difference if you have learned
anything on this group.  That is just part of the scam.  Their
definition of scientific theory was never the same as everyone elses.

The ID perps know the difference too.  Even the scientific
creationists were hesitant to call what they had a scientific theory.
Instead their euphemism was "model."  Do you remember those good old
days when they used to talk about the model of creation, or their
creationist model?

Ron Okimoto


author: Mark Isaak

text:
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:53:53 -0300, Nashton wrote:

Nashton, you are a shining wit, as William Archibald Spooner would say.


text:
Nashton wrote:

Insults plenty.  Substance none.  Do you realise how you make your case look
worse than it need be?

David


author: Erwin Moller

text:
On 10/26/2010 3:53 AM, Nashton wrote:

Nashton, is your stupidity really without bounds?
What kind of lame remark is that?
Why don't you address what Ron wrote?

ï¿½Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
sure about the the universe.ï¿½
Einstein

And since I am quoting Einstein, let's end positive (for you):
ï¿½Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.ï¿½
Einstein

I think the latter is the reason talk.origins is such a busy place. ;-)

Regards,
Erwin Moller


text:
On Oct 25, 8:53ï¿½pm, Nashton <[email]> wrote:

If you ever had a reasoned argument would you be doing this?  Really,
NashT, When all you have left are one liners like above don't you
think that it is time to quit?

Projection is such a way of life for you that I can't imagine what
your home life is like.

I'm sorry that I actually feel sorry for you.  I read your post and I
wondered if something bad happened to you today.  Why should I feel
bad about a loser like you?  My post wasn't even directed at you, so
you degraded yourself all on your own and I had nothing to do with you
making an ass of yourself.

Ron Okimoto


author: J. J. Lodder

text:
John S. Wilkins <[email]> wrote:

Slavish and stupid adherents did of course exist.
(often incapable of doing more than learning by heart)
One may guess that there were many more of them
than adherents who could think.

Nineteenth century anti-clericalists inflated this to the myth
that all those scholastics were dumb fanatics,
who believed the earth to be flat and debated angels dancing on pins.

Reappraisla started in the 20th,
with Dijksterhuis for example,

Jan


author: UC

text:
On Oct 25, 5:14 pm, [email] (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

On the other hand, Aristotle thought that arrows flew through the air
because the air they displaced was directed around to the back and
pushed them forward.


text:
Walter Bushell wrote:

The rich may have the voice to express it and the power to attempt to
enforce it but the rest have their own concept of it even if they are
powerless.  No doubt there are some of all levels of wealth who would say
that capital punishment or imprisonment, or the poor in need could be
present in the ideal world.  In this K and I agree that they wouldn't.  But
if it is all an illusion this musing is rather a waste of time.

David


text:
Walter Bushell <[email]> wrote:

/2

If you have to know what a philosopher is you aren't real rich,

Jan


text:
Erwin Moller
<[email]> wrote:

Except that there is no source for it.
It's not in character.

Genuine, but this brief it's a quote mine.
The full paragraph says:
===
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are
clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the
two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion
may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned
from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the
attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created
by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and
understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere
of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility
that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that
is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist
without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image:
science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
===

What science must take from religion (according to E.)is just:
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with
the aspiration toward truth and understanding."

So the full paragraph is very appropriate for T.O. indeed:
It is precisely this 'aspiration toward truth and understanding'
which is so painfullly lacking in most creationists,

Jan


author: Richard Clayton

text:
On 25-Oct-10 10:40 PM, Ron O wrote:

Now, now, be nice to Nashton. He had a rough day: He had to do a relief
massage for a college football player with a pulled quad. Touching all
that oiled, gleaming, hunky man-flesh always leaves Nash feeling vaguely
agitated and in need of release in a way he can't quite articulate.


text:
J. J. Lodder <[email]> wrote:

Well I don't know his work, but Aristotle has been in the process of
rehabilitation from the end of the 19thC.


text:
UC <[email]> wrote:

Disproven by Oresme in the 13th century.


text:
On 10/26/2010 12:10 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Hi Jan,

Thanks for correcting that. I (obviously) didn't know that.
I'll try to be more accurate when quoting Einstein.

Regards,
Erwin Moller


text:
John S. Wilkins <[email]> wrote:

Dijksterhuis (unfortunately a poor wiki article)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Jan_Dijksterhuis>
is best known for his magnum opus,
'De mechanisering van het Wereldbeeld',
translated as, 'The Mechanization of the World Picture'.

The core is based on his earlier monograph,
'Val en worp' (Free Fall and Projectile Motion)
(I haven't seen it)
in which he traces the development of ideas on inertia
from Aristotle to Newton,
with emphasis on medieval developments,

Jan


author: Jeffrey Turner

text:
On 10/26/2010 9:43 AM, John S. Wilkins wrote:

Has he checked into the Betty Ford clinic yet?

