Discussion page archives

man is man-made.

Discussion Page Archives

Month of June '98

Marlene:GRANT- I think you've got it by jove! A mouse, not a man. If he or she or even a bit of both had any fortitude they'd at least use a fake name. What a wimp! It was march for jee-zus weekend in the Peg. Unfortunately 1000 more people that last year walked for the mythical character. - 5:03:40 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I suppose it was the only thing to do then but it still doesn't make it right. And your right, I would fight to save my loved ones but I'd try my best not to do it with violence if I could and then if neccessary with the least amount. There just has to be a way of avoiding conflicts such as WW2 in the future. Vietnam was definately a waste of human life as well as what could have taken place in the Gulf War. As we can see, communism didn't take over America as a result of the loss in Vietnam. - 5:14:14 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

"To gather an audience, start a fight." -- Chinese Proverb - 12:51:03 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PAPASAM<<>>blah blah blah blah. You will never see the other side because you are blinded by your own personal feelings. Using an nuclear weapon was nothing short of terrorism, and I would also call it murder. When using conventional weapons, the targets were factories, seaport, etc. In other words, hard targets which would affect the war. Bombing two civilian cities, to kill as many civilians at one time as we could, is NOT an acceptable way to end the war. Yes Japan expanded into China, Burma etc. just what exactly did that have to do with us? I bask in the glory of my grandparents service huh, I brought that up to make a point, not to bask or brag. Neither of my grandparents chose to go of their own free will, they were drafted. PAPA, so what if Japan was attacking fellow orientals, that is the most ignorant fucking thing I have ever heard. How many wars have been fought in Europe, by Europeans, against Europeans. How about here in the grand 'ol US, a thing called the Civil War. Another thing, Japan is not my enemy, never has been. Japan has not been the enemy of the US for over 50 years and the civilians there are STILL dealing with radiation poisoning, birth defects, three eyed fish etc.. You sure do a lot of complaining about god and company murdering so many civilians in the bible, babes sucking on tit, puppies, kittens etc. WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU CALL A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I wonder how many babes, kittens, and puppies were turned to ash after the bombs were dropped on Japan. Japan is still paying for the supposed American lives. People that had nothing to do with WWII, are still dieing from the bomb's we dropped on Japan. Where is the justification PAPA. Soul searching? Since when do you believe in a soul PAPA? Are you taking up religion now? I am not sure if I have "converted" anyone. What should I convert them to PAPA? I have awakened several friends to using their minds, instead of a crutch. Last but not least, you opened up with the insults PAPA, not I. IMO you are arogant and insulting. Oh well, no loss of sleep. - 12:57:54 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

TO STEVEN>>>>>>:>>>>there are 6 billion on this planet. Thats 4 billion too many. Slope heads and chocolate savages should be the first to go. The decent way is to go alphabetically through the phone books. - 13:15:18 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

------------:Oh, silly me. How many slopes and choc savages are on the phone? Ah! - 13:16:35 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:ANON<<>>WTF are you talking about. I guess we should start with you. - 13:18:47 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven. You suffer from "misunderstandings to suit" If you understand something, you have one of two boxes to tick. One box is incorrect, and you can be critisised for that. The other box is undesireable. It means more work, problemes or what-have-you. "Starting with me" does not address anything. - 13:26:20 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Anon: Since when is 2 billion a "magical" number? It must be as magical as 7, 13, 666, 144,000 and other numbers you see in Biblical numberology. - 13:26:34 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Anon & Steve: Sure "starting with me" does address the problem. After all, it falls into the "correct, but undesirable" box of killing off people in order to reduce population. - 13:30:24 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

No "magical" number in 2 billion or your suggestion. There are to many people on this planet. I say, lets start with the simple minded - 13:32:17 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Canadians or Brits???? What places to live!!! - 13:33:17 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:ANON<<>>once again, shall we start with you. - 13:53:05 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:ANON<<>>once again, shall we start with you. - 13:57:26 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->I know everyone has missed me terribly over the weekend, but I am at work now, so am back. Now, who the hell is this no name idiot, and would he/she please explain the reference to Canada and Britain (provided that particular person has the cajones to do so). - 13:59:54 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>he/she/it doesn't have the balls to post their name. Do you think he/she/it will explain anything? - 14:10:23 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve & Joette: L'il chicken shit wanted to gather an audience... "To gather an audience, start a fight." -- Chinese Proverb - 14:22:21 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Have heard that clergymen now gotta take out mal-practice like insurance just in case they advise someone improperly. Does that mean they- clergymen, don't really know what a godthing says or maybe the bible is wrong? Are there any visiting clergy-types who might explain the nature of that problem? - 15:32:41 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>your back! - 15:52:20 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: Wow! This is news to me. Personally, I think they should slap a warning label on the Buybull that says, "WARNING: May cause severe mental damage. Do not use while operating heavy machinery." Really, I think that mal-practice lawsuit/insurance thingy should definately be used for clergy who perform "exorcisms". - 16:14:55 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

RON...--->Joette...: With all the kiddy crap displayed here, even I miss your words. Did you see the spread in your Sunday paper about the Rev. who started the anti-abortion crusade? He's going for more it seems - 17:32:52 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

RON...--->More black eyes than brains...--->Anonymous Poster...: Being verbally attacked is the beauty to the beast here. Don't be afraid, This page resides on my web site and I'm usually the most attacked person here. We, being human, have difficulty explaining our wants, needs, beliefs, and insecurities, it's understandable that we argue, sometimes heatedly. If you have an opinion, join in. If you just want to make ugly remarks please keep them to yourself until you feel they will make a difference. - 17:38:42 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It, I'm sure somewhere we can find more details on this matter. But, until details are available, this matter appeared on some sort of tv report. Of late, some clergymen have been sued for their hallowed advisements. So, as soon as I come up with some tangibles I'll pass it on. - 18:00:18 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

evol:People, people, let us not argue over trivial matters. What we need in this day and age is a solution to our immediate problems. The earth cannot support man. Man will consume and destroy until he inadvertently exstinguishes his own race. This is ineviatble. Christian teaching is so imbedded in the minds of Weterners, it is futile to point out it's flaws. The idea that man is seperate from nature, is distinctly made in the Bible. For the sake of not straying, we will concern ourselves with Western Man, as this segment of the "world" does the most "damage". Mankind will never learn, it is hopless. That is why it is up to all of you to help speed up the proccess! You can start by no longer pro-creating. If you take this one simple step, you will help insure that at least the next generation will not live in quite the same cesspool as you. Then you could join or support the Church of Euthanasia. We need to start disseminating anti-humanism. Man is bad. Man is evil. Man is incorrigable. Man is beyond help. Let us all take a step back, take a real grassroots, hands-on approach, and help end the existance of the most nihilistic, dangerous, diseased animal to ever roam the planet! - 18:37:46 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

