author: Michael V. Kent

subject: Re: One Small Step for a Space Activist... Vol 3 No 9

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

NASA intends to use only the Shuttle for resupply ONLY until something
better comes along.  Also, one of the design missions of the Delta Clipper
is station resupply.

The mistake here is thinking of the Shuttle as a launch vehicle.  It is not.
A second mistake is thinking its sole mission is Station resupply.  That, too,
is untrue.  If Station resupply is offloaded to another vehicle, you still
want to keep the Shuttle around for missions like EURECA, TSS, SHARE, CIRRUS,
Hubble revisits, satellite repair, retrieving, and servicing, etc.  These
are missions which still need to be done and that the Shuttle was designed to
do.

Remember, the Shuttle is not a launch vehicle.  It is a space transportation
system (hence the acronym STS).  It includes things like the OMS and RCS for
multiple satellite rendezvous, the robot arm, astronauts-on-demand for
contingency spacewalks, the MMU, Spacelab, the Spacelab mounting hardware
(for things like Astro), the Shuttle Palette Satellite, and some things
harder to quantify like the attitude control capability (essential for
missions like Astro and STS-39).

Your station resupply vehicle will offer few of those things.  It is a
valuable first step but a small one.  It will not replace the Shuttle.

Please note two things.  NASA would like to go to a 180-day rotation about
two years after PMC (instead of 90 days).  Also, NASA plans to expand the
station to an eight man crew (EMCC).  Plan your vehicle accordingly.

I like the heavy-lift idea, but I don't think they fill the mission well.
It seems like you're adapting a mission to the vehicle and not the other
way around.  (You could argue NASA is doing the same with the Shuttle, but
the Shuttle already exists.  These vehicles do not).  If you're going to
build a new vehicle, build it to the mission requirements.  (If I were
a station manager, I'd rather have 5 flights of 20,000 lbs each than one
flight of 100,000 lbs.  It offers much more flexibility).

You want to use an Atlas?  The rocket that goes "boom" a lot?  (Rockets
should go roooar, not boom  :)  ).  We used to launched manned missions
on the Atlas, but we didn't have much of a choice then.

I think you want the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle (OMV).  The OTV was meant
to move payloads between LEO and GEO.  (An OTV is nice, but we need an OMV
first).

Mike


author: Nick Szabo

text:
First off, I'd like to congratulate Allen on this effort and
express my support for this direction.  I do have some questions
and comments on the specifics, though.

Fred is still being funded one year at a time.  This year it
took some significant hits. The probability of Fred being
completed, while rising, is still only around 50%, so the
market needs to be adjusted by that factor (to start with).
The probability of SSF being a significant milestone in space
development remains very low; it adds practically no functionality
of importance to future endeavors, while consuming a large sum
in opportunity costs (cf. my post, "The Opportunity Costs of
SSF").  The Shuttle also consumes large amounts of funding,
so I applaud this effort to find a superior alternative to the Shuttle.

Shuttle should be phased out with launchers shared by the military
and commerce, and eventually by SSTO.  Developing a unique capability
for one program doesn't make sense, especially a program as inconsquential
as SSF.

I don't understand the 160,000 pounds.  Shuttle only carries
50,000 pounds. What in blazes does #3 mean?  We only need to circularize
at 300 nm, normal launchers can do that.

I thought you said we need 160,000 pounds?  In any case, why
can't we use Titan IV?  At 40,000 pounds, it can carry nearly
as much as the Shuttle.

I agree with the commercial aquisition approach, but a launcher
custom-made for a single NASA program is a very poor candidate for
commercial aquisition. This service has a politically risky future,
both in terms of funding SSF and non-use of the Shuttle.  A 50% chance
of funding with a 25% chance of NASA actually using the service instead
of Shuttle gives a 87% chance that the company will lose its shirt trying
to develop the beast.

MM already charges $280 million for Titan IV; how are they
going to launch more than twice the payload with the same
tech for less than $200 million?

It makes more sense to use the Shuttle phase-out to fund
new technology, like AMROC and SSTO, along with sharing
the existing fleet with military and commerce, instead of
stretching out the ancient missiles to even more bizzarre
lengths.  Titan IV, Atlas 2AS, Ariane 44L, and similarly
sized launchers with newer technology should be sufficient for
serving a rationally designed space station operation.

Again, while we quibble on the specifics, I applaud the
direction being taken here for sharing resources between
NASA and other space programs, instead of keeping NASA fixed
on, and then stuck with, its own limited in-house capabilities.


author: Frederick A. Ringwald

text:
In article <[email]>
[email] (Nick Szabo) writes:

Yes, as a space scientist, I know this feeling all too well.

Fred   ;-)/2


author: Allen W. Sherzer

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

As it currently stands Shuttle and Freedom together spend all the money
which could go toward a Shuttle replacement. NASA therefore intends
to use the Shuttle forever.

It isn't?

I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that using the
outlined approach we will have a better and cheaper overall capability.

Few of these missions can be cost justified using Shuttle. The ones which
can, can fly on Freedom for a fraction of the cost.

The problem with this whole arguement is that it ignores the cost of doing
anything. That mode of operation has ground us to a halt and cannot
continue if we want to go anywhere.

If you want to continue this, please provide cost justifications for
your arguements.

180 day rotations with twice the crew will require the exact same number
of launches and will therefore have zero cost impact.

They do the job for a lot less money. What else is there?

Exactly. That's why it is cheaper.

Think of it this way, the car I drove to work in today has four seats and
a trunk. Yet I only drive myself to work. I also have a lot of papers in
my car and a person's seat (where I keep them now) is not the best place.

So what your saying is that instead of adapting my car to the mission
(getting me to work) I should design and build a custom car with only
one seat and a filing cabinet for my papers.

I don't do that because I can't afford to. NASA should do the same for
the exact same reason.

At several times the cost. No, a station manager living on a fixed budget
would prefer the far cheaper good enough solution.

Not that often. A launch escape rocket will make the vast majority of
those accidents survivable. Shuttle also goes boom and is far more
likely to kill crew (and $2 billion orbiter) when it does.

The bottom line is that this is a dangerous job and people will die.

   Allen


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Nick Szabo) writes:

You need to read between the lines. With the support NASA, the
contractors, and Congress is giving it IS going to get built.
The Senate vote last Tuesday just confirms it.

It may shrink or change in some other way but in some form it
will be built. Traxler had a solid year to build up a constituency
against it. He carved it up and tossed chunks as all the special
interests (except, of course, science) and still lost.

Sure. But that's not the point. We are now past trying to kill it and
must now find ways to live with it.

We aren't talking about a unique capability. What we are talking about
is a market driven solution to reduce costs. One advantage is that this
will not only give us a HLV but will reduce the cost of MLVs as well.

That is the estimates I have for the amount of material which will
be lifted to Freedom every year.

Shuttle proponents argue that this capability is needed to eliminate
Shuttle. I agree it isn't immediately needed but it had to be costed
out so we could justify eliminating the Shuttle.

Two reasons:
1. It's cheaper.
2. A Titan IV couldn't carry the load plus the reusable logistics
module/re-entry vehicle.

It isn't custome made. The launchers in question have been proposed
for use in SDI experiments, Moon/Mars exploration, and Freedom resupply.
That hardly makes it a custom vehicle.

We can wait for Freedom (should the market require that andlthough since
we are talking about doubling the market it's worth a lot of risk). But
you are correct in that it will require NASA to say up front that they
will be open minded about it.

First of all, they charge less than that for Titan IV (the figure I
have seen is $225 million. In addition, the Titan V doesn't use the
Centaur upper stage (which is included in the $225 million). Finally,
this is a commercial procurement of multiple launchers which will
cut lots of paperwork costs.

It would be better to compare it to a scaled up Titan III instead
of a scaled up Titan IV. Take a $120 million Titan III, add three
more main engines and three more solid boosters and you have a
Titan V. In quanity meeting a $200M price shouldn't be hard. BTW,
my estimate is that with a 50 unit buy the price will be $187M
each (which includes development costs). This estimate assumes
a .95 learning curve.

I myself would rather just have the government buy services and
let the market fund vehicle development.

If it works, no problem. All I am doing with this article is providing
an existance proof: we can get more capability for less money if we
let the market decide. My plan doesn't require that the feds buy Titan
V, only that they buy the cheaper service.

I have shown that for the cost of Shuttle they can easially fund
the vehicles I speak of with private money. If Martin selects Titan V
or Titan IV for their bid is up to them. I only use the Titan V because
it is cheaper.

   Allen


author: [redacted]

text:
First, [email] (Michael V. Kent) wrote:

Then, [email] (Allen W. Sherzer) replied:

Goldin says we should consider the Shuttle program to last "at least"
until 2005, but not much beyond that.  12 years != forever.

No word on where a Shuttle replacement might come from, or how it
would be funded.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      [email]  (713) 483-4368

                  "HERE MEN FROM THE PLANET EARTH
                    FIRST SET FOOT UPON THE MOON
                           JULY 1969, A.D.
                  WE CAME IN PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND."


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

Next year Congress will likely have 150 new members, elected to cut the
budget (that's what all the pols out here are running on). We will have
a new President, and Al Gore in charge of the Space Council.  They will be
looking for something visible, and symbolic of the Reagan/Bush years,
to cut. Do you seriously think Al Gore is going to promote Reagan's SSF at
the expense of EOS and his fiber optic network?

Note that even this year, SSF's budget request of $2.3 billion was cut
to $1.9 billion.

How about just ignoring it?

For the Nth time, NASA is not a commercial market!  It is a government
agency, funded from year to year, that dictates design details to its
contractees, and funds the projects via the process of political
lobbying.  If you could come up with a viable scenario where the main
customers are, say, direct broadcast satellites, and NASA funds the
first couple launches of an HLV for those customers while keeping
hands off the design, I would believe the rhetoric about market-driven.
However, if Ariane 5 meets its cost targets it will be a great HLV
for launching the larger DBS's.   I don't see any NASA-driven launcher
being competitive with Ariane 5, now that they've dumped Hermes and
are getting serious about cutting costs (their target is to reduce
the cost of the 4, already the lowest-cost launcher in the world, in
half).

That's somebody's wet dream, is what it is.  NASA doesn't have that
kind of money for SSF, nor should it be handed a justification for it.
Furthermore, as Mike Kent noted it makes more sense to launch it in
20,000 lb. chunks, which can easily be handled by current commercial
launchers.