--Jeff


author: r norman

text:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:30:35 +1000, [email] (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

And earlier by Philoponus in the 6gh century.


text:
r norman <[email]> wrote:

As yet I am unconvinced about the actual achievements of Philoponus. I
know Galileo cites him in an attempt to displace attacks, but I am
unsure that P actually did a lot of what he's supposed to; however, I
can't find an English edition.


text:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:43:04 +1000, [email] (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

There is a virtue in relying on tertiary sources. You can always find
something to support your position.


author: Matthew Bladen

text:
In article <[email]>, John S. Wilkins
<[email]> wrote...
[snip]

There are a number of volumes in the series _Ancient Commentators on
Aristotle_, published by Duckworth:

_On Aristotle Physics 1.1-3_ (tr. Catherine Osborne, 2006)
_On Aristotle Physics 1.4-9_ (tr. Catherine Osborne, 2009)
_On Aristotle Physics 2_     (tr. A. R. Lacey, 1993)
_On Aristotle Physics 3_     (tr. M. J. Edwards, 1994)
_On Aristotle Physics 5-8_   (tr. Paul Lettinck & J. O. Urmson, 1994)

Of course, it would be book 4 that hasn't come out yet...

There are also translations of Philoponus' commentaries on _On the
Soul_, _On Generation and Corruption_, _Posterior Analytics_ and some
bits of criticism.

Here's the full list of what's in the series:
http://www.ducknet.co.uk/academic/series.php?series_id=22
Try not to look at the prices!


text:
Matthew Bladen <[email]> wrote:

Yeah, I knew they were around. I just do not have access to them.
Nobody's even done a torrent feed :-)


author: know buddee

subject: The end of the 'barbarian age'  [is fast approaching]

text:
The end of the 'barbarian age'

There will come a time when humanity will look back on this time as
the 'barbarian age'. So far from the possible ideal is the present
dying civilization that future men will wonder how, and for so long,
were we able to sustain it.

There are many causes and factors involved in this sad situation: the
long, slow, decline in man's relation to man runs parallel to, and
reflects, the growing sophistication of his weaponry. His present,
triumphant ability to kill from places continents apart sets the seal
on his progress to self-destruction. War has been made clinical and
impersonal: no longer need the warrior witness the look of terror on
his victim's face.

In this situation, it is small wonder that man's institutions,
political and economic, reflect, in their turn, this growing
alienation of men from the wellsprings of their lives.
Commercialization, that burgeoning but stealthy and often hidden
menace, controls now the lives and destiny of countless millions, and
reduces to a cypher the God-given individuality of man. People are now
statistics without purpose or needs, pawns on the chess-board of
market forces and company profits.

The arid desert which we call the modern world leaves men bereft of
that which makes them human: happy, creatively fulfilled, quick to
respond to each other's needs, and free. Deadly competition corrodes
the human spirit and now sits in judgement on the 'battle' of life.
Life, the Great Adventure, has been corrupted and replaced by an
agonizing and unfair struggle for mere survival.

To be sure, these dire conditions are not everywhere and uniformly
present but for vast numbers they represent the reality of their
lives, and, unless men change direction, they can only worsen. Sacred
ties

When Maitreya enters, openly, the world arena, He will show men that
such a life of pain and struggle is not inevitable, is not their only
option; that another way is theirs by right if it is their will.

He will show that already, amid the chaos and mounting greed, men are
reacting against such weakening of the sacred ties of life; that great
new forces are generating a new beginning, and that out of the present
turmoil is gradually emerging a higher, truer demonstration of the
inborn capacity of man to meet the challenges of his time and to
overcome his difficulties.

Maitreya will remind men of their own high origin and destiny, and
will inspire the creation of a new way of living: in harmony, in right
relationship, without recourse to war or competition, in the fullest
Cooperation and mutual respect. Thus will it be.

----------------

This article was dictated to Benjamin Creme by a Sage whom he is in
telepathic contact with.