down-n-out:Amen to that! - 18:40:49 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: greetings, when you were booted from that theochat site, what happened, or rather what didn't happen? The last post I put there regarded leaving them in the quacks sure hands because he said nothing of any concern. Also that I've read some theological writings and that what they did at that site was not anything like theology. - 18:41:18 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>i was kicked out for calling some dude an asshole for espousing censorship, hehe. That was all. I have accessed the site from home, but it seems pointless. The thrill I originally recieved from debating them ended quickly. They, IMO, follow the slogan "ignorance is bliss" a little too closely. - 18:56:17 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:EVOL<<>>hehe, you can join ANON to be the first to be shot. hehe, gotta start somewhere. - 18:57:10 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: I purchased a book "The Spanish Inquisition" authored by a Netanyahu, a jewish chap. In its opening chapter he explains that jc was only a rabbi. That explains why so much of what jc said was for the jews. Paul however was trying to sell the idea but was having probs just because of the anti-semitism in the world of then,i.e., greeks romans and egyptians, et.al. Paul figgered to make a kind o'peace with the egyptians so he picked up the ancient tale of the egyptians about the three parts that make humans not animals. Paul turned that very idea into the three headed god, and promptly he had another visit from a godthing that confirmed the visit paid to an italian bloke who said the godthing wanted him to tell paul that jc was sent to "all of mankind" and not just the jews. So paul turned the jc-jew thing into the xtian thing by removing its jewish taintedness, it was not selling because of the anti-semitism then in the world. Well as I continue to read thru this book loaded with numerous references- its real value, I will share whatever as I make them out. - 19:24:21 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>my wife has been doing a considerable amount of research concerning Budha and his followers. From what I gather, Budhism is pretty cool. No belief in a god, they do not beleive in taking ANY life, human or not. I am going to research it somemore, but as far as religions go, they seem to have the answer. To those who wish to be lead of course. hehe :] - 19:28:09 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RON..well, I had a good time with those nasty aliens last night...oh wait, that was just a dream....so, will the planet survive or should we be waiting until May, 1999??????? - 19:31:17 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: Yeah, I also heard that if one compares the real history of the Biblical times with the gospels, there are many discrepancies regaurding the whole thing about Jews wanting to execute Jesus. In the gospels, the Jews hold a trial where they find Jesus guilty, yet the Romans crucify him. This is inconsistant, because the Romans could give a shit less about who the Jews though were guilty or innocent. The whole trial scene was actually a Roman trial, but was altered in the Buybull to make it look like the Jews did it. The Romans persecuted Jesus because he simply had a cult following that was threatening Roman religion. It has been speculated that Paul or some early Catholics altered the gospels because for some reason, they hated the Jews. - 19:33:33 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve: Yeah, I'm a Taoist. Taoists basically believe in no god, only the natural laws of the Universe. They also realize that words are not absolute, and all the words in the world can never adequately explain how the Universe is governed. You might want to check out Taoism, or Zen Buddhism, which is basically a cross between Buddhism and Taoism. - 19:37:32 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:Y-IT<<>>hmmmm, I like what I have read so far concerning Buddhism. I don't think I will ever allow myself to be religious, regardless of the religion. . Since I know so little about the religion, I really do not have anything to comment, nor should I until I have more info. Does being a Taoist conflict with being an Atheist? What little I know of Tao, comes from being a student and teacher of Kung Fu/Wushu. - 20:12:08 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:STEVE: the regulars o'that theochat site, are surely not what any kind o'godthing coulda'held in its mind upon any act of creation. They there, surely fall into that panopoly of, "...in the best of possible worlds what would a godthing put in such a place? and so on..." Again, I'd ask a religious believer if they were the apex of their godthing's creation? Are they the best, e.g., R.Lee, the quack, etc., of its creation and are they worthy of a place anywhere near a godthing? - 20:13:17 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve: It depends on what type of Taoist. The religious Taoists believe in Chinese mythical gods. These Taoists are usually found in Taiwan. The esoteric Taoists are the ones that practice herbal medicine, T'ai Chi, Chi Gong, and some forms of martial arts. Philosophical Taoists mostly just contemptlate on how nature and the Universe works. The philosophical Taoists are the most athiestic. I consider myself a philosophical Taoist, even though I want to learn some of the esoteric stuff. - 20:21:01 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:Y-IT<<>>I think more research is in order, for myself of course. :], Thanks for the info, it is a good start. - 20:27:39 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve: Okay. I don't want to pressure you. Just look into that stuff and make your own decision. Anyway, gotta go! Se ya tomarrow. - 20:29:51 on 1 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:RON- So what did they serve for dinner? Crow's nest soup? LOL! - 3:12:15 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:ANY<<>>I was wondering if I was the only one having problem getting to this site. - 13:32:45 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Oh yes!--------:http://wwnonline.com/elephantpoo.htm - 13:38:06 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Yeah, I had a hard time accessing this page and a couple of other pages this morning. - 13:58:08 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Upon carousing assorted sites- this a.m. the religious believer places, I find it noteworthy to see that these religious folks 'want to believe' in something generally, and how some few want others 'to believe in them'. It brings to mind that early xtian patriarch who said that it was important to believe just because "it" was impossible. It being the jc tale as it was sold. At one site someone posted a diagram bordered by a top line logic used, and logic not used. Its downward border first line, said data used and the next line data not used. Under logic used, on the line data used, appeared "Science" under logic not used/ the first line, data used "Empiricism". Under logic used/ the second line, data not used "Rationalism". Under logic not used/ the second line data not used "Mysticism". The relationship of these topics in terms of those precise points of view, it seemed clever and ok picture. - 15:05:01 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: That seems like a good diagram to show how Western religion can be screwed up. However, many fundies argue that their religion is different from mysticism, because the word "mysticism" usually implies a worship of many gods, or a "pagan" religion, and "religion" is the worship of the one true God, whoever that might be today. Of course, we know that the only difference between "mysticism" and "religion" is that one worships one god, and the other worships many gods. - 16:05:33 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:CARL.. Many writers find the core of religion in mysticism. This provides an experimental basis for religion and an excuse for the conflicts between religion and common sense, faith, and reason. Religion, it is said, represents an attempt to do justice to a singular kind of experience which is ignored and by the sciences: at the very least, religion supplements the partial world view that are based on sense and religion; and some writers even claim that the world of sense and reason is a phantom while mysticism affords us a glimpse of ultimate reality....Bertrand Russell has argued in an essay on 'Mysticism':"From a scientific point of view we can make no distinction between the man who eats little and sees heaven and the man who drinks much and sees snakes. Each is in an abnormal physical condition, and therefore has abnormal perceptions"....In a similiar vein ,Santayana has repeatedly called mysticism "a religious disease". Although Russell and Santayana usually are poles apart, they are in partial agreement on this point. Catholics think of some mystics as saints, while most Protestants are thrilled by the individualism of so many mystics. Those who are not religious often feel that for the mystic it is reasonable to be religious because he is after all a kind of empiricist. - 17:00:48 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Anyone see 20/20 last night on ABC? (Monday) They showed a clip about some fundy revival going on in Florida. I've seen this one several months before, but it scared me even more when I saw it a second time. How about all those people twitchin', escpecially that teacher who became a member of their chorus? She said that the Holy Spirit cured her broken neck, but now she can't fuckin' stop shaking. I say her neck is still broken. I don't know, maybe she has Tourette's Syndrome. Or worse, she's "possessed" by the devil and needs to be "exorcised". :) - 17:15:05 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:CARL.. I think what sets apart the mystic experience is not anything given, but the interpretation and evaluation which the person