No, it requires a _commitment_ with money up front.  NASA is
funded year to year and ya can't sue the government -- look at what
happened to Spacehab and SSI.  Nobody does business with Uncle Sam
based on a promise of being "open minded" on the issue of payment.

The most recent figure I've seen, on an article about the Pluto probes,
is $400 million for one Titan IV/Centaur launch.  That's government
accountants for ya.  (That's also what happens when the Uncle Sam,
in this case the USAF, promises a big set of orders and then reneges on
it).

I sympathize with this, but there is room for NASA R&D as long at it is
done in service of the space industry, instead of for its own narrow
purposes.  (Imagine that, me more socialist than Allen :-)  NASA's
aeronautics side would be a good model to follow; they develop basic,
widely applicable tech instead of building 700-person mega-SSTs that
nobody but themselves would use.

I have no major quarrel with this, as long as Titan V is also cheaper
for commerce and military.  Ariane 5 will likely be fine, but their's
nothing like competition to keep them on their toes.


text:
In article <[email]> [email] writes:

I, personally, believe a Delta Clipper, HL-20, or NASP-derived vehicle will
be funded very shortly after PMC (well, probably EMCC).

Mike


subject: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)

text:
In article <[email]> [email] writes:

we could probobally make it last until 2012 or so. At that time, and
only then unless radical changes are made, will the funds be available
to build the replacement the government way. Add another fifteen years
to actually build it and we are looking at 35 years.

I'm getting on in years and for me that 35 years just might be
forever.

Exactly.

  Allen


author: Josh 'K' Hopkins

text:
[email] (Nick Szabo) writes:

Actually, I believe Clinton has said that he supports Freedom and SEI.  You can
of course take that with a grain of salt if you wish.  My SSF contractor
contacts believe that Freedom is too far along to be cut now and congress seems
to believe that last year was the defining vote.

Hey, weren't you attacking A5 as being to big just a while ago?  Maybe I was
thinking about someone else.

No, that's the cost for the whole program.


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Michael V. Kent) writes:

How? All the money which could be used will be spent on Freedom and
Shuttle.

I hope we will get Delta Clipper, it is the only bright spot on the
horizion. But if we do get it I hope you realize what an inditement
it will be against the buisness as usual attitude at NASA.

  Allen


author: Gary Coffman

subject: Re: Shuttle Replacement (was: One Small Step...)

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

So instead you want to stretch designs, Titan and Delta, that are
already 30 years old one more time. No thanks. We can count on
general technology advances in the next 12-35 years that will allow
us to build something *better* than those roman candles when we
actually *need* them. You and Nick both will have long been dust
in the wind before the solar system is settled by ice miners and
Martians. They won't appreciate being stuck with Hudson Hornets
when they could have a 300ZX.

Gary

Gary


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

Quite a tiny grain.  Few Democrats in Congress support SEI,
and both SSF and SEI are Republican-generated projects. Keep in mind
also that there are plenty of ways to "support" and "operate" SSF
while launching only a small fraction of the payload Allen expects.
eg man-tended mode, cutting back on the experiments, 2 crewmembers
for 180 day shifts, etc.  There are also plenty of excuses Clinton
could use to cancel SSF, eg the next time NASA botches something with the
Shuttle or by appointing a "distinguished panel" that recommends
scrapping Fred.  Finally, Al Gore and John Pike will be on the space council,
and they have, shall we say, a rather different agenda...

Yes, I admit it.  They've lately changed their tune -- they are now
designing to commercial specs instead of Hermes, and they are working
on cutting costs to well below that of Ariane 4, which is already the
lowest priced commercial launch service.  If they succeed, they will be very
hard to beat, and 'twould be better to join than fight 'em.

Nope.  The probes cost $200m, and the launches (according to Av
Week) $400m each.  I have to think, though, that is the amortized
rather than the incremental cost, so that beyond what we've already
tossed to this messy program it's only going to cost taxpayers another $200
million per launch.  They spent $billions on factories, pads, and the
like that aren't being used much now that the USAF has cut back its
orders -- it was originally going to buy over fifty, now it's down to
twenty-something.  That's why it's an incredibly bad idea to build
single-customer HLVs.


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Gary Coffman) writes:

1. The designs in question all have safety factors of 2.0; nothing
   is being stretched anywhere.
2. The existing Titan and Delta are very different from what they
   where 30 years ago. 30 years of continuous improvement will do
   that.

Except that we can't do the research to develop this technology because
people like you have made a virtue out of wasting money on the existing
systems.

    Allen


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:

Are you saying that *previous* Titan and Delta launchers have had
safety factors *greater* than 2.0? And how do you translate that
into on time on budget launches?

Yes, I'm sure that the Wright Flyer would have been a hell of a biplane
after 30 years of add ons too. That would still leave it outclassed by
later designs.

Nonsense. Automated manufacturing technology hasn't depended on NASA
funding. Most materials research hasn't depended on NASA funding. Most
electronic control systems progress hasn't depended on NASA funding.
Systems integration and non-destructive testing methodologies haven't
depended on NASA funding. Composite materials development hasn't depended
on NASA funding. Automated CAD/CAM systems didn't even exist when Titan
and Delta were designed. All Titan and Delta have going for them is a
track record of delays, cost overruns, and failures as an old inefficient
design is pushed beyond it's limits. The old brutes are admirable in
the same way as an old 1950s tailfinned Plymouth, but they are lightyears
out of step with modern capabilities and demands.

With the small market for launchers in their class, they are perhaps
"good enough" to continue producing for a few more years. But they
aren't a good basis for a new launch capability that will see us through
the next few decades. Shuttle will be reaching the end of it's useful
life by 2012, maybe sooner if flights are frequent enough to build
high hours on the existing airframes. Follow on vehicles should be
based on the *best* technologies that we know how to build, not on
something designed four decades ago.

Gary


text:
[email] (Gary Coffman) writes:

 I agree that newer would probably be better, but just what does a Delta 7925
have in common with a Delta B (of 1962 vintage) besides the name?  Not the
same engines or structure for sure, and I seriously doubt the avionics are
the same.  I think Cary is falling for the "Grandfather's axe" phenomenon.
You can replace the head and the handle as often as you like, but as long as
you don't replace both at the same time, it's still grampa's old axe :)


author: Edward V. Wright

text:
In <[email]> [email] (Gary Coffman) writes:

So, do you know how long Boeing's been building the Model 747?
Can you name one later design that has "outclassed" it?  Sometimes
it's better to incororate new technology into an old, proven
"workhorse" design than take the risk of developing a new design,
which may or may not be better, from scratch.  Sometimes.


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Josh 'K' Hopkins) writes:

It may have a carbide blade and a fiberglass handle, but it's still an
axe when what we may want is a chainsaw. While parts have changed, the
basic design of the Atlas and Delta are over 30 years old. Since they
are direct descendants of the V2, their design is really more than 50
years old. Other ideas, the Ortag scheme for example, may be better
suited to what we want to accomplish. It could be that the Goddard,
Oberth, and Von Braun design is the best possible for all time, but
I doubt it. No amount of detail refinement will produce an F16 from
a Spad, or a 747 from a Wright Flyer.

Gary


text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Edward V. Wright) writes...
The first Boeing 747-100's flew in 1968 if I remember correctly.  They have
been extensively modified since that time to carry more fuel, passengers,
better engines, control systems.  It is interesting that each time a new
upgrade has been added, the FAA required a new certification program as if
the upgrage was a new plane.

Also the follow on for the 747 is in the works.  It is called the 777 and
is a heck of a bird if all of the Boeing propaganda I have seen is true.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville


author: Henry Spencer

text:
In article <[email]> [email] writes:

Actually, if memory serves, the upgrades do get a somewhat streamlined
version of certification.  They've still got to demonstrate overall
performance characteristics and the like, particularly where the upgrade
has affected important characteristics like how hard the brakes have to
work to stop the thing, but the airworthiness of the basic design does
not have to be re-established all over again.

Nope, sorry, you heard wrong.  The 777 is indeed in the works, but it is
*not* a 747 replacement.  Boeing has no plans to stop building the 747
any time in the foreseeable future.  The 777 is substantially smaller
(although it's a large airliner by anyone *else's* standards).


text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (Henry Spencer) writes...

Gotcha Henry. Notice that I did not say "replacement". I said "follow on".
You are right, 777 is not a replacement for the 747 BUT there are many of the
buyers of 747 that are switching their orders to the 777 platform.  My source
for this is the internal Boeing newsletter.  777 is a replacement for the 747
in many markets especially the long range market.  I won't bet the farm on that
last sentence however.  Boeing already has many billions of dollars worth of
orders for the plane and it will not be in the air for another two years! Too
bad we can't do the space market that way.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville, (Home of 1/2 of the astronaut no
sex in space corps)


author: Herman Rubin

subject: Re: Ideas and studies  Was: Re: Vitamin C studies

text:
In article <[email]> edu!uab!dpo!uabdpo!gila005 (Stephen Holland) writes:

I do not believe that you have the cause correct, but the symptoms are
all there.  There has arisen, because of the government essentially
taking over most of the support of research, and even making other
research difficult to do, almost an attitude that "if we didn't think
of it, it cannot be any good."  This problem is not unique to medicine;
academic research in any field now funded by the government is in danger.
We had good research before NSF and NIH, etc., but the government has
effectively killed off the sources of funding before WWII.  Szilard
did warn us about this 45 years ago; for those who do not know, he
was one of the atomic scientists involved in the Manhattan project.

It is not a matter of evil intent, or of greed, but of arrogance, in
deciding that all the bright guys are already working for the government,
or as approved by the government.  This attitude is prevalent in other
fields as well.

I am not convinced of anything here.  But it brings to mind a previous
claimed cancer treatment, and what happened.  The drug was called
krebiozen, and was very definitely not a purified chemical.  The
inventor of the treatment and some others, including many academic
people with quite substantial fame, were put on trial for fraud.