More details: http://www.share-international.org

These days skepticism is important, but it's very helpful to keep an
open mind too.


subject: Re: The end of the 'barbarian age'  and the ensuing of the idiot show

text:
"know buddee" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

so you're doubtful and
wishy-washy all at the
same time ?


author: seeking

subject: Re: The end of the 'barbarian age'  [is fast approaching]

text:
i actually find myself thinking of puma.
see he was right about the answer not being found in guru.
all those externals including ego itself we need to stop worshipping.
those are the false idols.
those towers have a way of getting very big.
but i do think they will come crashing down eventually.
9/11 had that symbolism.
the best we can do is to live well.
go beyond the delusion
embrace truth.
take stock of our courage
just let go of all that isn't god.
it's an ideal but in each of our lives we can apply our best
consciousness.
those shackles of the world are really doorways.
i really am constantly fighting with myself.
i just want to leave ignorance.
turning to god of our understanding and not the false.
trusting in god to make things right.
accepting the natural order.
c.


author: Ayin

text:
[email] (know buddee) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

well yeah sure ... humans have become far too dependent of on gov
owned mega biz to survive without such institutions.  the world's
economy would collapse without war ... all the jobs the producing of
hardware and services require to hold wars.  the war machine is a huge
consumer of goods, services ... and lives.  and then theres those huge
agri-businesses that monopolize the food sources.  gone is the small
family farm and even the backyard garden.  who needs such things when
monsanto provides frankenfood for all? and water ... sheesh!  30 years
ago people would've laughed at the idea of paying for $1.50 for a
small bottle of water.  nowadays it seems we're gullible enough to buy
any silly thing if its packaged right.  witness our presidential
elections. lol
BUT at the same time women and minority civil rights have improved.
women are no longer jailed or forced into mental institutions,
tortured with electric shock, lobotomized and/or have thier wombs
ripped out for desiring the vote.  and lynching is no longer
considered to be acceptable Saturday night entertainment ... even in
the south.  and much of organized religion has lost it's punch.  it's
not like one can be arrested for being a nonchristian and burned at
the stake anymore.  nowadays the christian far right has to make do
with lobbying politicians to enforce thier "moral" power.  (no doubt
some fundies would burn wiccans at the stake if they could but SECULAR
law forbids. neener neener!)
i don't know if we humans are any more barbaric then we used to be.
seems to me we're more or less the same.  there's just a whole lot
more of us humans now(too many IMO) and with constant instant media
feed we get to view a whole lot more of our collective stupidity.  its
doubtful that any messiah/avatar/guru would improve the situation
much.   a worldwide pandemic would though.


text:
seeking <[email]> wrote

sounds like a a good path to me-

<snip>

As you probably know, it is god in/through us that has to make things
right. The people can have all the power that they want, but they have
to stand up and seize it. It won't fall into their laps as they lay on
the sofa. The adults will be busy concerning theirSelfs with making
things right as the 'children' (immature souls) are playing and
watching from the sidelines.

It'll be a struggle, but in a hundred years the present ugliness of
the world will be aspects of the past. Right now  we are a very
primitive civilization.The most powerful country is the world's
largest obstacle to world peace. A bunch of apes would probably do
better.

The vast majority of the most famous and powerful men are dumb and
blind. The people make the mistake of looking up to them  - when most
are absolutely unworthy of public admiration, and should have
absolutely no power over others.

In a hundred years everything will be different, the human family will
be blossoming. Man's basic needs (food, shelter, healthcare &
education) will be the guaranteed rights of everyone.  We're almost at
the end of a dark cosmic
cycle or chapter in the book of life.

========

"i believe in the kingdom come when all the colors will bleed into
one..."
Bono/U2

"How shall we learn to know ourselves? By reflections? Never; but only
through action. Strive to do thy duty; then shalt thou know what is in
thee." Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"Almost anything you do [to help the world] will seem insignificant,
but it's very important that you do it." Mahatma Gandi

<><><>
Please register and vote the warmongering idiots out of the white
house
<><><>


author: Crowfoot

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] (Ayin) wrote:

No, only two: first, overpopulation, which has been experimentally
demonstrated to drive lab animals crazy; we are also animals, and being
jammed up tighter and tighter against eachother, increasingly forced to
squabble over the necessary resources that we're depleting due to our
sheer numbers (good water, good air, space, work, good food, etc. etc.
etc.) is making us increasingly desperate and neurotic.  No mystery
about it.

Second, and this is much more debatable as it's unproveable, this is a
Young Soul world.  On the scale of spiritual evolution, the majority of
us are at roughly high school age, and we act accordingly: we've left
behind the child's confinement by rules set down by its elders for its
own safety (and the elders' comfort) and have busted out into the
rebelliious, questioning, angry and violent, over-eroticized stage of
adolescence.  If we don't completely destroy ourselves (teen suicide and
death by various forms of violence and abuse is not uncommon), we'll
grow out of it and move on to early maturity with a commensurate change
in focus,violence levels, and connectedness.  If not, we'll reincarnate
in some new species on a new world and keep on moving as before, but
under different outward conditions.  But we'll still be a primarily
Young soul population (it's a bell curve) moving slowly toward maturity
and then age and "graduation" off the physical plane altogether.