who has the experience accords to it. And this interpretation needs not be theistic. What sets apart the mystical experience is in part what the man who has it thinks of it. And he will generally give his experience a religious interpretation, or even have his experience in religious terms, only when he stands in a religious tradition. The mystical experience is not the core of religion but a phenomenon in the history of religion... Inspiration experiences, too, can be given a nonreligious interpretation by the person who has the experience, depending on his prior outlook. - 17:20:56 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:rOB: I've read a book that has something similar to mysticism. The book is about perceptions on reality. I forget the name of the book, but I have it at home. Anyway, you say that mystics ignore logic and data for the reason of explaining one particular event that happened to that person. In this book, a bunch of scientists decided to play around with some lab rats. Basically, the scientists let a rat run into a cage, and at about ten seconds after the rat ran in, they dropped some food in a tray inside the cage. They did this several times with different rats. Then, they took the rats out of the cage and put them back in. Each rat did strange things before going to the food tray. Some rats ran in circles, others jumped a certain amount of times, some others took an exact same path to the food, and others kind of did a little dance. In other words, the rats developed some kind of superstition! It seems that there's some instinct in mammals that tries to make a single abnormal event become mystical or very significant. - 17:26:41 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--rOB--But isn't Russell really missing the point here, in that he ignores the conditions which may influence the sequence of perceiving, integrating and forming concepts? Having one's sense perceptions distorted by means of lack of nourishment, and alcohol will only do just that--distort the perceptions. How one then forms concepts as a result of these distorted perceptions then would suggest an untoward group of influences. One does then perceive an unrealistic view of reality as a result will make unrealistic conclusions--or at least ones with a distorted view on reality. But one's particular views on reality, do not change reality. The validation tools here were admittedly invalidated--and as a result, so would any forthcoming conclusions. - 17:35:14 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Y-It.. You make a nice point in how the rats' intincts are made into , let us say, abnormal mystical events. Superstition is engendered, preserved, and fostered by fear... Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances BY SET RULES, or if they were always favoured by fortune. - 17:52:42 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:rOB: It would still be superstitious if the set rules were based upon unusual events. After all, this is what a lot of the rules in the Buybull are based upon. When I said "abnormal event," I didn't mean to imply that mysticism is abnormal, but rather it is based upon some even that is unusual, or rarely occurs. The event needs to be so rare as to make you think, "Gee, that's not really normal." Notice that if something unusual occurs to the benefit of an Xtain, they say "It's a miracle." But if the same unusual event were to be harmful to the Xtain, they say "It's the work of the devil." These rare events seem to be a cornerstone to religion. - 18:10:52 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:PETER... Yes, you are right Russell's view is of the minority, and one's view of reality certainly does not change reality......We are conscious only of the ideas that we have, under the conditions in which we have them. Consciousness, being therefore naturally a consciousness of the inadequate ideas we have, ideas that are mutilated and truncated, is the seat of two basic illusions: the psychological illusion of freedom and the theological illusion of finality... Precisely because consciousness is the idea's reflection and is worth only what the primary idea is worth, conscious realization has no power by itself. And yet, since falsity as such has no form, the inadequate idea does not reflect back on itself without manifesting what is positive in it... Sorry, I must be curt because I must go back to work! - 18:16:04 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:rOB: Consciousness usually becomes a safty net for religious believers of the laymen level. PETER refers to cases that as examples of consciousness can be taken and discarded as superficial by either science or religion. About here we might have to consider the issue of, is there free-will (absolute?) or is it just a state of determinism (relativism?). This ought to open the doorway to finer perhaps more distinctive thoughts regarding that stuff that moves us. I find the idea of abstraction at various levels a handy means of understanding our inner worlds. - 19:50:56 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . brrrrrrrrnnnnnngggggggggg----------->:Hey, Ronniepoo! May of 1998 has come and gone, and there is no sign of you ETs. As a prophet you are a washout. - 20:40:16 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . . brrrrrrrrnnnnnngggggggggg----------->:Hey, Ronniepoo! May of 1998 has come and gone, and there is no sign of your ETs. As a prophet you are a washout. - 20:40:33 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:tick tick: if you refer to the RON that frequents this site, your declaration of that RON as a washout of a prohet, it is only fitting as, after all- this site is atheistic, ergo it is a non-prophet group. - 21:08:15 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..so this is a "not for prophet organization"? - 21:44:16 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: or a prophetess, lets not slight any potential source - 22:02:11 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN (or any other interested party)..if you ever "do" WBS, this is a Buddhist chatroom. - 22:05:19 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->hey CARL...missed you last week....did you get the car parts? - 22:06:41 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...shakin' all over...:-->WYATT..thanks for that site. Pretty dangerous stuff. Notice how one of them says "I don't care if it's illegal"? Why do some religious zealots feel they are above the law? - 22:18:13 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: The auto parts are in place, I couldn't see me paying someone 500 - 800 bucks to do what I can do, altho'it took a bit more time I allotted for the project. I see the theistic types here have fizzeled out. It is hard to maintain an ongoing line of communication when ones point of view does not change. If that is all their godthing allows, why how could any imagine that godthing is gonna make any o'them liveon after death? - 22:21:57 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..it would be nice if there were those that do post here at least see the other side of the fence, instead of just shouting over the fence. Glad you got the car fixed. I tried the same thing with my computer this past weekend, but alas, had to concede and get a pro to fix it. - 22:49:25 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (I can't believe it's not Buddha):Hey JO! That link don't work... guess I'll just have to find another path to righteousness .:( - 23:27:47 on 2 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...something Wiccan this way comes..:-->ROB..well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me...for you, I shall post the Wiccan chatroom. - 0:07:37 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (Wiccan only wonder...):Thankyou, I wouldn't mind a spell in there. - 0:26:25 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB..let us know if there are any good anti-theist potions available! - 3:44:27 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..this one will work. - 3:48:21 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN..sorry, did the wiccan one again. Ignore that last URL. - 3:49:51 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN...this one for sure. - 3:52:33 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:See them standing in the foothills-waiting for the kill - 4:38:31 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:I am going to have an accident with black magik! - 4:47:19 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Delusion may at times in a relative way be hilariously delusive. - 4:52:20 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Here lies Voltaire - 5:25:18 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:If you really mix with the devil,then let's send him to hell. - 5:30:25 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Man is by nature a beast of prey, and that civilized society means a chaining of this beast, a mitigation of his brutality, and the possibilty of the development, through social order, of the intellect and its joys. - 5:34:55 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:.....the objective tendency of the mind continues as do dead leaves giving off motion--agents of fortune. "Nature really intended even learned men to be tillers of the soil". - 5:45:02 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Flippant behavior,logic,beliefs,words,my luck is none to good,supernovae,stairway to the stars, sentence fragments of self-appointed judges-lips in the hills - 5:54:14 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Rules and regulations are not the monsters in our minds and in his search he ate his gut. It is as good as gold-Joe! - 5:57:57 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:finally friggin got in. - 14:59:45 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Those buddha types they seem to like flowers, what is that all about? - 15:04:34 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Lips