One of my former colleagues, who followed this better than I, told
me that the jury, which found all the defendents innocent, also added
that, ON THE BASIS OF THE GOVERNMENT'S CASE, the therapy should be
investigated as a cancer treatment.  The government was able, despite
the decision, to ban the treatment entirely.


author: David Nye

text:
[Reply to [email] (Herman Rubin)]

I've noticed a deterioration in the quality of medical research now that
more of it is being funded by drug companies.  I suspect the subtle
pressure to come up with an answer that makes the company's product look
good (or maybe you won't get funded next time around) is responsible.
It would be better IMPO to have more of it funded by the NIH and related
organizations.

David Nye ([email]). Midelfort Clinic, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
No rational argument will have a rational effect on a man who does
not want to adopt a rational attitude -- Karl Popper


text:
In article <[email]> [email] (David Nye) writes:

Drug companies are required to spend considerable sums on investigating
the properties of the chemicals which they wish to sell; this is not
likely to be fundamental research, or even likely to be high quality
at all.  Drug companies do fund some basic research.  There are also
other agencies doing this; I believe that a higher proportion of medical
research is funded by non-governmental sources than, say, in mathematics
or physics.

But the pressures you mention are quite considerable for government grants
as well, and even more so the pressure to get, and publish, results no
matter how weak so that subsequent grants will be given.  This is likely
to worsen with the push to taking basic research money and using it for
applied research.  Also, the NIH and other government granting agencies
have always been under pressure to "spread the wealth" so that no area
gets too much government research money.


subject:
Is America ready for the Autobahn or is the "I don't give a shit"
	mentality prevail?

text:
When you see how things flow in the Autobahn, you realize they need
more than good cars. They also NEED ENFORCEMENT, CAMERAS & THE
POLITICAL WILL to do it. Then the RIGHT (who drive those lawless SUVs)
will say, "We want no cameras in America!" and the LEFT (who drive the
wimpy Toyotas) will say, "We don't want SPEED!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG_nGCW9ELw

***

But we are ready for them, aren't we?

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/jimbo056/fun18.jpg

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

THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS

"Never go in the jungle unprepared for the vermin"

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION


author: Fred C. Dobbs

subject:
Re: Is the TibetanShitMonkey ready to go to North Korea, or does
 his "I spew shit" mentality prevail?

text:
On 4/20/2010 8:40 AM, TibetanMarginal,
the-Marginal-who-is-a-Bag-of-Shit, bullshitted:

You are a fuckwit.


subject: Re: Do you want things to flow or you want vultures to prevail?

text:
On Apr 20, 8:46 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <[email]>
wrote:

Do you want things to flow or you want vultures to prevail?

http://www.robertrubenstein.com/


subject: Re: raising the flag is not an option

text:
On Apr 20, 9:00 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <[email]>
wrote:

Sir, raising the flag is not an option. I thought you understood that
from the picture below...

http://www.andreadams.com/assets/watermark%20files/hillbilly_redneck_patriot.jpg

But if you keep harassing me, I may be forced to boycott these groups.


subject: Re: the monkey is playing his own game

text:
On Apr 20, 10:32 am, "Fred C. Dobbs" <[email]>
wrote:

You are running these groups like a general, and would gladly catch
the monkey.

But the monkey is playing his own game. You know what, keep the
groups. No warriors here...

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/skatesnow67/3_013.jpg


subject:
Re: Do you want TibetanShitMonkeys to organize society, or do you
 want common sense to prevail?

text:
On 4/20/2010 8:51 AM, TibetanMarginal,
the-Marginal-who-is-a-Bag-of-Shit, bullshitted:

I want you to get your fat lazy do-nothing talentless ass to North Korea.


subject:
Re: hauling your fat lazy do-nothing ignorant ass to North Korea
 IS an option

text:
On 4/20/2010 9:38 AM, TibetanMarginal,
the-Marginal-who-is-a-Bag-of-Shit, bullshitted:

Getting your whiny fat lazy pimply do-nothing ass to North Korea IS an
option.  It's the /best/ option for you.

There has been no harassment.  But you serve no useful purpose here, so
undertaking your boycott would be a good idea.


author: Paul Harwood

subject: Re: raising the flag is not an option

text:
TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:

Now THAT would be a fine thing, you cross posting, off topic, self
serving, retarded, glue sniffing, moronic puppy fucker.


subject: Re: the TibetanShitMonkey is playing with his asshole

text:
On 4/20/2010 1:44 PM, TibetanMarginal,
the-Marginal-who-is-a-Bag-of-Shit, bullshitted:

I'm not running anything, Comrade ShitMonkey.  Well, I'm running you
into the ground, but that's different.  You're a slovenly, incompetent
fat fuck, Comrade ShitMonkey.  It's easy to run you into the ground.


subject: Re: raising the flag is not an option

text:
On 4/20/2010 1:48 PM, Paul Harwood wrote:

And those are his /good/ points.


author: Barry

subject: Re: => Another Lying Woman gets caught ....

text:
"Dan Zabetakis" <[email]> wrote in message
news:8r0n8e$qs3$[email]...

Yes they are different, but I think the woman should do the time of a rapist
if she falsly accuses someone of rape.  If he would have been convicted of
rape, he would have not only been put to jail time, but would have had to
come out labeled a rapist.  If you read the newspaper, these kind of people
have to register themselves where ever they live.  The population in that
neigborhood looks very dim on those kinds of people with good reason
and sometimes does things against the law to them.  So yes, I think the
punishment
should be even stiffer for someone that puts a man through that kind of
hell by lying.

And that is why he says that the lying bitch should do some serious time
instead
of getting only a slap on the wrist for purgury.


text:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 03:19:48 GMT, "Barry" <[email]>
wrote:

Okay then Village Boy.  What about the situations where it is proven
via DNA that the rapist was indeed guilty but has lied about the act.
Do you not think that the Newspapers also leap onto this and cast the
victim as evil?  Should we double the penalty to the rapist?

What will be your threshold?  Only those who are found guilty?  If a
woman accuses a man of rape and he is found not guilty he is then
allowed to charge her?

Why not murder then?  Make the punishment stiffer?  Maybe execute the
person responsible for a murder conviction twice?

Your approach, like all of your approaches is simplistic and ill
thought out.

Lying bitch?

Just can't help yourself can you Barry?

You know, take back anything I ever said that suggested that maybe
your ex-wife did you wrong.  Clearly everything and more that you got
you brought upon yourself.

Ted


text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
rapist
of
people
people
and

Teddy, you have had the village idiot spot sowed up for many years now, I
wouldn't want to take that from you.  Oh and by the way, your statements
here
have made no sense because once again, they have nothing to do with what
I said, but you go ahead and prove you are that village idiot and keep on
posting.


author: Daran

text:
[email] wrote in message
<[email]>...

You have no basis whatsoever to jump to that conclusion.  There is every
indication that Barry's mysogeny is a /consequence/ of having been treated
badly by a woman.

Daran


text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
rapist
of
people

We were talking about a certain incident and now you are trying to change
it.
I said that women who lie about the rape should goto jail as if they did the
rape.
I said nothing about what you are talking about.

Well, du.  You can be taught.  lol

That is against the law dummy, you cannot convict a person for the same
crime twice.
Dont you know the law?

No, just you and your reversing everything I say.
people
and

You would have to be stupid to file a report on a stolen library book.  But
then again
we are talking about you teddy.  Use a real crime of today and I can
respond.

No, I say it so that they wont lie about rape as often for fear of being
punished.

Nope, but I see that it gets to you.  Oh, are you a woman trying to pretend
to be
a man on this newsgroup?  I bet you are.  You are a lesbian fem notsi who
cant
get women to talk to you in person because you are fat and butch, right?
I for one never asked for your comments on any of it.  So you take back
anything
you want or leave it stand.  I really dont care.


text:
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:20:25 GMT, "Barry" <[email]>
wrote:

I am not trying to change the subject simply find a balanced approach
to it.  You would like to see special rules applied to attack women
only for having made a false accusation yet seem to have no problem
with the alternative.  If the 'lying' (which seems to be a hot spot
for you), is the big issue then shouldn't all lying associated with
rape result in the same punishment?  As such, if a rapist can denies
his act he lying.  Then if he irrefutably proven guilty, ie: via DNA,
then shouldn't he first receive a sentence for the rape and then
another sentence for the lie?

You know just to keep things fair and equal.

Since you decided to try and be smart you must be spanked.  It is duh.

Secondly are you truly this stupid as to believe that all people who
are found not guilty are innocent?  Such a process would do nothing
more than to impose further barriers on a woman trying to assert her
rights to justice.

Just a second lose the 'every woman is a lying bitch' concept and
consider that once in a while they really are raped and the
circumstances might be such that proving it will be difficult.  If we
went with your approach then any woman in that situation would be told
by the prosecutor, (although most probably by the rapist himself
seconds following the act),  that the case is weak and if she pursues
it he will punish her legally.

No you are just being simplistic in this case because you want to
define the woman as bad and evil and this is the mechanism that works
for you.

Nothing you say gets to me Barry.  You aren't smart enough to get to
me.  Think of our intellectual arguments in these terms, you are the
bug, I step on you and then have to go through the annoyance of
cleaning your remains off my shoe.  That is about how much you 'get to
me'.

As per being a lesbian fem notsi... I believe you probably meant Nazi.

Take it read little man that on both the physical and intellectual,
you are still the bug in the analogy.

Sure you do.  You so desperately need validation.

That's what annoys you the most about me, you know I won't fall for
your lies and games.  You realize I know what you are all about.

Ted


text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>
has lied about the act.
leap onto this and cast the
to the rapist?
now you are trying to change
should goto jail as if they did the
talking about.
find a balanced approach
applied to attack women
to have no problem
seems to be a hot spot
lying associated with
a rapist can denies
guilty, ie: via DNA,
the rape and then

Only?  Only for having made a false acusation?
Wake up, it ruins a mans life and labels him a
rapist to all his friends and familly.  You know
the old saying?  Where there is smoke there is
fire.
are found guilty?  If a
not guilty he is then

Why not?  She charged him.
be spanked.  It is duh.

I know it is duh, i was trying to sound stupid
like you.
that all people who
process would do nothing
trying to assert her

Well, I dont hear you crying for the guys in jail
that are found guilty when they are innocent.

bitch' concept and
raped and the
be difficult.  If we
situation would be told
the rapist himself
weak and if she pursues

Whatever.
simplistic and ill
say.
because you want to
mechanism that works
should do some serious time
for purgury.]