Just another viewpoint, from a middling Mature soul who wishes like
blazes that there weren't such a long way still to go . . . it gets so
damn loud sometimes, stuck (for the time being) in the Ninth grade . . .

C


text:
well i agree with one thing.
wishing doesn't make it have.
faith doesn't make it happen
but right action leads to better things
accumulate enough right action and things begin to change for the
better mostly.
now to do that we have to turn away from delusion and false ego
prophecies aren't worth much.
need to remove ignorance.
prayer helps.
so does patience and tolerance.
i'm not voting for Bush.
c.


author: John Watson

subject: "Spice" to be banned - despite no "evidence of actual harm".

text:
I tried this stuff once - and only once - it's awful. At over £6/g it's
more expensive than your local Vietnamese "skunk"!

Once again our drug laws are based on ignorance.

Drug experts advise ban on Spice

The government's drug experts today advised the home secretary to ban
Spice, a herbal smoking mixture thought to be as strong as some strains of
skunk cannabis.

The decision, which the home secretary, Alan Johnson, is expected to
endorse, marks the first official move to curb a burgeoning market in
"legal highs". Sales of herbal drug substitutes that contain neither
tobacco nor cannabis have grown rapidly through a network of online sites
and backstreet "head shops".

The government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) warns that
Spice Gold, which is advertised as a herbal high and an "aromatic
potpourri", is in reality far from innocuous. They say it contains
synthetic chemicals that mimic the effects of some of the more powerful
active ingredients in cannabis.

Professor David Nutt, the ACMD chair, said: "These are not harmless herbal
alternatives and have been found to cause paranoia and panic attacks. That
is why we are advising the government to bring a large number of synthetic
cannabinoids under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

"People need to know they pose a real danger and should not be seen as
safe alternatives to illegal substances."

The council's advice follows a request from the former home secretary
Jacqui Smith to investigate the product in March. She voiced her concern
over the "wide and largely unregulated market in the sale of psychoactive
legal alternatives to illegal drugs, particularly as they are actively
marketed to young people in head shops and via websites.

"Advice on the availability and harms of these so-called legal highs, with
a particular focus on protecting young people, will be very useful in
informing future government policies," Smith told the ACMD.

Spice Gold has been around since 2006, when it was first imported from
China. The smoking mixture costs £20 for a 3 gram pouch, and contains
mostly unidentified herbal matter, with ingredients such as dried flowers,
leaves and aroma extracts listed on the packet. It is sold in various
"flavours", with Arctic Energy, Yucatan Fire, Diamond and Silver promising
different strengths.

The Trojan Horse properties of Spice were identified in December by the
THC Pharm laboratory in Germany, which is developing medicinal cannabis.
The research led to a ban in Germany and Austria in January. France
followed suit in February.

Martin Barnes, the chief executive of the drugs information charity
DrugScope backed a ban on Spice products. He said making Spice a class B
drug alongside cannabis could remove the incentive for its manufacture and
supply as it would no longer be available as a legal alternative to
cannabis.

However, he said the move was unusual because it was based on evidence of
potential effects of Spice, rather than evidence of actual harm to
individuals and society.

Professor Leslie Iversen, chairman of the ACMD committee that drew up the
report on Spice, told his local paper, the Oxford Mail: "It's a very
clever product, sold as a herbal smoking mixture from China, but
containing chemicals which can be a lot more potent than cannabis. Users
have no idea what they are taking. As a result, they are running a
considerable risk of overdosing, which is not only unpleasant but
potentially quite dangerous."

It is expected that the ACMD will now consider the position of other legal
highs including Salvia divinorum, commonly known as magic mint or Mexican
sage. An official consultation over plans to ban two synthetic party
drugs, GBL and BZP – also known as "herbal ecstasy" – is due to end on
Thursday.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/12/drug-experts-advise-spice-ban


author: The Todal

subject: Re: "Spice" to be banned - despite no "evidence of actual harm".

text:
"John Watson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Wasn't Professor Nutt the very sensible chap who compared the risks of
cannabis to the risks of horse-riding and was condemned by all the stupid
politicians and Glenda Slaggs?

I'd be inclined to trust him. Cannabis has a long and respectable history
and a huge user-base that enables people to judge the risks and effects.
I've never tried Spice Gold nor would I want to - goodness knows what goes
into it and whether one supplier's ingredients would differ from another's.


author: Cynic

text:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:52:20 +0100, John Watson
<[email]> wrote:

I like the headline "The Register" chose:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/12/synthetic_cannabis_banned/

"Government stamp of approval for fake weed"


author: Paul Hyett

text:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 at 11:52:20, John Watson
<[email]> wrote in uk.legal :

No evidence of harm? Have you ever heard 'Wannabe'? :p


text:
"The Todal" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Sorry - I think actually he compared Ecstasy with horse-riding but the point
is still valid.


author: Jethro

text:
On 13 Aug, 12:49, "The Todal" <[email]> wrote:

Yes, but people will try spice gold *because* cannabis is illegal ...


text:
Noticed at Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:49:04 +0100: The Todal informed us:

Ecstasy, yes, I think it was The Lancet, which is peer-reviewed. If his
figures were wrong, the reviewer(s) would have chucked it out.