in the Hills: "Think before you speak, but do not speak all that you think." -- Chinese Proverb - 15:19:31 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: More Biblical "Truths" that you can shake a stick at! Here you will find an organized list of contradictions in the Buybull. Remember the passages, use them against fundies, and watch them squirm! - 15:24:39 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (Whole lotta shakin' goin' on!):Joette: (About the 20/20 thing) Yeah, it's funny how these fundies try to force laws down people's throats, yet they don't care if they do things illegaly. I guess they figure that we're supposed to follow God's (f)laws and not the laws of the government they live under. A perfect example is R.T. Lee, who wants to replace the Ten Bill of Rights in the US Constitution with the Ten Commandments. - 15:30:27 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: I bookmarked your "ALL" reference site, in my view, IMHO, the only way that a group of religious believers,e.g., xtians, can survive or continue as a group now that things as this PC gadget, are here, would be to enact something like a government sponsered form of censorship. A government with its power- the use of brute force, must actively promote ignorance 'for'the sake of a religious belief or just for the sake of belief in a supenatural thing. If there is one kind of requirement or element that is a favorite of/for some kinds of interest to continue as a controling interest, it has to be in the ignorance of followers. What group of folks have said at least once, the bigger the lie the better it is "for us"? German nazis said it, - 15:53:48 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: "Tell a lie long enough and loud enough, it become the truth." -- Joseph Goebels (Hitler's head of propaganda)______"An idle story can quickly become fact in the mouths of hundreds." -- Chinese Proverb - 16:08:12 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: Next payday I will be purchasing the books, "The Warfare Between Science and Theology" by A.D.White and, "The Conflict Between Science and Religion" by J.W.Draper. What I found to be interesting, the pro-religion book contained more anti-religion references than the non-religious author. These books will make fuller my collection of things written by interesting authors of interesting topics. - 16:33:02 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Y-It.. Do you use Chinese proverbs as a quaint reliance for your thinking? - 18:32:48 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:LITH<<>>so do you quote others because of your lack of thinking? - 18:52:52 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:STEVEN.. I quote as capriciously as others using this site here. Something may be lacking in the use of quotes. A degree of stagnation, perhaps, could be a buttress. - 19:04:02 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:STEVEN.. The Buddha's followers asked him questions about the world and the soul, and he told them that their questions did "not tend toward edification". - 19:23:13 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Needless to say, the truth claims of other religions receive no kinder treatment! - 19:32:45 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->WYATT..aside from the detracters in the hills, I like the proverbs. - 19:34:19 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:LITH: >>Flippant behavior,logic,beliefs,words,my luck is none to good,supernovae,stairway to the stars, sentence fragments of self-appointed judges<< Do you often throw words together into inconrehesible run-on sentences? You could use an improvement in semantics. - 19:36:56 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:TO THE TAOIST... Maybe the sentence fragments were done as a deliberate teasing? Improvements possibly occur systematically. - 19:47:25 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:LITH: Ah yes, the sentence fragments of the self-appointed judges. Perhaps they were. Millions of words cause a maelstrom. If our language had only ten words, we can explain truth. Verbose words flowering from variations in defintions. This brings confusion. Insecurity is caused by the iron fist enforcing numberous arbitrary laws. This is peculiar, since rules were meant to secure. - 19:57:56 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: You post"...done as a deliberate teasing?", ever hear o'honesty or sincerity? - 19:58:12 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:CARL.. YES, I have in a similiar vein as you. - 20:01:24 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:The semantical reformulation is not intended to suggest that the subject of the propositional attitude speaks the language of the quotation, or any language. We may treat a mouse's fear of a cat as his fearing true a certain English sentence. - 20:08:39 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Y-It ..I may have a steel fist as opposed to iron, but rest assured I am insecure in many ways as any human. - 20:13:41 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:LITH: Okay, it's time to put away the thesaurus now... - 20:13:52 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: The lith, dare it be proposed he/she is a juco type doin'summer work-study? Probably got an A+ in creative writing? - 20:13:53 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Y-It.... Displays of low tolerance can also be found in other venues. - 20:16:17 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:LITH: Ha!Ha!Ha! That's funny, comming from the guy who started critisizing me in the first place about my quotes. Anyway, I gotta go home now. See you in 16 hours. - 20:22:24 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:CARL... Propose anything you want in an obligatory manner! I surely have misplaced my holy thesaurus! - 20:22:29 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Y-It.... I attacked first. Interesting, jackals dress in trenchcoats. You used a Chinese proverb maybe as deliberate hidden attack on delusional sentence fragments.. You should no better than that Taoist, your belief in stagnating distrust of words. - 20:28:41 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--I rarely quote anybody. I just write stuff other people say, and pretend that they are my own words. - 20:30:15 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:There are no murmurs in the background. - 23:57:21 on 3 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Tarski defined the truth of a closed sentence as a special or limiting case of satisfaction. - 0:06:55 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..mark in on your calendar. It's going to be REAL QUIET at Belmont on Saturday! - 0:54:08 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->FOOLish LIPS ON THE HILL...I like your handle. It should win a plastic Jesus Statuette Award for most ridiculous. Do you have other parts of your anatomy in other areas. Ears in the lakes perhaps, eyes in the city dump? - 0:56:30 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE.. You are a perky one and you know I will not apologize. My anatomy is that of human. Ridiculous is for some and not for others. - 1:02:07 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE.. Are you enthralled by the whipping of hores? You can whip the horses' eyes and make them sleep. - 1:28:31 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE... If you find a foolish hole that can restrain my sensory organs,please let me know? - 1:47:59 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE.. WE are as perfect as strangers and you are as beautiful as a foot (the loose stipulation of eyes in the dump). - 1:58:45 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->HOT LIPS...yes, I am enthralled by the whipping of hores (sic). Nothing more magnificent than a throroughbred straining every muscle, and watching millionaires weep over the loss of a life's work, and 2 minutes of potential glory. - 2:02:48 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->A FLOCK OF LIPS NOW...how can a hole be foolish? - 2:04:33 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..Farnes and Noble..:-->LIPSTICK..I don't believe we are strangers. I think I have had the pleasure before. - 2:07:07 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE... I happy for your glorious entertainment, but does the throughbred have the pontential to spit mud in death's eye? - 2:07:43 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETEE... The pleasure is the foolish pain of intuition. - 2:10:02 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE... a hole be foolish?? Maybe so curiously illogical? - 2:13:44 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->LIPS..why would a thoroughbred have to spit mud in death's eye? - 2:18:44 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE.. Goodnight for now my perky stranger! I must feed my mouth with susustenances that have holes in them. - 2:19:55 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..loose LIPS sink ships..:-->Is the acronym for your handle (LITH) short for lithium, and might you be a partaker of said substance? - 2:21:17 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->sustenances with holes in them??? Lifesavers??? - 2:23:04 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:JOETTE.... tisk, tisk... I said goodnight, but your sinking lips are still flapping in wonderful biting curiosity! Goodnight and remember horses like to sleep without being whipped sometimes. - 2:28:36 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:LASTLY, It might be refreshing, PETER, to pretend in all its illustrious illogicalness. I had to just get another implied insult in. No offense, my logical friend! - 3:50:28 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Pain of da Plain:LITH- Lips in the hills? Death has eyes? The holes in donuts sustain you? Absolutely asinine! - 4:22:27 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