Yep.
as often for fear of being
you a woman trying to pretend
You are a lesbian fem notsi who
you are fat and butch, right?
smart enough to get to
these terms, you are the
the annoyance of
about how much you 'get to

OH ya?  your answering me arent you?
you probably meant Nazi.

No, i ment notsi, its a spelling error.
physical and intellectual,

Yep, fem nazi
suggested that maybe
everything and more that you got
of it.  So you take back
care.
validation.
know I won't fall for
you are all about.

I know for a fact you are a woman now.


text:
[email] wrote in message ...

I'm not defending Barry's position, because it's not obvious that he has
one, in the "clear and self-consistent" kind.

No.  The convicted person usually gets a more lenient sentance if they
plead guilty, so this factor has already been taken into account.

The two lies are not equivalent.  False accusations (made to the police or
in court) are attacks upon the falsely accused, intended to cause the
state to punish them.  This puts it in a different category to lies made
in one's defense, or any other lie.

The same "sufficient evidence" standard as for any other crime.

[...]

Perhaps it would have the opposite effect.  Perhaps people would be more
inclined to take genuine rape allegations seriously if they could see that
making frivoulous or malicious accusations were treated as a serious
infraction.  Even if this weren't the case, I do not accept that one kind
of offence should be ignored, so as to encourage another to be reported.

Just because the case against the accused is weak, does not mean that
there is a strong case (or any case at all) against the accuser.  As far
as threats by rapists are concerned, well yes, they may make such a
threat.  They may also make physical threats against the victim or their
family.  A woman can also threaten to make a false accusation against a
man in coerse him.  Why should you allow the latter in order to reduce the
risk of the former?

[...]

Oh notsi didn't
(Oh yes he did...)    :-)

Daran


text:
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000 03:39:31 GMT, "Barry" <[email]>
wrote:

No Barry, women only, as in women solely.

I know grammar and spelling aren't your high spots but a quick lesson.

"Women are indeed out to get Barry only"

versus

"Women are indeed out to get Barry, only..."

Anyhow.  Why not consider the issue equally then?  Why do we make
special cases for so called lying women but not for lying rapists?

As per smoke and fire?  Sometimes I think you should just stick to
putting forward your position and stay away from analogies.

So then if someone is charged with assault or murder or whatever crime
then it is acceptable simply on the basis that the accused achieves
'reasonable doubt' that they may then attack their accusor?
Interesting twist on the law.

No Barry, you were just being stupid like you are.  Trying to insert a
put down and can't even do that right.

And your point here is what?  That because there are some miscarriages
of justice, not isolated to rape, that we should undermine the entire
legal system?

For the sake of argument your ex's boyfriend regularly beats you up
but you're too frightened to have him charged because unless you can
categoricaly prove that it was him he will have you charged and you
can't risk losing the case... you would say this is fair then?

Whatever?  My word Barry, from just plain stupid to just plain unable
to even argue?  If you can do no better than that than stop wasting my
time and continue your mindless waterfall posts that have no relevance
to this NG.

No you didn't Barry, you just can't spell or write.  Rather than admit
it you try and put forward these childish excuses as to why you did
things.

Okay so in other words you were lying when you wrote that meant notsi?

I still find it hilarious that you think yourself a big man
castigating me as being a woman.  What a pathetic little man you are.
Unable to fight me, (under any circumstances), you decide that your
only hope is to define me as something you believe you have some
inherent superiority to, namely a woman.

Yep, your wife almost certainly wasn't the evil person you try to
picture her as.  You apparently justly achieved your demise with her.

You know nothing of the sort Barry.

Do you truly realize what you are saying here?  You whine and whine
about how women don't warm up to you and yet here you are, facing
someone you cannot argue against and what do you think is the worst
insult you can cast upon him?  Deem him a woman?

Your problems are far deeper than you even begin to imagine.

Ted


text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]>
like to see special rules
false accusation yet seem
the 'lying' (which
issue then shouldn't all
same punishment?  As such, if
he irrefutably proven
receive a sentence for
lie?

You can only charge a person with the same crime
once.  You can charge him with rape and purgery as
well.  But if you give all rapist a stiff crime
not matter how small, then I believe there will be
less raping out there.  Just the same, if you find
that She lied about the rape, then she should be
punished severely for lying as to reduce the
amount of lying women out there concerning rape.
know
spots but a quick lesson.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
then?  Why do we make
for lying rapists?

The lying rapist is trying to get off the hook and
is on trial aready for rape.  He will already be
tried for rape.  The lying women can level a
charge of rape against a man at any time or place
wether it be true or not.  That is why I feel the
punishment should be greater than it is for a
woman who lies about rape, because it sullies a
mans reputation with friends a familly.  I mean,
would you date a guy who was accused of rape and
then aquitted?  No, as a woman you would be
worried that where there is smoke there is fire.
should just stick to
analogies.

No, i think I will stick to it.  Thanks for the
advice though, i just dont agree with it.
rape and he is found
murder or whatever crime
the accused achieves
their accusor?
must
are.  Trying to insert a

Oh, i think i did it just fine, you had to respond
after all.
believe
innocent?  Such a
further barriers on a woman
jail
are some miscarriages
undermine the entire

No, my point was that you should defend the
innocent as well.  If a man is proven innocent,
not aquitted, but innocent, then he should have
the right to level the same charges at her.
regularly beats you up
because unless you can
you charged and you
is fair then?

Yes, if you cant prove something then you should
charge something.  This will reduce the amount of
false accusations women lobby against men to get
even with them.  My ex tried to accuse me of rape
so as to undermine my case for the children.  I
had to spend up to 20,000 dollars in attourneys
fees, court costs, councelers, guardian atlitems,
and polligraph tests to prove that i am not that
kinda guy.  Only to find out that after I proved
my innocents, she gets off with just a contempt
charge.  Do you think that is fair?  No, she
should be put in jail for the same time I would
have been if it were me they found guilty.  How
would you feel if you had the stigma of might
being a rapist and then facing your familly and
having them look at you wierd and your brother
telling you where there is smoke there must be
fire.  You tell me how you would feel having to
spend 20,000 dollars to prove yourself innocent
just because she took 20 seconds to accuse you of
something?  Wake up and smell the injustice of it.
I was guilty until proven innocent.  Do you think
the courts would allow me to have custody of the
children if I did not prove the accusations false?
lying

NO, just you wait a second and quit putting words
in my mouth asshole, I never said every woman who
cries rape is lying.  I said that the women who
falsy accuse men of rape.  If your going to accuse
me of something, at least get it right.

and consider that once in a while they really are
proving it will
then any woman in that
(although most probably by
that the case is
legally.
to just plain unable
that than stop wasting my
that have no relevance

It is you who are wasting time here.  You accused
me of something I didnt say and then try to tell
me to argue with you on something I didnt say.  My
word, why dont you stop wasting my time?
write.  Rather than admit
excuses as to why you did

I did admit it stupid, I told you its a spelling
error, what else was I supposed to say?  God your
stupid.
physical and intellectual,
wrote that meant notsi?

No, if you read what I wrote when you pointed it
out you will find that i agreed with you that I
spelt it wrong, You are the stupid one here
because you cant see that.
yourself a big man
pathetic little man you are.
you decide that your
believe you have some

Actually I never said anything of the sort, but
you keep missquoting me, its something your good
at.  I never said I was a big man, in fact I only
stand 5 feet 9 inches, both my children are taller
then me.  In fact my penis size is only 6 1/2
inches long fully erect.  So to say that I am a
big man is laughable.   Secondly I asked you if
you were a fem notsi not told you that you were.
You still havent answered me and yes, I am
spelling it wrong again.
person you try to
your demise with her.

lol
wrong.  Clearly
upon yourself.

I believe you ment " You know, I take back"  but
then again you know how to spell and everything.
And you take it all back because we are having an
argument here about spelling and grammar and
opinions of how we think it should go.  Please
take it all back then if that is the weak kind of
support you are.  If we dissagree with something
then you will take back every thing you said
positive then I dont need your help.
any

Nope, in fact please take it all back.  I support
myself here.
You realize I know what
You whine and whine
here you are, facing
think is the worst

Yep, and it has you in an uproar, because I am
right.  lol
to imagine.

As is yours for pretending to be a man concerned
for womens rapes.

Barry


text:
I realise that this post was a response to Barry, not me, but I'd
appreciate you clarifying your views on this.

[email] wrote in message
<[email]>...

Under what circumstances do you consider an accusation or
counter-accusation to be an attack?

1.    A true accusation by a victim (of rape or some other substantive
crime) against the perpetrator?
2.    An unwittingly false accusation by someone who believes incorrectly
that they are the victim of a crime, or who incorrectly believes that the
(actually innocent) accused is the perpetrator?
3.    A maliciously false accusation?

4.    A true counter-accusation by a genuinely falsely accused person that
the false accusation was made with malice?
5.    An unwittingly false counter-accusation by a genuinely falsely
accused person that the false accusation was made with malice, when in
fact it was made unwittingly?
6.    A maliciously false counter-accusation by a genuinely falsely
accused person that the false accusation was made with malice, when in
fact it was made unwittingly, and the complainant knows this?
7.    A maliciously false counter-accusation by the (acquitted, but
nevertheless de facto guilty) perpetrator of the substantive crime?

It seems, from the above, and from your discussions with me, that you
don't recognise 3 as an attack, but you do 7, and possibly 4 to 6 as well.

Perhaps you could explain your reasoning here.

Daran


text:
Barry wrote in message ...

This gives me an opportunity to make an argument that I keep expecting Ted
to put forward.  With any proposed change, one must weigh up the expected
costs, vs the benefits.  Ted has argued that penalties for false accusers
would tend to reduce the rate of true accusations, leading to a reduced
deterrent, and hence more crime.  It would also allow criminals to use the
legal system to attack their victims, or to threaten to do so in order to
intimidate the victim into not complaining in the first place. Ted could
also have argued that it could lead to the false conviction of true
accusers, although he has not IIRC made this argument.

Against that, you and I have been arguing that penalties for false
accusations would reduce the incidence of false accusation and false
conviction, and provide redress for those falsely accused.

In order to compare the costs and benefits, we need have some idea as to
the potential magnitudes of these effects.  While figures on the incidence
of crime, and reported crime are readily available, estimates for the
proportion of reports which are false are rare, and do not appear to be
well-founded.  If the rate of false accusation is in fact insignificant,
then the benefit would be insignificant in comparison to the cost.