When I tried spice, it was a bit like smoking perfume sprinkled on
diced cardboard, with a burnt (garden) grass after taste. It made me feel
giddy, but that could have been the carbon monoxide. It's rubbish.

If cannabis was legal, this stuff would never have been concocted.

It's illegal in Holland - I bet (1) nobody uses it and (2) they don't turn
a blind eye to the sale of perfumed bonfire.


author: BrianW

text:
On 13 Aug, 13:31, Svenne <[email]> wrote:

I thought the same, but he has an unfortunate name for someone making
controversial points ...


text:
On 13 Aug, 14:17, Cynic <[email]> wrote:

I imagine even as I type, people are placing orders for a limetime
supply ...


author: Svenne

text:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:51:14 +0100, "The Todal" <[email]>
wrote:

He got slagged off in the media by all the 'sensible' people for his
efforts, except that the professor was right and the 'sensible' people
were talking a pile of bollox.

Svenne


text:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:04:41 -0700 (PDT), Jethro
<[email]> wrote:

Yup - there's nothing as effective at getting people to buy a
substance than making it illegal.


text:
Noticed at Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:04:41 -0700: Jethro informed us:

Along with a load of Salvia Divinorum, as that looks next to be approved.


author: Avedon Carol

subject: Re: UK Customs Check for laptop porn

text:
On Sat, 05 Sep 1998 15:32:11 GMT, j*[email] (John Kiehn)
wrote:

This is rubbish.  If I posed for pornographic pictures or acted in a
pornographic film, I would be giving my consent to other people using
those images for their own sexual pleasure.  And I know numerous women
who have done exactly that.

The only pictures of me on the web are non-pornographic, in my
estimation.  However, if that's what gets you off, by all means feel
free.  It's no skin off my nose if someone jacks off while looking at
a picture of me.

Again, this is not true.

This is not a reliable source.  Phyllis Schlafly is a well-known
right-wing campaigner who is completely anti-porn.  She is not a
scientist and has done no scholarly work.  She makes many entirely
untrue claims.

You could also get any number of people from _any_ industry to tell
you about the evil effects of the industry they work in.  There is
_no_ industry where no one suffers abuses.  People like Schlafly
deliberately slant their "research" by refusing to acknowledge the
testimony of the many, many people who have voluntarily worked in the
porn industry and have no complaints about their work.

As to it detailing the negative effects of pornography, she'd have a
long way to go to do it, since empirical research has not been able to
find any such effects.  Pornography makes some people horny, some
people revolted, and other people bored, but there is no evidence that
it does any harm.

Except that they aren't usually talking about professional
pornographers; they're talking about their husbands and boyfriends.
You will seldom find similar claims being made by career professionals
in the industry.

(And by the way, there are a lot of people claiming to have been
kidnapped by aliens, and I don't believe everything _they_ say,
either.)

An emotive statement that makes it sound like pornography is a special
case.  Lots of people are abused in lots of circumstances, and in most
cases the rest of us are oblivious.  Why didn't we hear this about the
poultry industry when 18 people died in a fire in a lock-in shop?  Why
don't we hear it about secretarial work, given that the majority of
secretaries dislike their work and say that sexual harassment, up to
and including rape, is part of the job?

NO.  Pornography is material intended to sexually arouse.  Any
dictionary should tell you that.

It is not necessary to kidnap and rape people in order to get them to
participate in the production of sexually explicit media, and thus the
vast majority of pornography in existence was made by the consent of
people who fully expected other people to get sexual enjoyment from
that material.  Some of those people did it primarily for the money -
like you do any other job - but many of them enjoy their work and
quite a few of them are exhibitionists who would do it for nothing
just for the fun of it.  Much of the amateur porn on the net was done
in just that way - for the fun of it, with no intention or hope of
remuneration.

Your position rests entirely on the belief that the people in
pornography must dislike sex and feel shame at being associated with
it.  Bear in mind that this is _your_ prejudice and has nothing to do
with their motivations and feelings about performing in pornography.


author: John Kiehn

subject: Re: UK Customs Check for laptop porn

text:
On Tue, 08 Sep 1998 22:07:03 GMT, [email] (Avedon Carol)
wrote:

**Snipped for space**

So then, "scolarly" would mean pro-porn, or just non anti-porn?  I've
noticed a steady redefinition in this thread of "anti-porn" to mean
unscholarly or illegitimate.