How about???? ASS on the GRASS or.... - 4:24:41 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

OR....TOENAIL of the VALE - 4:26:22 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:When one pretends, he might also like to escape REALITY inadvertantly. Even though, as reason dictates our consciousness can not alter reality! It might construe a refeshing glimpse of human imperfections. - 4:32:27 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Lips In The Hills:Pain of da Plain... Asinine statements are so absolutely mindboggling to you, I sense. - 4:37:17 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->LITH...escaping our reality is a strong argument against religion. What is your position on this? - 11:29:02 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

theatricalheart@mailcity.com - 12:33:35 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

-->so now we have become an advertisement forum for e-mail? - 12:41:30 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:Seems like an electronic mens' room wall lately, doesn't it? - 13:05:04 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Passing through........:Nothing really NEW on this page for ages. Just the same old chewed mishmash every time. - 13:13:34 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:I know. I try to bring up some new topics, but more often there's the same old grafitti and flame attacks between people on subjects not related to atheism or religion. I just participated in one of these attacks recently. - 13:17:05 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Hey, you know those "Jack Chick" tracts that fundies try to pass out to people? Well, I found a webpage that has a collection of tract parodies. They're funny as shit! I was so inspired, that I had to do a parody! Check it out. However, I warn you, it's not for the feeble minded or those who are easily offended. - 13:22:06 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