Reading comprehension.  Your position seems to be that penalties for lying
should be applied only to women who lie, and not to men who lie.  Please
respond to his point.  Feel free to make use of the argument I developed
in my discussion with him.

Not if his lies result in charges being dropped or never laid in the first
place.  Even if the case does go to trial, he is being tried for rape, not
for lying.  Ted's point stands.

He will already be

You seem to be arguing here that penalties should be applied because of
what lying women /can/ do, not for what they /do/ do.

That is a different reason from the one you just gave.  A false denial can
also sully a woman's reputation with friends and family, which magnifies
the injury inflicted by the rape.

Oh, this is just ridiculous.  I should have thought it quite obvious that
Ted is in fact a lesbian.  :-)

[Exchange of insults snipped]

Care to respond to this point?

[...]

There is no legal process for 'proving' the accused innocent, only proof
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt vs. showing reasonable doubt.  If you are
suggesting that the trial process (for rape only?  all crimes?) were to be
reformed so as to allow for the establishment of proof of innocence beyond
reasonable doubt, then this represents a substantial shift in the
argument.

I presume you mean 'shouldn't'.  Then you shouldn't ever report any crime
because it is impossible to know in advance of a trial whether you can
prove it.  That's what the trial is for.

Reduce from what?  To what?

Was this a report to the police, or merely an allegation made during the
custody hearings?

No I don't.  Now imagine that a woman is raped, reports it.  The rapist is
acquitted, and lays a counter-charge of false accusation.  She then has to
spend up to 20,000 dollars in attorneys fees, court costs, councillors,
guardian atlitems (whatever "atlitems" is supposed to be), and polygraph
tests to prove that she is not that kind of woman.  Do you think that is
fair?  Suppose she were to be falsely convicted.  Do you think that is
fair?

If there was no report to the police then you could not have been tried or
convicted for this crime.  Even if there was, there is no way to determine
how much time you 'would have been' given had you been convicted.

This was a custody hearing, not a criminal trial.  The presumption of
innocence does not apply, nor is there a determination of proof beyond
reasonable doubt vs. showing reasonable doubt.  What is determined is "the
best interests of the child", on the balance of probabilities.  Had you
lost the case, you would have lost custody of the children.  You
prevailed, and it was she who lost custody.  It sounds to me as if in fact
she did suffer "the exact same penalty" in this case.

Ted was responding to your earlier stated position in which you said that
charges for false accusation could be laid in every case where the accused
was acquitted.  Ted's point was that in a very great number of cases,
perhaps the majority, the accusation would in fact have been true, as he
goes on to say, and to which your response was completely inadequate.

[more insults.]

Neither Ted nor I attack your spelling/grammar in order to avoid replying
to your arguments.  Most of the time we are able to interpret what you
meant.  In this case Ted couldn't, and asked for clarification.  Your
response - "No, I ment Notsi" is hardly clear.  At the very least can't
you enable the spellchecker that comes with your newsreader?

[more insults]

ROFLMAO.  I've heard exchanges like these referred to as 'dick waving'.  I
guess in this case it is literally true.

[more insults]

Daran (7 1/2 inches fully erect.  Nyah Nyah.)


text:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:07:14 GMT, "Barry" <[email]>
wrote:

First of all what do you base this 'amount of lying women' on?
Another personal perception, (such as your flawed, in general all men
like the same thing in a woman)?  Secondly you already indicated that
the charge of perjury suffices with respect to a lie uttered in court
so what else needs to be done?

It doesn't matter what his intentions are Barry.  If a lying rapist is
trying to get off the hook via lying then he is breaking the same law
as a woman, or man for that matter, who falsely accuses.

Conversely do you not think that a woman's reputation is sullied when
the rapist lies about the act by casting aspersions against her
character and reputation?

It would be nice if just once you could provide an analogy that had
some basis in thought in fact though.

Let's see what you wrote before:

Sounds like you were clearly saying that a finding of not guilty was
basis enough for a counter charge.

How will you define when someone is innocent?  Only by physical
evidence?  Corroborative testimony?  I expect the reason why most
people with your idea shy away from a finding of 'proven innocence' is
that you recognize that the numbers of 'proven innocence' just are
significant enough to warrant such a dramatic change in the law.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along Barry?  All of sudden aside
from all of her apparent evil and crimes against you she now charged
you with rape?  Just to straighten a couple things out for when you
next want to propagate this fabrication, you would not have been
charged court costs had you proven your innocence and secondly
polygraphs are not admissible in criminal courts, I don't think
they're even admissible in civil court.

You sure you don't want to take this opportunity to recant that last
paragraph and maybe suggest you sort of got carried away a bit?

Barry, take a quick look back at some of your historical posts and
notice if ever the subject line contains, "All Women....."

That is what I am getting at.

Look again at when I re quoted your previous post about when it is
legitimate for the charge to be placed against the woman.  Your
selective memory does not constitute a lie on my behalf, certainly
nothing like that whopper you posted above.

Oh Barry... take a second, breathe, try and use your brain here now.
You who are always trying to point out what people are really saying
should consider what you wrote:

"No, I ment (meant) notsi, its a spelling error."

In other words you indeed meant notsi and recognized that it was a
spelling error.  Otherwise you would have written:

"No, I ment (meant) Nazi, it's a spelling error."

That is what you were supposed to say so I guess I'll consider your
'God your (you're) stupid' as withdrawn.

Well Barry I will have to admit that this time you disarmed me.  Sort
of gave me a bit more information than I was looking for there.  Maybe
we'll have to ask Laurie and some of the other women in this NG
whether or not the age old adage, 'size matters' may in fact be
playing a role in this matter.

Oh and for the record, male, over 6'1", other dimensions not really
relevant the discussion.  ;-)     (Got to confess Barry I laughed at
your candidness in that last paragraph).

Actually 'take back' is fine in that context because the word "I"
appears later in the sentence.  But the sentence could have also been
written as "I take back" as well.

Barry I am more than willing to support you if you want to openly
discuss issues.  However you continue to simply keep posting a
predisposition and biased attitude.  You can argue all you want that
your life experience has contributed this behaviour and I would not
disagree with that, however, I would suggest that it does you little
value nor anyone else to have you apply the anger of that experience
to the general population of women simply on the basis that you had a
bad experience.

Is that it Barry?  I do not demonstrate what you consider to be the
proper lack of concern or anger toward women regarding rape?

Ted


text:
[email] wrote in message
<[email]>...

I assume you meant 'insignificant'.  To be quite honest, I doubt that
'most people with his idea' have the clarity of thought to recognise any
such thing.

[...]

I think you are being a little unfair.  It's quite obvious that Barry was
talking about the child custody hearing in the civil court.  Given a false
accusation made there, the risk of being charged, tried in a criminal
court, convicted and jailed would certainly weigh heavily on his mind,
even if no charges were in fact laid.  Certainly Barry is not being clear
about this, but then, when is he ever?

They're not admissible at all in the UK.  I was under the impression that
they were admissible in civil cases in certain circumstances in the US.

[...]

Yeah, but how tall are you?  :-)

Daran


author: bak yim sing

subject: 原來互聯網一早就組織抗議﹐祖國網警何在﹖

text:
嚙誹潘蕭嚙踝蕭嚙調記嚙諒招待會嚙踝蕭嚙瞎嚙踝蕭嚙緘嚙踝蕭嚙瑾嚙踝蕭嚙瞇
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭議嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙複伐蕭b嚙踝蕭嚙諸和嚙踝蕭嚙豌威改蕭議嚙踝蕭
嚙踝蕭嚙締嚙瞎嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙調伐蕭嚙緬嚙豌回嚙編疆嚙編    嚙誼人嚙踝蕭
嚙緯嚙諸與嚙瘠

嚙踝蕭嚙踩祖國的嚙踝蕭警嚙踝蕭b嚙磅嚙瞌嚙稻嚙稽嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭y嚙瞎
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭y嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙篇嚙緻嚙豎剁蕭嚙衝喉蕭q嚙踝蕭茪嚙踝蕭V嚙羯
嚙瘡嚙踝蕭嚙箴嚙緬嚙箠嚙瞌嚙磅

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp9Gi0VioOA&NR=1


author: Albert K. Fung

subject: Re: 原來互聯網一早就組織抗議﹐祖國網警何在﹖

text:
bak yim sing:

The mother of cryptography ....

In WW II, US military sent messages through the Navajo code-
talkers. And to this day, the Japanese are still scratching
the head.

Wondering what on earth an "iron fish" is .... :)

Regards,

Albert K. Fung
Emerald Terrace, Sai Kung, HK.


subject: Re: 原來互聯網一早就組織抗議﹐祖國網警何在﹖

text:
"Albert K. Fung" wrote:

嚙踝蕭y嚙磅嚙踝蕭嚙瞌 navajo 嚙緙嚙瘠嚙踝蕭g嚙調剁蕭y嚙瞎嚙踝蕭嚙衝克嚙緙嚙瞎
嚙踝蕭啋嚙� 嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭疆嚙緙嚙諛通嚙瘠嚙踝蕭嚙磅嚙箠嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭琩�穿蕭嚙�
嚙瘡嚙踝蕭嚙緩嚙踝蕭D嚙踝蕭議嚙複伐蕭M嚙線嚙瞌嚙諒封綽蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭F
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙瘩嚙瘠


author: Jeffrey

subject: Religion will degenerate into a mere organization

text:
The emphasis in the Bahai Faith (that is, the sans-Guardian
organization of Baha'is now occupying Haifa and Wilmette) on its
Administration, obedience to its leadership, the constant flow of
rules and regulations, the spying and paranoia over its members. and
petty enforcement of laws regulating the private lives of its
believers, has caused that organization to enter into a winter of
spiritual ossification.

It seems this organization has forgotten that it is first and foremost
a religious faith.  Instead it has become preoccupied with itself as a
corporate entity, with its trademarks, copyrights, market share, and
advertising, as if the Message of Baha'u'llah was a commodity to be
marketed and sold in the marketplace.

Read more at the True Seeker blog:
http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/2007/09/religion-will-d.html


author: Baha'i Censorship - See Website

subject: Re: Religion will degenerate into a mere organization

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

Jeffrey,

I couldn't agree more with you. As you know, Ruth White, Julie Chanler, and Sohrab,
all made pretty much the same observations from about 1928 on. Nothing has
changed or improved since then, quite the reverse, the attempt to *organize* the
Bahai Movement into an exclusive money-maker and power system has taken
the typical fascist, despotic route you allude to with the cutting insight of experience.