Actually, the book is compiled by her.  The content is testimony by
the victims.  I take it then that since they are against porn, their
testimony is also unreliable or "unscholarly".

Then are you suggesting that the presence of voluntary workers in an
industry legitimizes it as a whole?  This would have interesting
repercussions in the argument over the legitimacy of slavery, since
many throughout history have voluntarily entered the slavemarket to be
sold.

Again, empirical meaning:  If it is pro-porn, it is empirical.  If it
is against porn, it is unscholarly and not legitimate.  A facile
viewpoint at best.

A woman beaten into posing, or a woman threatened or beaten unless she
recreates the pose to me is a negative effect.

See above.

Neither do I, but hardly relevant, unless you are trying to group
abuse victims who speak out with delusionals who claim alien
abduction.  I say (opinion here) that's a cheap shot at the victims.

So, because other people are abused, shut up and take it, eh?  I would
say we should be hearing it whenever abuse takes place, so that the
abuse can end.  And when the voice gets through, it should be acted
upon to protect and restore the victim.

Okay, unfair blanket.  Porn that abuses is...etc.

No, sexual abuse is never necessary, but it happens.  Lack of
necessity hasn't diminished abuse in the industry.

Got numbers on that?  Where is the "empirical" "Scholarly" study?
Let's have the name of the reliable, unbiased individual who collected
the facts.

Numbers, please.  Study name, please.  Otherwise, please at least
acknowlege that this is an opinion not based in empirical study.

No, it rests on the words of those who speak on their own behalf.
Read the book first.  In particular, read Linda Lovelace's testimony
of how her pimp beat her into performing for the movie "Deep Throat."
Tell me then that this is Phylliss Schlafly's unscholarly opinion.
Rape is rape.  Rape, according to the dictionary, is:
"forcible or fraudulent sexual intercourse esp. imposed on woman"

- The Concise Oxford dictionary.  Seventh edition

I am aware that some in the industry are there voluntarily.  I won't
dispute that.  I DO dispute the false statements that there is NO harm
from the industry and that NO studies show negative effects.  Neither
of those statements are true, they are instead opinions expressed out
of a desire to legitimize the porn industry.  There is in fact plenty
of evidence against pornography if one is willing to let the victims
have a say in the debate.  I'm willing...
(Cheap shot, or what, eh?)

Take care.  Nice chatting.

John Kiehn
email is bogus, replies to talk.politics.crypto if you want me to
reply.  Thanks.

"And remember:  God made you special, and He loves you very much.
Bye!"

-  Bob the Tomato


subject: Re: UK Customs Check for laptop porn

text:
On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 17:39:52 GMT, j*[email] (John Kiehn)
wrote:

No, "scholarly" would mean using control groups, having strict
protocols - you know, little things like that?  Merely digging up a
bit of anecdotal evidence that happens to agree with you doesn't
generally qualify as "scholarly".

"Testimony by the victims" only tells you their individual stories; it
doesn't tell you anything special about the industry and it doesn't
give you a general picture of the experiences of all of the _other_
people in the industry, let alone what the actual causes of the abuses
were.  Saying, "I was abused because of the porn industry," carries no
more weight than saying, "I was raped because of Minnisota."

Why no, I'm not, anymore than I'm suggesting that the presence of
voluntary workers in any other industry does so.  _You_, on the other
hand, are suggesting that you can condemn an _entire_ industry because
of the presence of _some_ abuses in that industry; on that basis, you
would have to condemn _all_ industries and institutions.

Yes, in the modern world it's known as "getting a job".

(Sheesh!)

Do you actually know what the word "empirical" means?

I guess the guy who does the beating has nothing to do with it, eh?
Do you know how many women are treated as you describe - without
pornography being involved in any way - by partners who believe it is
their right to do so because husbands just happen to have a right to
beat their wives up and push them around?  Would you use the same
words to describe marriage as you have been using to describe
pornography?  Because I promise you, I can find plenty of women who
can talk about being abused in marriage, and it would produce a much
larger book than Schlafley's.

Why?  Saying that some people abuse other people says nothing about
whether _pornography_ does any harm.

If they believe that _pornography_ is what caused their problems, then
yes, they are deluded.  Violent people aren't just randomly becoming
violent because of "pornography".

NO.  That's your problem right there - you can't see that what you're
talking about _isn't pornography_.  People in _any_ job, in _any_
institution or industry, should be protected from violence/abuse.
When you talk about the abuses that may be suffered from people in the
porn industry, you're suggesting that it's somehow a special case and
that people in other industries _do not_ deserve our care and concern.
Apparently, abuse is only bad when it happens in the porn industry,
for you.  Well, sorry, but I disagree.  I think secretaries and
poultry workers deserve to have their rights protected, too.