THE MOON - The REAL Truth The authorities expect you to simply take at their word the absurd and unfounded story that there is a large mass orbiting the earth. Obviously we are expected to be mere sheep, going along with whatever the Thought Police would tell us. However, when one looks at THE FACTS, in an atmosphere free from bias and academic repression, one sees a very different story. False claims retracted! Throughout history, hundreds of absurd fables have been circulated regarding the moon. Most of these have since been discarded. For example, people used to speak about there being "a man in the moon", or about moon being made out of cheese (as recently as last year, I saw an animated film that was still promoting this latter absurdity). We rarely hear such things spoken of anymore. These fables, once asserted as true by the proponents of the moon hoax, were quietly discarded once proven absurd by revisionists. What does this tell us about the equally absurd assertions that are still being made about the moon? How can we believe anything that the Astronomically Correct establishment tells us, when they have been so obviously shown themselves prone to such intellectual dishonesty in the past? The fact that the story has exhibited such enormous variability over the years should automatically be a cause for doubt. No one speaks anymore of Richard A. Locke, a newspaper reporter who wrote a fantastic but wholly fabricated account of discoveries on the moon falsely attributed to the English astronomer Sir John Herschel. Locke reported that Herschel, using a telescope 24 feet in diameter (!), saw fabulous bat-like creatures, living in elaborate cities on the lunar surface. No less a newspaper than the New York Sun printed these reports on its front page as its most important news story! The whole moon hoax is based on such fanciful tales. That�s why I doubt most of it. Mathematical impossibilities Another impossibility that has always been an embarrassment to the scientific establishment is the obvious fact that an object as heavy as the moon, caught in the earth�s gravity, would inevitably come crashing down upon us at immense speeds. Responses to this argument from the Lunarists have always been weak, and always couched in that scientific newspeak designed to confuse the sincere questioner without actually saying anything. The establishment most often cites the work of Isaac Newton in support of its story. Newton is well known for coming up with entirely theoretical notions such as the Law of Universal Gravitation, and his more famous Laws of Motion which serve to gloss over the more obvious inconsistencies in the moon story. What he is less known for is his "extra-curricular" pursuits, which he kept quite secret during his lifetime but which have since been uncovered. Newton was a dominating figure in the Royal Society, a fellowship riddled with members of the various secret societies whose goal to dominate the world has already been outlined. Newton himself possessed copies of Rosicrucian manifestos, and, as is evident in his notes, had studied them thoroughly. Many of his biographers suspect that he shared the religious beliefs of many of his colleagues. It does not take a genius to conclude that these beliefs may have influenced his scientific reasoning. This is, of course, the reason why revisionists are excluded from academic institutions. The majority of scientists and professors of most universities are members of organizations such as these, as are most of the scientists who work for NASA. Those that are not realize that their livelihood depends on towing the establishment line, and therefore only a few have had the courage to speak out. However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon�s improbable existence: F = GMm/r2 Where F = gravitational attraction G = the force between two given masses at a given distance M = mass of one body m = mass of the second body r = distance between the two bodies Established by Newton himself, this numerical gem is based completely on the assumption that the moon travels in concentric circles around our planet. F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) requires that r (the distance between the two celestial bodies) remains constant. Should the distance, r, decrease at any given moment, the gravitational force will increase in strength. When this event occurs the moon will be pulled towards this planet. According to Newton�s theory that a body set in motion remains in motion, such an incident would initiate a logical series of events with a singular chaotic result: propagated drawing of satellite to planet until the two massive bodies collide. However, even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer cling to the absurd notion that objects in the solar system travel in concentric circles. These so-called "scientists" have changed their story so many times, who knows what to believe anymore? The currently fashionable dogma is that the route followed by celestial bodies is not circular but a concave oval with the origin point at the centre (in the case of the earth, the sun; in the case of the moon, the earth) followed by a spiraling series of pathways. Thus, the moon is not maintaining a constant distance from our planet. Our orbiting satellite is forever oscillating towards us, drawing near then distant, in a continuous cycle. Each successive approach brings this massive wonder closer to our mist. In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end � mathematically predicated BY NEWTON�S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence. The authorities expect us to believe a story that is prima facie absurd, and has been proven absurd by simple mathematical calculations. Yet they do not give us a single piece of reliable forensic evidence, nor an argument put forward by any expert free from institutional pressure. A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed. Can you prove that the moon exists? Write to us at: madrev@reptiles.orgTHE MOON - The REAL Truth The authorities expect you to simply take at their word the absurd and unfounded story that there is a large mass orbiting the earth. Obviously we are expected to be mere sheep, going along with whatever the Thought Police would tell us. However, when one looks at THE FACTS, in an atmosphere free from bias and academic repression, one sees a very different story. False claims retracted! Throughout history, hundreds of absurd fables have been circulated regarding the moon. Most of these have since been discarded. For example, people used to speak about there being "a man in the moon", or about moon being made out of cheese (as recently as last year, I saw an animated film that was still promoting this latter absurdity). We rarely hear such things spoken of anymore. These fables, once asserted as true by the proponents of the moon hoax, were quietly discarded once proven absurd by revisionists. What does this tell us about the equally absurd assertions that are still being made about the moon? How can we believe anything that the Astronomically Correct establishment tells us, when they have been so obviously shown themselves prone to such intellectual dishonesty in the past? The fact that the story has exhibited such enormous variability over the years should automatically be a cause for doubt. No one speaks anymore of Richard A. Locke, a newspaper reporter who wrote a fantastic but wholly fabricated account of discoveries on the moon falsely attributed to the English astronomer Sir John Herschel. Locke reported that Herschel, using a telescope 24 feet in diameter (!), saw fabulous bat-like creatures, living in elaborate cities on the lunar surface. No less a newspaper than the New York Sun printed these reports on its front page as its most important news story! The whole moon hoax is based on such fanciful tales. That�s why I doubt most of it. Mathematical impossibilities Another impossibility that has always been an embarrassment to the scientific establishment is the obvious fact that an object as heavy as the moon, caught in the earth�s gravity, would inevitably come crashing down upon us at immense speeds. Responses to this argument from the Lunarists have always been weak, and always couched in that scientific newspeak designed to confuse the sincere questioner without actually saying anything. The establishment most often cites the work of Isaac Newton in support of its story. Newton is well known for coming up with entirely theoretical notions such as the Law of Universal Gravitation, and his more famous Laws of Motion which serve to gloss over the more obvious inconsistencies in the moon story. What he is less known for is his "extra-curricular" pursuits, which he kept quite secret during his lifetime but which have since been uncovered. Newton was a dominating figure in the Royal Society, a fellowship riddled with members of the various secret societies whose goal to dominate the world has already been outlined. Newton himself possessed copies of Rosicrucian manifestos, and, as is evident in his notes, had studied them thoroughly. Many of his biographers suspect that he shared the religious beliefs of many of his colleagues. It does not take a genius to conclude that these beliefs may have influenced his scientific reasoning. This is, of course, the reason why revisionists are excluded from academic institutions. The majority of scientists and professors of most universities are members of organizations such as these, as are most of the scientists who work for NASA. Those that are not realize that their livelihood depends on towing the establishment line, and therefore only a few have had the courage to speak out. However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon�s improbable existence: F = GMm/r2 Where F = gravitational attraction G = the force between two given masses at a given distance M = mass of one body m = mass of the second body r = distance between the two bodies Established by Newton himself, this numerical gem is based completely on the assumption that the moon travels in concentric circles around our planet. F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) requires that r (the distance between the two celestial bodies) remains constant. Should the distance, r, decrease at any given moment, the gravitational force will increase in strength. When this event occurs the moon will be pulled towards this planet. According to Newton�s theory that a body set in motion remains in motion, such an incident would initiate a logical series of events with a singular chaotic result: propagated drawing of satellite to planet until the two massive bodies collide. However, even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer cling to the absurd notion that objects in the solar system travel in concentric circles. These so-called "scientists" have changed their story so many times, who knows what to believe anymore? The currently fashionable dogma is that the route followed by celestial bodies is not circular but a concave oval with the origin point at the centre (in the case of the earth, the sun; in the case of the moon, the earth) followed by a spiraling series of pathways. Thus, the moon is not maintaining a constant distance from our planet. Our orbiting satellite is forever oscillating towards us, drawing near then distant, in a continuous cycle. Each successive approach brings this massive wonder closer to our mist. In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end � mathematically predicated BY NEWTON�S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence. The authorities expect us to believe a story that is prima facie absurd, and has been proven absurd by simple mathematical calculations. Yet they do not give us a single piece of reliable forensic evidence, nor an argument put forward by any expert free from institutional pressure. A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed. Can you prove that the moon exists? Write to us at: madrev@reptiles.orgTHE MOON - The REAL Truth The authorities expect you to simply take at their word the absurd and unfounded story that there is a large mass orbiting the earth. Obviously we are expected to be mere sheep, going along with whatever the Thought Police would tell us. However, when one looks at THE FACTS, in an atmosphere free from bias and academic repression, one sees a very different