I genuinely think that you and the Orthodox Baha'is have much to teach non-Bahais
and Bahais of all denominations and hope thoughtful, seeking souls will make the
effort to understand your views and consider them in the full light of actual Bahai
history, versus the many distortions promoted by those who perpetrate the injustices
you mention.

Bahai regards,


author: diamondsouled

text:
Hi Jeffrey,

 Whenever I read the following from the UHJ I get the willies:

The need to protect the Faith from the attacks of its enemies may not
be generally appreciated by the friends, particularly in places where
attacks have been infrequent. However, it is certain that such
opposition will increase, become concerted, and eventually universal.
The writings clearly foreshadow not only an intensification of the
machinations of internal enemies, but a rise in the hostility and
opposition of its external enemies, whether religious or secular, as
the Cause pursues its onward march towards ultimate victory.
Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary
Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on
those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the
Faith", discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently
the friends to the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each
crisis in God's Faith has always proved to be a blessing in disguise,
and prepare them for the "dire contest which is destined to range the
Army of Light against the forces of darkness".

	(The Universal House of Justice, The Institution of the Counsellors,
p. 16)

 The Stasi-like mentality that is advocated by the UHJ in the above
has no place in a system deserving of the name spiritual. What such
paranoia which councils coreligionists to:""keep constantly" a
"watchful eye" on those "who are known to be enemies, or to have been
put out of the Faith", discreetly investigate their activities",
inevitably does is create an elite who begin to believe that their
personal religious interpretations are the all in all and that each
and every one of their coreligionists who holds to religious
interpretations which are diverse from their own orthodoxy should be
purged, disenfranchised.

 A person needs to investigate what the source of this paranoia is
though.

It was Shoghi Effendi that the UHJ was quoting when they referred to
an Army of Light.

The Lord of Hosts, the King of Kings has pledged unfailing aid to
every crusader battling for His Cause. Invisible battalions are
mustered, rank upon rank, ready to pour forth reinforcements from on
high. Bah�'u'll�h's army of light is standing on the threshold of the
Holy Year.

	(Shoghi Effendi, Messages to the Baha'i World - 1950-1957, p. 44)

"I direct my appeal to arise and, in the course of these fast-fleeting
years, in every phase of the campaigns that are to be fought in all
the continents of the globe, prove their worth as gallant warriors
battling for the Cause of Bah�'u'll�h. Indeed, from this very hour
until the eve of the Most Great Jubilee, each and every one of those
enrolled in the Army of Light must seek no rest, must take no thought
of self, must sacrifice to the uttermost, must allow nothing
whatsoever to deflect him or her from meeting the pressing, the
manifold, the paramount needs of this pre-eminent Crusade.

	(Custodians, Ministry of the Custodians, p. 105)

The militaristic tone of Shoghi's above statements and the fact that
not one of his own family members, even his own parents, were spared
Shoghi's overzealous covenant breakerism mentality prove that the
Baha'i faith was already way off course even before Shoghi passed
away. The paranoia present in the UHJ's statement is the same paranoia
Shoghi experienced and which eventually led to his being estranged
from his entire family.

 Did this covenant breakerism paranoia begin with Shoghi or did it
begin with Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah themselves who shunned their
own brothers and the families of their own brothers, including the
children of their brothers?

For a religion which purports to be concerned with the oneness of
humanity it seems that the religion of Baha'i was clearly more of a
disunifying influence amongst the members of the 'holy' family than it
was a unifying influence. The fruit of this can be seen in the fact
that Shoghi Effendi ended up estranged from his entire family, his own
parents included, and all for the sake of a religion which has the
oneness of humanity as it's pivotal teaching? Something is wrong with
this picture.

Yours

Larry Rowe


text:
On Sep 16, 2:19 am, Jeffrey <[email]> wrote:

Dear Jeffrey
How do you think Bahaism got to where it is now?
Running a system that is exteremely careful on its public relation,
close monitoring of Bahais,
systematic customisation of the version of accounts,
censorship of what appears to be in conflict with the those of the
stakeholders,
aligning with powers of the day for the sake of the organisation,
destroying the reputation and character of the opposition,
etc. etc.

This game did not start post Shoghi or Abbas' era.
It started soon with Mirza Husayn Ali and soon after his arrival in
Baqdad after the martyrdom of the Primal Point.
For reference, see anything BUTthe customised version of accounts
(EWS, TN, Nabil's, GPB) by the main stakeholders.

Steve


author: AHWA

text:
On Sep 16, 2:19 am, Jeffrey <[email]> wrote:

Ditto! But I would extend the winter of ossification to the entire
Bahai ethos and take out the "spiritual" as there was never anything
"spiritual" about Bahaism from its very inception.

Indeed, but this is also how modern Protestant (usually "Anglo-
American") Christian denominations behave as well. The corporatization
and commodification of faith is a phenomenon of modernity and is a
symptom of capitalism as a whole. Protestant ("Anglo-American")
Christianity and capitalism go together. You want to get rid of
corporate entities, trademarks, copyrights, market shares, advertising
and whole negative cultural matrix that goes along with it, you need
to shake off all vestiges of Christianity, first, especially the white
man's contrived "Jesus vibe" that took over you all like weeds the
moment Bahaism stepped out of the Mid East.

W


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: So many cults ... so little time

text:
Why is election so important?  Even Taiwan has decided to abolish local
elections to cope with black gold politics and vote buying.  I heard
many voters in India are illiterate so they have to reply on photo of
the candidates to vote, you can imagine the quality of election there.
So dont tell us election is good for every nation.

In article <[email]>,
  [email] wrote:

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: Jim Walsh

subject: Re: So many cults ... so little time

text:
In article <8po7pk$rpl$[email]>,
  [email] wrote:

1. Why do you think that the Chinese people should not be allowed to vote for
their government? Be specific in your answer. Do you think that the Chinese
are too stupid? ...too ignorant? What?

2. It is not ME who "tells you", it is the UN Declaration of Human Rights.


subject: Re: So many cults ... so little time

text:
I have never said Chinese are not allowed to have election but only
said election may not be good for some nations by giving a couple of
facts, for example, Taiwan has decided to abolish local elections to
cope with black gold politics and vote buying.  Many voters in India
are illiterate so they have to reply on photo of the candidates to
vote, you can imagine the quality of election there.  Jim Walsh, why
dont you comment on those facts?

As for UN Declaration of Human Rights, in this Declaration, UN
recognized existence of race but you refused such existence.  So stop
preaching us if you dont even believe it.

In article <8ps4p8$hnc$[email]>,
  Jim Walsh <[email]> wrote:
local
of
there.
vote for
Chinese
Rights.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: Ilya the Bat

subject: Tutchev

text:
I love spring storms - the rain, the lightning -
When in the early weeks of May
Young thunder, playing and delighting,
Resounds and shatters in blue sky.

Electric passion bursts and shimmers,
Rain sprinkles, sparkling dust flies on,
In air the pearl strands shine and glimmer
Amid the golden rays of sun.

In trees the birds chirp noisily
The forest's din, the mountain humming
Follow the rumblings joyfully.

You'll say: it's fickle Hebe feeding
The Zeus's eagle - It is mirth
Laughing and spilling over Earth!

======================
Translated by Ilya Shambat


author: captain.

subject: Re: Tutchev

text:
nice translation. it wouldn't hurt to post the russian version along side of
yours so we can make comparisons.

"Ilya the Bat" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Sokhraneet Nash Mir

subject: Re: Tutchev

text:
"captain." <[email]> wrote in message
news:10V3g.2316$aI4.75@edtnps89...

It's raining cats and dogs and it's a blue sky...hmmm...best not to think
too much about the words....sort of like a Rammstein song.