Yes.  And that would be equally true for people in the law profession,
in medicine, in mining, in the garment industry.  Do pay attention.

How about lawyers who abuse, doctors who abuse, managers in the
packaging industry who abuse, A&R men who abuse....?

Are you deliberately being dense?  Sexual abuse "isn't necessary" in
marriage, in record shops, in car factories, but it happens there,
too.  And, as with those other institutions and industries, people
walk through the doors voluntarily, they get married on purpose, they
_ask_ for jobs; they are not dragged off the street and forced to do
it.  (Except in the South American coal industry, where children
literally _are_ kidnapped off the streets and forced to work in
unsupported mines until they die, usually before they reach
adulthood.)

Very funny, but you can look it up for yourself - those are market and
criminological figures.  By all means check out the crime data on porn
producers who have been charged with abusing their models/actors.
Hey, don't take _my_ word for it - you can do your _own_ primary
source checks.

Oh, I think more than a quarter century of research makes my "opinion"
just a little bit more valid than yours, dear.

Read her book, ORDEAL, and see what she said before a lot of anti-porn
campaigners twisted her words.  She says her husband forced her to
appear in DEEP THROAT; she also says that the actual porn
professionals _did not_ harm her, and that in fact making the film
itself was the most pleasant aspect of her relationships with her
husband, Chuck Trayner.  And she says that had it not been for making
DEEP THROAT, she might never have escaped from him.

It is worse; it is Schlafley's propagandistic attempt to exploit the
unpleasant experiences of some women to condemn an entire industry
that is by no means the unrelenting hell she tries to pretend it is.

Which has little to do with pornography.  Meanwhile, 40% of women who
have been raped say the culprit was their husband.  Where is the
outrage of the continuation of the institution of marriage when it is
so obviously just a hotbed of violence and abuse, eh?

Not just some.  Most.

The false statement is the one being made by you to the effect that
_anyone_ is claiming that there is no harm in the porn industry.
Since everyone who has argued with you pointed out that there is harm
in _all_ industries, you are misrepresenting me as well as them.

No, they are made-up ideas that people like you try to ascribe to
people like me.  I have no interest in "legitimizing the porn
industry".  I have a very serious interest in trying to get people to
pay attention to the real causes of sex crime and stop pretending it
can be blamed on sexually explicit media.

No, there is not.  There is evidence against abusive people; none of
it implicates pornography or the porn industry per se.

Of course, there are the _other_ victims, the ones people like Phyllis
Schlafley don't want to tell you about - not of the porn industry, but
of the anti-porn/anti-sex attitudes that they promote.

Well, just dumb, actually.


author: David Cantrell

subject: Re: UK Customs Check for laptop porn

text:
[this subthread is not relevant to t.p.crypto.  Follow-ups set]

On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 17:39:52 GMT,
  j*[email] (John Kiehn) enlightened us thusly:

Abuse also happens in other industries.  Banking, for instance.
Should we then ban the banking industry along with the pornography
industry?

No, it rests on the words of SOME of those who speak on their own
behalf.  Just like SOME people speak about abuses in the banking
industry.

AFAIK, the harm has been perpetrated by a very small minority of
pornographers.  That is not grounds for banning the entire industry.
Likewise banks - and although far more bankers than pornographers are
abusive we STILL don't call for their industry to be banned.

But note follow-ups cos this ain't about crypto.


author: Brenda G. Kent

subject: Re: Addiction of sexual immorality

text:
***sexual preference does not change. People love and have sex with whom
they love and have sex with. They may not have sex anymore to put on a
front of being "saved" or they may have sex with the opposite sex partner
but usually will end up going back to their preferences. You try and
change from a Hetero to a Homo and see how easy it is. My God is your God
Marty.

***God loves me and sex is not sinful..it is an expression of love and
pleasure between two consenting adults. Something I believe that God gives
us joyfully.

*** I am very close to God as we all are. I don't believe in your Satan.
Witches (particulary Wiccan) have nothing to do with Satan. An ultimate
evil entity we do not believe in.

*** Now isn't that all Christian and loving of you. Gee If I close my eyes
it sounds just like Jesus saying it....

Brenda
I love you Mart.


author: mart

subject: Re: Addiction of sexual immorality

text:
There you go contradicting yourself " usually will end up going back
to their preferences" not always. God can change a man's sexual
preferences. I know personally 100% about someone that's gone from
homo to hetero. It is possible but only through God, only the devil
says you can't change and only the weak/ignorant say you can't.

In marriage

You probably don't believe in cows either because your milk comes from
shops but the source is further back.