story. False claims retracted! Throughout history, hundreds of absurd fables have been circulated regarding the moon. Most of these have since been discarded. For example, people used to speak about there being "a man in the moon", or about moon being made out of cheese (as recently as last year, I saw an animated film that was still promoting this latter absurdity). We rarely hear such things spoken of anymore. These fables, once asserted as true by the proponents of the moon hoax, were quietly discarded once proven absurd by revisionists. What does this tell us about the equally absurd assertions that are still being made about the moon? How can we believe anything that the Astronomically Correct establishment tells us, when they have been so obviously shown themselves prone to such intellectual dishonesty in the past? The fact that the story has exhibited such enormous variability over the years should automatically be a cause for doubt. No one speaks anymore of Richard A. Locke, a newspaper reporter who wrote a fantastic but wholly fabricated account of discoveries on the moon falsely attributed to the English astronomer Sir John Herschel. Locke reported that Herschel, using a telescope 24 feet in diameter (!), saw fabulous bat-like creatures, living in elaborate cities on the lunar surface. No less a newspaper than the New York Sun printed these reports on its front page as its most important news story! The whole moon hoax is based on such fanciful tales. That�s why I doubt most of it. Mathematical impossibilities Another impossibility that has always been an embarrassment to the scientific establishment is the obvious fact that an object as heavy as the moon, caught in the earth�s gravity, would inevitably come crashing down upon us at immense speeds. Responses to this argument from the Lunarists have always been weak, and always couched in that scientific newspeak designed to confuse the sincere questioner without actually saying anything. The establishment most often cites the work of Isaac Newton in support of its story. Newton is well known for coming up with entirely theoretical notions such as the Law of Universal Gravitation, and his more famous Laws of Motion which serve to gloss over the more obvious inconsistencies in the moon story. What he is less known for is his "extra-curricular" pursuits, which he kept quite secret during his lifetime but which have since been uncovered. Newton was a dominating figure in the Royal Society, a fellowship riddled with members of the various secret societies whose goal to dominate the world has already been outlined. Newton himself possessed copies of Rosicrucian manifestos, and, as is evident in his notes, had studied them thoroughly. Many of his biographers suspect that he shared the religious beliefs of many of his colleagues. It does not take a genius to conclude that these beliefs may have influenced his scientific reasoning. This is, of course, the reason why revisionists are excluded from academic institutions. The majority of scientists and professors of most universities are members of organizations such as these, as are most of the scientists who work for NASA. Those that are not realize that their livelihood depends on towing the establishment line, and therefore only a few have had the courage to speak out. However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon�s improbable existence: F = GMm/r2 Where F = gravitational attraction G = the force between two given masses at a given distance M = mass of one body m = mass of the second body r = distance between the two bodies Established by Newton himself, this numerical gem is based completely on the assumption that the moon travels in concentric circles around our planet. F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) requires that r (the distance between the two celestial bodies) remains constant. Should the distance, r, decrease at any given moment, the gravitational force will increase in strength. When this event occurs the moon will be pulled towards this planet. According to Newton�s theory that a body set in motion remains in motion, such an incident would initiate a logical series of events with a singular chaotic result: propagated drawing of satellite to planet until the two massive bodies collide. However, even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer cling to the absurd notion that objects in the solar system travel in concentric circles. These so-called "scientists" have changed their story so many times, who knows what to believe anymore? The currently fashionable dogma is that the route followed by celestial bodies is not circular but a concave oval with the origin point at the centre (in the case of the earth, the sun; in the case of the moon, the earth) followed by a spiraling series of pathways. Thus, the moon is not maintaining a constant distance from our planet. Our orbiting satellite is forever oscillating towards us, drawing near then distant, in a continuous cycle. Each successive approach brings this massive wonder closer to our mist. In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end � mathematically predicated BY NEWTON�S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence. The authorities expect us to believe a story that is prima facie absurd, and has been proven absurd by simple mathematical calculations. Yet they do not give us a single piece of reliable forensic evidence, nor an argument put forward by any expert free from institutional pressure. A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed. Can you prove that the moon exists? Write to us at: madrev@reptiles.orgTHE MOON - The REAL Truth The authorities expect you to simply take at their word the absurd and unfounded story that there is a large mass orbiting the earth. Obviously we are expected to be mere sheep, going along with whatever the Thought Police would tell us. However, when one looks at THE FACTS, in an atmosphere free from bias and academic repression, one sees a very different story. False claims retracted! Throughout history, hundreds of absurd fables have been circulated regarding the moon. Most of these have since been discarded. For example, people used to speak about there being "a man in the moon", or about moon being made out of cheese (as recently as last year, I saw an animated film that was still promoting this latter absurdity). We rarely hear such things spoken of anymore. These fables, once asserted as true by the proponents of the moon hoax, were quietly discarded once proven absurd by revisionists. What does this tell us about the equally absurd assertions that are still being made about the moon? How can we believe anything that the Astronomically Correct establishment tells us, when they have been so obviously shown themselves prone to such intellectual dishonesty in the past? The fact that the story has exhibited such enormous variability over the years should automatically be a cause for doubt. No one speaks anymore of Richard A. Locke, a newspaper reporter who wrote a fantastic but wholly fabricated account of discoveries on the moon falsely attributed to the English astronomer Sir John Herschel. Locke reported that Herschel, using a telescope 24 feet in diameter (!), saw fabulous bat-like creatures, living in elaborate cities on the lunar surface. No less a newspaper than the New York Sun printed these reports on its front page as its most important news story! The whole moon hoax is based on such fanciful tales. That�s why I doubt most of it. Mathematical impossibilities Another impossibility that has always been an embarrassment to the scientific establishment is the obvious fact that an object as heavy as the moon, caught in the earth�s gravity, would inevitably come crashing down upon us at immense speeds. Responses to this argument from the Lunarists have always been weak, and always couched in that scientific newspeak designed to confuse the sincere questioner without actually saying anything. The establishment most often cites the work of Isaac Newton in support of its story. Newton is well known for coming up with entirely theoretical notions such as the Law of Universal Gravitation, and his more famous Laws of Motion which serve to gloss over the more obvious inconsistencies in the moon story. What he is less known for is his "extra-curricular" pursuits, which he kept quite secret during his lifetime but which have since been uncovered. Newton was a dominating figure in the Royal Society, a fellowship riddled with members of the various secret societies whose goal to dominate the world has already been outlined. Newton himself possessed copies of Rosicrucian manifestos, and, as is evident in his notes, had studied them thoroughly. Many of his biographers suspect that he shared the religious beliefs of many of his colleagues. It does not take a genius to conclude that these beliefs may have influenced his scientific reasoning. This is, of course, the reason why revisionists are excluded from academic institutions. The majority of scientists and professors of most universities are members of organizations such as these, as are most of the scientists who work for NASA. Those that are not realize that their livelihood depends on towing the establishment line, and therefore only a few have had the courage to speak out. However, eminent scientists, working in defiance of the establishment, have proven conclusively, using the most scrupulous methods, that if an object such as the moon really existed, it could not remain fixed in the sky for very long. Proactive arguments in support of this finding return to a closer examination of the original mathematical formula generally referenced when rallying to solidify the moon�s improbable existence: F = GMm/r2 Where F = gravitational attraction G = the force between two given masses at a given distance M = mass of one body m = mass of the second body r = distance between the two bodies Established by Newton himself, this numerical gem is based completely on the assumption that the moon travels in concentric circles around our planet. F (the gravitational attraction holding the moon to its "true" path) requires that r (the distance between the two celestial bodies) remains constant. Should the distance, r, decrease at any given moment, the gravitational force will increase in strength. When this event occurs the moon will be pulled towards this planet. According to Newton�s theory that a body set in motion remains in motion, such an incident would initiate a logical series of events with a singular chaotic result: propagated drawing of satellite to planet until the two massive bodies collide. However, even the most fanatical Lunarists no longer cling to the absurd notion that objects in the solar system travel in concentric circles. These so-called "scientists" have changed their story so many times, who knows what to believe anymore? The currently fashionable dogma is that the route followed by celestial bodies is not circular but a concave oval with the origin point at the centre (in the case of the earth, the sun; in the case of the moon, the earth) followed by a spiraling series of pathways. Thus, the moon is not maintaining a constant distance from our planet. Our orbiting satellite is forever oscillating towards us, drawing near then distant, in a continuous cycle. Each successive approach brings this massive wonder closer to our mist. In other words, the moon does indeed alter its distance from the earth. So why is it not widespread knowledge that the end � mathematically predicated BY NEWTON�S OWN FORMULA - has been anticipated and is drawing near? Due to some irrational explanation the moon has managed to defy those very laws of physics that were originally developed to justify its existence. The authorities expect us to believe a story that is prima facie absurd, and has been proven absurd by simple mathematical calculations. Yet they do not give us a single piece of reliable forensic evidence, nor an argument put forward by any expert free from institutional pressure. A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed. Can you prove that the moon exists? Write to us at: madrev@reptiles.org - 13:22:17 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:OH NO IT'S THE LUNATIC AGAIN! At least he left his email address. Let's spam him! - 13:23:41 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