subject: Re: Tutchev

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

ah thanks


author: Casey

subject: A Solution for Teaching Evolution in Kansas

text:
I have been teaching both creation and evolution in my senior
highschool biology classes for the
past ten years and I would like to contribute what I think will be some
helpful observations that may
contribute to the settling of the tempest that has begun to swirl around
the decision by the State Board of Education in Kansas to reduce references
to evolution in the state curriculum.
     Our biology curriculum in Manitoba, particularly the grade 12 one,
lists as objectives a  number of the key concepts of evolution.    So I
teach my students what the theory of evolution is about and what are
evidences that supposedly support these concepts.  But I also teach the
students what are the evidences in science that contradict evolution.   Now
the presentation of the contradictory evidences are what many refer to as
creation science.    It is very often the creationists who bring to light
those pesky studies in the journals that contradict evolution,  and
evolutionists would just as soon not bring these troublesome facts of
science to light: for example, the finding of a genuine modern bird in
Jurassic rock at a level lower than where archaeopteryx was found.
      Another very good example involves the polonium halos that have been
found in the biotite mica of granitic rocks that indicate sudden
crystallization of those rocks.   This data has been published in
recognized journals such as Nature and Science and so  is fair game in the
science  classroom, much to the chagrin of many evolutionists.    They have
been oh so unhappy at the implication that the
basement rocks formed suddenly instead of ever so slowly over 'billions and
billions of years' (I'm exagerating of course,Carl).   Now since this
storehouse of evidence that makes evolution look bad is pointed out by
creationists it is regarded by evolutionists as part of creation science,
when actually it belongs to science proper.
     Now evolutionists rationalize the leaving out of all the contradictory
data, but it is this data which makes their beloved theory very doubtful.
 Creationists would like this data taught in the classrooms.
Yet ironically enough it is evolutionists that claim that school children
would be deprived if all the
concepts of evolution such as macroevolution and radiometric dating are not
taught.    The evolutionists
skimp on the presentation of the scientific data so that the theory of
evolution will look plausible.
     So in my classroom I try to give my students a more complete jigsaw
puzzle so that more of a complete picture is seen.   And I realize for sure
that a teacher does not have all the time in the world
to teach biology so all I can hope to do is give them as complete a picture
as possible.    So when
it comes to genetics, for example,  I explain to my students that
evolutionists believe that mutations
lead to the transmutation of species so that through mutations a single
cell can evolve into man over
millions and millions (sorry, Carl, billions and billions) of years.   But
I also point out that the best
example that evolutionists have of a good mutation is - sickle cell anemia.
   You die of sickle cell anemia,  but at least you didn't get malaria.   A
good mutation?  Well, that is what evolutionists claim.
      I have also often pointed out to my students that a certain
creationist geneticist once gave a lecture
to a local Biology Teachers' Organization and he claimed right before the
group,  of which there were
some who were die hard evolutionists, that he did not know of any mutations
that led to better health.
He also did not believe that mutations every did what evolutionists claim
and that is produce new species.    This man is a pediatrician specializing
in children's genetic disorders and he is also a university professor.
Guess what?  Not one of the high school biology teachers had one objection.
I think that spoke volumes regarding the credibility of evolution.
     Though certain official scientific organizations claim that evolution
is the backbone of biology and one of the fundamental themes of science I
regard this only as a claim which cannot be substantiated.   One
very successful scientist in Australia does not believe it either, and he
has gone on record as saying that though scientists pay lip service to
evolution it really does not contribute anything to science itself.   I
have found it true that scientists will mention evolution in the course of
their talk, but it seems that the scientist could easily have left off
mentioning it and he would have done just as well in his explanation.
     I think that the Berkley lawyer, Philip Johnson is quite correct in
saying in his new book, which is a must read in this area, and it is called
Objections Sustained, that what really lies at the base of evolutionary
claims is scientific materialism - translation, atheism-  and that is why
evolutionists are not one bit bothered by any contradictions to their
theory or by a lack of evidence.    Since creation cannot be true, then
obviously the universe must have made itself, it just took the gods of time
and chance to create everything.
     Whoa, wait a minute remonstrates the evolutionist, you're saying that
evolution is atheistic.  What about all the Christians that believe it?
Well, I think the explanation is a bit complex, but is understandable.
There is so much rhetoric and misunderstanding about science and the true
nature of evolutionary philosophy and of creationism that many get
hoodwinked into believing evolution really is science and the true realm
and fount of knowledge, whereas religion is not real knowledge.    And
since many do not want to be considered as ignoramuses and want to have the
right
intellectual look they jump on the bandwagon on the side of evolution.  And
many Christians have done this too.
         I think it is significant that Darwin himself attests to the fact
that unbelief slowly crept over him, and that today 95% of biologists
belonging to the National Academy of Science do not believe in God.
These facts and others point to the atheism of evolutionism.    And look
who vigorously promotes evolution  and are happy to sue if they see any
sign of creation science - atheists, humanists, the ACLU which is the legal
arm of the modern atheist movement.
     So I teach both evolution and creation and my students find it hard to
believe that anyone could buy into evolution.   Another teacher in Toronto
found the same was true of her class when both were taught.
     Since evolution is a reigning paradigm in science I make sure the
students know about it.   And I'm not afraid to give as full an airing to
evolution and its "supportive evidences".    But I think that a thorough
investigation into evolution reveals that there really is no real evidence
to support it.    The apparent evidence is like a fog which when you try to
touch it seems to have no
substance.  It is merely  a will-o'-the-wisp.     And that is all it is.
     There is a very good reason why many of the old scientists such as
Newton, Boyle, Pasteur, Faraday, Kelvin, and many others were creationists
and still did very good sound science which we greatly benefit from today.
 They understood that the God who created all things also inspired prophets
in the writing of the Bible.    They knew that there was no contradiction.
 We see in their writings that they realized that evolutionary philosophy
is not compatible with Christianity or the Bible so some left funds for
apologetics while others spoke out against evolution, realizing what harm
atheism could cause:

                                "All these things being consider'd, it
seems probable to me,
                                 that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in
solid, massy, hard,
                                 impenetrable, movable
Particles,...variously associated in the
                                 first Creation by the Counsel of an
intelligent Agent.... And if
                                 he did so, it's unphilosophical to seek
for any other Origin of
                                 the World, or to pretend that it might
arise out of a Chaos by the
                                 mere Laws of Nature; "
                                    - Sir Isaac Newton, Opticks, pages 400
and 402 (Dover, 1979)

Geoff
Creation Science Manitoba


author: Jack Rooney

subject: Re: A Solution for Teaching Evolution in Kansas

text:
I have no problem maintaining my belief in God and at the same time
embracing reasonable evidence supporting evolution theory. The New Testament
does not approach the problem one way or another. The Old Testament deals
with the notion of Creation in Genesis and  references throughout scripture
are reiterations of the Genesis model, which is in no way contradicted by
the findings of modern science.  That man was created from the dust of the
earth or from the primal soupe seems a moot point rather than a genuine
paradox or contradiction. If evolution theory were proven conclusively true
tomorrow, it would not change one word of scripture.  It may change
someone's dogmatic interpretation of scripture, but not the word of God.
Scripture says the sun rises and sets.  Does this mean the sun moves?  Many
believed so until it was proven otherwise.  Did this scientific finding
change the Bible or discredit the prophets?   Not at all. The Bible is
filled with metaphors, allusions, allegories, similes, oxymorons, poetry and
parables.   It is a work of literature and a work of art.  It is a work of
historical reference and an inspired spiritual guide and not a scientific
document or treatise.  It is the work of God.  I think many concerned about
the findings of science are more concerned about their dogma being
discredited than with science discrediting scripture.

Of this I am certain: God does not fear science.

Jack Rooney


author: MHK

text:
What you are advocating is here is not an argument against evolution, but an
introduction of religion back into the classroom; a place it does not
belong.  If you really want to allow these kids to grow and discover on
their own, take time out of your class to examine the pros and cons of
creationism as well as evolution.  Creationism has just as many flaws as
evolution and all you have to do is ask and people here will tell you
dozens, if not hundreds of them.  Perhaps, if you teach a history class, you
could discuss the pros and cons of ancient and modern religion, statism,
atheism, etc., but do not poison these kids' minds by trying to punch it
into them that atheism is wrong and the source of all the evils in the
world.  Let them decide on their own which of the equation's solutions they
find to be most valid.

MHK

Casey <[email]> wrote in message
news:01bee86c$e05f3340$[email]...
references
Now
have
and
contradictory
not
sure
picture
anemia.
A
mutations
specializing
objection.
called
time
the
And
legal
to
to
prophets
in


author: Bernie Wieser

text:
Casey wrote in message <01bee86c$e05f3340$[email]>...

The argument for evolution in the past tense is not in the spirit of
origin of species.  The fundamental premise is that species
evolve - that means to adapt and specialize to their environment.

We SEE evolution every day, in action.  Example - bacteria.
These little folks evolve much faster than we do because they
1) have much shorter lives and 2) can share genetic material
on the fly.  Anyone that does not believe this should consider
antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria.  We cannot keep up
pharmaceutic evolution with the adaptation and specialization of our little
friends...

Selective breeding of shorter live span species is forced
specialization.  We can see that too - in dogs and cats and
plants... as well as the interesting problems of a reduced
gene pool (to promote not just desired traits, but traits
contrary to natural selection.)

So... what evidence you point to completely disregards
man's current surroundings to support your own, interesting
beliefs, and I can only hope your students go through life
with their eyes open.

B.


author: Sparky

text:
Okay Geoff, I'll play...

     It seems to me that your objections are proceeding on the basis of
judgements which are questionable at best.  I'll start with the
eveidence you point out that there has been a (1) modern bird found in
rock at a level below that of an archaeopteryx.  While I am not aware of
this finding (and I would greatly question its validity in light of past
faked evidence from creationist paleontologists) I am perfectly willing
to admit it as true.  And then I will remind you, as a scientist, that a
point inaccuracy does not a theory disprove.  Random errors trickle into
plaeontology as they do into any science, because it is not possible to
account for all factors that cause the placement of a particular
skeleton.  If scientists were finding sparrows in sub-jurassic rock
every month, then there would be a more compelling reason to disbelieve
the evolutionist's time scale.

     Now, I can't speak to the "sudden crystallization" theory.
However, I will point out that an article referreed into any journal is
two parts evidence, one part speculation.  Reasonable speculation, no
doubt, but speculation nonetheless.  And speculation can be incorrect.
In light of the larger body of evidence suggesting that the rocks did
indeed form slowly, it is important to take an article suggesting the
contrary with a grain of salt (excuse the pun).

     Then you state that the "best" mutation that evolutionists can come
up with is sickle-cell anemia.  This is horribly wrong.  I believe Mr.
Weiser correctly pointed out that a better example is the evolution of
bacteria to resist antibiotics.  Now, you're likely going to argue that
the genes were there all along, blah blah blah.  Perhaps that is so
(although I feel it is unlikely).  The point is, however, that the
process of natural selection is rapidly occurring to make sure that the
gene which existed perhaps in only one specimen at the outset is
spreading rapidly throughout the entire population of bacteria.  And,
actually, the malaria bit is not even the best example of evolution in
humans.  Every human evolves continually throughout his lifespan,
particularly in the MDR gene, which kicks foreign chemicals out of cells
and is the reason for tolerance to poisons.  That a panel of biology
teachers sat in agreement when a man said he knew of no positive
mutations indicates only that they were sorely undereducated, or not
thinking clearly.

     For certain, it is more difficult to quantify the occurrence of
"positive" mutations in human beings for a variety of reasons.  The
first is that human beings have very long generation times (30 years).
Even in bacteria, a mutation takes multiple generations to show up with
any significance before it is even tested against the environment.  For
another reason, in humans the genetic evolutionary pressure is off.  We
don't compete so severely for land and resources any more, particularly
in the western countries where the majority of genetic testing occurs.
It is possible that Darwinian genetic evolution is not longer occurring
in the human population at large.  That is no evidence that it did not
in the past occur.

     As for the fact that several scientists were creationists, I would
like to point out that no successful BIOLOGIST in the past fifty years
has, to my knowledge, been a creationist or rejected the theory of
evolution.  This isn't because we kick out all the biologists who are
creationists and refuse to listen to them.  It's because biologists who
are creationists ultimately don't produce anything that's very
interesting.  Their belief in creation gets in the way of their
understanding of the science.

     Finally, I would like to point out that your argument that those
Christians who accept evolution have been "duped" is extremely unlikely
to find a sympathetic ear among Catholics.  The Pope himself has
admitted that evolution is the most likely explanation for how the
current form of human beings arose.  And since (according to Catholics)
he speaks for God, I would find it far more likely that Christians who
blindly cling to a several-thousand-year-old allegory as scientific
truth are the ones who have been duped.