Thanks :)


author: Don

subject: Re: Addiction of sexual immorality

text:
On 18 Apr 2002 23:25:47 -0700, [email] (mart) wrote:

"...gone from homo to hetero..."

Vague, broad generalization.  Was the guy examined psychologically
before and after or are you just hearing his very subjective
statement?

In other words, he is probably not being completely honest with you.

D*

"Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately."
- - - 2Tim2:15


author: Glenn Christian Mystic

subject: Re: Addiction of sexual immorality

text:
On 18 Apr 2002 23:25:47 -0700, [email] (mart) wrote:

<snip>

Sure they weren't bi-sexual ? AND so they DIED already and never went
back to what God created them to be ?

'Tain't dead yet, means it is not yet over, so you can't know for
absolute certain.

<snip>

So you support same sex marriages ?
Or you want to MAKE SURE that they sin ? As if God requires a piece of
paper, or a cerimony, many ARE married because they made a commitment
to remain faithful to one life-partner (like Speedbyrd, over
twenty-five years with his one and only, and counting :-)

Thing is, the existence of cows is provable,,,, Prove Satan exists !

Too dumb to spot sarcasm ! Not too surprising.


subject: Re: Addiction of sexual immorality

text:
On 18 Apr 2002 23:25:47 -0700, [email] (mart) wrote:

<snip>

So you aren't going to test yourself ? Like as become a homosexual ?
Can you ? Because I CANNOT ! I am a hetrosexual because I was BORN
THAT WAY.
Prove me wrong go now, have sex with another guy !

Faith untested isn't faith

I took the above text, I PUKED at the idea of having sex with my own
sex !

<snip>

Biblically, such is the act of becoming ONE FLESH ! (think about it)

Cows are provable.

Idiot !


author: Tang Huyen

subject: Self-reflection or not? (Re: Where to do Zen)

text:
dee wrote:

Ta-coocoo-ji, prior to his collapse/meltdown/crash or
whatever, entertained a version of Zen that is distinctly
flavoured with Japanese militarism.

Stumper:

Yes. || 7 Jul 11:59 PM (Eastern time US and Canada)

He also followed a version of mindfulness (paying attention)
that did not include self-examination, self-reflection and
self-criticality, but that only looked forward and not
backward. He advocated the extreme of "going with the flow"
all the way, without reserve (i. e., without standing
back to watch for possible failure). He wrote:

"Just going along with the waves." ||

Jimi:

 Then love it, completely, totally, absolutely, leaving nothing behind!
     Make love and enbrace your fear, consummating it completely!
            It is a freedom on one can ever take away from you. ||

Keynes:

      Freedom from fear is the ability to embrace fear. ||

Keynes:

An ordinary person that experiences fear, love, hate,
comfort, happiness, ect... this my life as it is.

No thanks, you can keep it.
I will embrace my fear. ||

Stumper:

if you cannot kill you cannot give life
   if you cannot turn your anger
   there is no genuine practice ||


author: Hollywood Lee

subject: Re: Self-reflection or not? (Re: Where to do Zen)

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

It is the danger inherent in an uncritical acceptance of the idea of
nondualism.  I very much like the way you have framed this.  A useful
way of thinking about the pitfalls of a mental system that is unwilling
to subject itself to reflection and criticism.

Ah.  Now I understand your split from Hal.  I had always been curious
where you and Hal had eventually come to disagreement and this makes the
reasons clear.


author: stumper

text:
Tang Huyen wrote:

Interesting.

There is also going straight -- don't know.
It's more like being mind-less than being mindful.
Selflessness instead of mindfulness.
But, there, you empty your self.
So, you would rarely react emotionally.

Not sure what he is doing.


text:
Hollywood Lee wrote:

Wisdom and redemption are a matter of balance and perspective,
just as folly and perdition are a matter of lack of balance and
perspective. Flowing with the waves all the way, without reserve,
without looking back, can incur the risk that one fails to grow
balance and perspective. If it works and whilst it works, it works,
but once it fails, one has no recourse and is a goner. One doesn't
even get to know that one is in error and failure.

Keeping in mind that at the highest level of wisdom, one has
abandoned all baggage, therefore has nothing to balance and no
perspective to keep, and looks out from the perspective of no
perspective, whilst one is getting there one still needs to grow
balance and perspective, if only because one is human and
can make errors and incur failure, and balance and perspective
are needed to firstly make one aware of errors and failures, and
secondly help one deal with them, by stopping them, mending
them, or whatever. At least balance and perspective give one the
chance to become aware of one's errors and failures, which are
inevitable, whereas flowing with the waves all the way, without
reserve, without looking back, does not.

Tang Huyen

Tang Huyen