    Frankly, I'm not buying any of it.  To rely on Genesis to the
exclusion of all else bespeaks a sad *lack* of faith in God.  Indeed, I
find it insulting that so many people believe that God is so impatient
that she would cram the creation of all the universe and the lifeforms
within it into a single week.  I firmly believe that God took her time,
creating in her wisdom a universe in which life *would* arise and
develop as she wished.  The creation of a universe in which a set of
contradictory principles brings forth life is enough of a miracle for me
that I don't need your rivers turning into blood or your water turning
into wives, or even infinite loaves and fishes.  If people were more
willing to use their own minds to access god rather than the collected
ramblings of fifty people who died so long ago that a majority of what
they wrote is no longer relevant, then I think that the world would
operate in a much more reasonable, and Godly manner today.  I'd rather
have a lack of faith in Moses than believe that God has no patience.

Sparky

     And no, I don't use the female because I think God is a woman.  I
think god is sexless, but "it" seems a little offensive.  Since the
majority of people are female, however, I use "she" as the generic third
person.  So sod off.


author: Wostenberg

text:
To the claim that several scientists are creationists, you point out "no
successful biologist in the past fifty years has .. been a creationist or
rejected the theory of evolution. This isn't because we kick out all the
biologists who are creationists and refuse to listen to them.  It's because
biologists who are creationists ultimately don't produce anything that's
very  interesting.  Their belief in creation gets in the way of their
understanding of the science.".

If by creationist you mean young creationists, you are probably right.

But you must know the evidence most critical of natural evolution is coming
from the contemporary microbiologists, such as Denton in his _evolution:
theory in crisis_ or Behe in his _darwin's black box_. In fact, contrary to
your statement "Their belief in creation gets in the way of their
understanding science", design theorists now argue the naturalistic
assumptions of science are the restraining factor. Of what practical
advantage when unraveling the DNA code is it assume we are not the product
of a Coder?

Also, I searched in vein for anything in the Pope's recent letter on
evolution to support your claim he admits  "evolution is the most I likely
explanation for how the current form of human beings arose" in light of his
letter at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/johnpaul.html . Perhaps
you could point it out for me?

-Alan


author: mahabarbara

subject: Re: The homosexual "agenda"^

text:
Bill Bonde <[email]> wrote:
are not
that a
from
homosexuality
GOD IS
for what
totally on
not
rationalist
Libertarian
others
personal

I think that's about the most ass-backward statement I've ever
seen you make.

Let's see if I get this straight -- Eagle Eye thinks that
actions that do not harm others are not immoral.

You, on the other hand, have a subjective view of morality based
on some interpretation of the Bible (not everyone who believes
in the Bible agrees with you, so I have to assume your
interpretation is subjective), and you think your view should
prevail as the law of the land, and to do otherwise is a
limitation on personal freedom?

Huh?

spirits
harms others

You say "directly," and I don't think Eagle Eye said "directly."
There are a lot of ways in which actions might harm others
indirectly. If I dump used motor oil into a lake it may not harm
anyone directly, but it could do eventual and indirect harm, and
could be very harmful if other people followed my example.

harm the

That's fine, but I fail to see how it harms anyone, directly or
indirectly, to allow homosexuals equal treatment under the law
and tolerate their relationships.

I would hold homosexuals to the same moral code as
heterosexuals, which is to discourage promiscuity and encourage
bonded, monogamous relationships. That's where morality is.

itself. This

But homosexuality really doesn't increase in volume. Many armies
of sociologists have established that the percentage of
homosexuals in human populations is pretty standard across
generations and cultures. Tolerating homosexuality, even
assuming it is immoral (which is an assumption, not an objective
fact) does not encourage more people to become homosexual. One
either is one, or isn't.

others
others.
Libertarians take

I'm no libertarian, but IMO to coerce or enforce "morals"
according to some subjective ideas about what is moral and what
isn't, when the behavior being suppressed is not harmful,
directly or indirectly, seems to me to be a kind of tyranny.

through
determining
how to
excuse more
on
who invents

1. What's wrong with personal freedom?
2. Your ideas about morality are subjective. You don't realize
it, but they are.

subjectivist,

Remind me not to put you in charge of morals. You don't know
what they are.

B.

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

Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


author: Bill Bonde

subject: Re: The homosexual "agenda"^

text:
mahabarbara wrote:
A view he is of course free to hold.

I've never claimed to base my person views on the Bible or to hold any
specific religious view. Don't twist what I've said.

Of course you are just being silly as I said nothing of the sort.

That is implied when someone takes a nominal libertarian stance on this
issue.

That isn't what I meant by 'directly' although it starts to border on a
problem with the Libertarian viewpoint.

You are now making specific what Eagle Eye had only generally stated. If
the claim was merely that homosexuals should have some specific actions
taken on their behalf, I think he should've said that.

Of course that moral code is not valid given Eagle Eye's previous
claims.

How can you argue morality from an objectivist viewpoint? On what basis
do you argue for objectivism at all?

Hypothetically, what if homosexuality is a choice. Would that change
anything?

As I said, many groups pay lip service to this idea but only the
Libertarians take it to its logical limits. If you would argue that
there is no place for morality (beyond that defined by Libertarians) in
our code of laws or societal norms, how can you logically not be a
hypocrite not be a Libertarian?

Nothing.

Morality is subjective in that each person has to decide what the
correct moral universe is. It can only be objective in the sense that it
is proven that a certain moral code is the correct one.

I certainly do know what they are. In any case, it seems odd that you
would put someone in charge of morals.


subject: Re: The homosexual "agenda"^

text:
Bill Bonde <[email]> wrote:
regard to
participate in
are
do
that
based
hold any

OK, I retract that part. You have a subjective view of morality,
period, and I don't know you well enough to know where it comes
from.

sort.

Then I misunderstood what you said, because it seemed to me
that's what you were saying.

whole.
said "directly."
on this

It may be that you know Mr. Eagle better than I do and have
reason to imply the "directly" part.

However, please note that there is a very ancient code of
morality called "ahimsa," which I believe is a Sanskrit word for
do not harm. It is a code of conduct in which one lives to not
do harm, directly or indirectly. No rules of what's good or bad,
no thou shalt nots, just conducting oneself in a way not to do
harm. Examples of people who followed this code include Mahatma
Ghandi. There is nothing "dangerous" about it. IMO it is more
genuinely moral to follow ahimsa than to blindly obey a list of
rules about what's "good" and what's "bad."

harm
and
border on a

It's an example of ahimsa. Doing harm to the environment is
doing harm to all sentient beings, directly or indirectly.
Therefore, it is immoral.

or
stated. If
actions

Well, what else? All kinds of people have agendas about what
should and should not be done about homosexuals. I assume you
had an agenda, also. However, perhaps you don't. In which case,
live and let live.

encourage
previous

But following ahimsa, promiscuity causes harm to others by
spreading disease. Also recreational sex is often (not always)
exploitative in some way. This is not to say that any sexual act
outside of marriage is "bad," however. It depends upon the
attitude one brings to the act.

armies
objective
what basis

I didn't know I was arguing for "objectivism." There's an
ideology called "objectivism" that IMO is even nuttier than
libertarianism, and I do not wish to be associated with it.

All moral "codes" are subjective.

change

I can't think why it would, but it isn't a choice.

harm
the
harm
what
that
Libertarians) in
be a

Libertarians tend to come up with damnfool notions that we don't
need any regulation at all, no health inspectors, no zoning
laws, and sometimes no taxes, and I just don't go that far. I
believe in keeping government as small and control as local as
practical, but my ideas of "small" and "local" are considered to
be statist by most libertarians I have encountered.

As a Buddhist I follow a fairly extreme moral path. I certainly
don't believe there is no place for morality in societal norms,
just that I don't consider arbitrary and subjective lists of
what's good and bad (e.g., heterosexuality good, homosexuality
bad) to have anything to do with morality. What you call
morality I call a poor substitute for morality.

As far as law is concerned -- and we may have had this flame
before -- I believe strongly (with the Libertarians, in this
case) that unless a law has a clear CIVIC purpose, it shouldn't
be a law. Law should not be used just to enforce "societal
norms."

choose
based

IMO the only true morality is within free will, when a person
acts of his own free will act in ways that are beneficial and
not harmful. If people are behaving just because they will be
punished if they don't, that's not true morality.

the
sense that it

No moral "code" is the absolute correct one, IMO. "Moral codes"
are what you put in place of real morality.

less
that you

I was being cynical. But you don't know what real morality is.

B.

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

Got questions?  Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com


author: Eagle Eye

subject: Re: The homosexual "agenda"^

text:
In article <[email]>
Bill Bonde  <[email]> wrote:
[snip]

Not true.  People can ENCOURAGE certain values without forcing others
to behave a certain way through laws.

I believe strongly in the freedom to choose whether to become involved
with alcohol, drugs, or certain sexual behaviors which do not, per se,
harm others.  However, I would discourage others from using drugs or
alcohol except in occassional, very moderate instances.  I would
discourage promiscuity for health reasons as well as to preserve
emotional well being and self respect.  Others can listen to me or
not.  It's their choice.

Their choice also confers responsibility for their actions.  Driving
under the influence and harming others should result in severe penalties,
for example.

[snip]

Scientific evidence points to a genetic influence on homosexuality.
Concordance of MZ twins in male homosexuals is 50%.  On the other hand,
lesbians are more likely than gay men to "discover" their orientation
after very successful heterosexual relationships.  Many believe they
made the choice to be a lesbian.

My hypothesis is that some gays have a choice, but the others do not.
If that is the case, we cannot assume any particular gay person made a
choice.  Thus, claims that a gay person is immoral because of religious
proscription must explain how the great spirit in the sky created gay
people only to demand they not be gay.

Even if we assumed that all gay people are gay by choice, if they are
consenting adults who do not harm to others and keep their sex behind
bedroom doors, I see no justification for calling their behavior immoral.

[snip]

Each individual having their own values doesn't mean that the mere act
of deciding on a value makes it valid.  Some people have horrible values.
When working out how we interact with one another and resolve conflict,
reason and evidence must prevail over superstition and "gut feeling".

[snip]

 In article <[email]> Gail Weasel  <[email]> wrote:

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
                            -- Groucho Marx