The thing with "SpamHater" is that the sender of spam cannot hide. Does anyone hve the latest version? Oh boy..... - 13:28:01 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Passing through.....:I'd like a full discusion on the Serial optical spin polarisation in gasses. - 13:40:21 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Here's the Lunatic's website. It looks kinda fucked up. - 13:41:02 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:-------------------------------------->ALL: Here's the Lunatic's website. It looks kinda fucked up.<----------------------------------------------- - 13:42:11 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Yep.....:Over the past several decades, a movement known as "Holocaust revisionism" (known to its opponents as "Holocaust denial") has developed and grown amid much controversy. This theory suggests that the Holocaust - that is, the murder of approximately six million Jews as an intentional policy of genocide on the part of the Nazi regime - is, in fact, an elaborate hoax. Further, that the evidence historians use to study this event was fabricated by a powerful Jewish conspiracy for political and financial gain. Proponents of this theory have been labeled as ignorant bigots, and accused of exploiting one of the greatest tragedies of our century in order to spread age-old anti-Semitic conspiracy myths and to whitewash the genocidal crimes of the Nazi regime. We at THE MAD REVISIONIST, feel that these courageous men and women have been unfairly characterized. They are, in fact, geniuses - visionaries who, despite their apparent lack of qualification, have managed to develop a whole new methodology for determining historical truth. Their only shortcoming is their failure to apply this methodology more extensively. Not only the Holocaust, but the whole of World War II must be re-examined with these new tools of inquiry. In fact, now that revisionism has come of age, why shouldn�t every historical event be subjected to its scrutiny? And why restrict this methodology to the discipline of history when there are so many other areas of knowledge that cling to dogmas derived from the worn-out, ivory-tower standards of academic responsibility. We believe it is a sin to confine revisionism to one solitary issue in one discipline when it could be used to uncover valuable new truths in so many other fields of human endeavor. THE MAD REVISIONIST seeks to correct this oversight. We therefore present to you with our series of essays dedicated to the manufacturing of truth through the discarding of evidence: "THE RAZOR'S EDGE" A Revisionist Examination of the O.J. Simpson Trial! by THE MAD REVISIONIST (Be sure to read, The Moon: A Propaganda Hoax, a masterpiece of revisionist scholarship in which THE MAD REVISIONIST provides conclusive evidence that the moon does not exist!) It's about time the revisionist historians of the world wake up and smell the coffee. Immaculate revisionist research has demonstrated that there have been numerous scientific hoaxes such as the moon hoax and numerous historical hoaxes such as the phony sinking of the Titanic. But few have taken the next logical step. It is only reasonable to believe that if the Traditional Enemy is faking both science and history it stands to reason that the vile swine are faking current events as well! This was brought home forcibly when I started to read a few books on the O.J. Simpson case. I never finished them for one thing soon became clear: Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (Jew) were never murdered! The entire case was a hoax from beginning to end. The first key discovery was that, after the first jury was able to see through the hoax, the Traditional Enemy immediately attempted to try him again. This was their first mistake. Every revisionist expert knows this is double jeopardy. You cannot try a man twice for the same crime. That is part of our Constitution which, as we all know, the Traditional Enemy is trying undermine. What better way than to besmirch a popular public figure by violating one of the basic guarantees of our freedom. Once this basic truth about the persecution of O.J. Simpson is realized, the traces of the deceit become obvious. The traces of the clumsy conspiracy are easy to spot. SURPRISE #1: There is no forensic evidence to prove that Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (the Hebraic) are dead. That's right. There is no forensic evidence whatsoever! The pathologist that supposedly examined the "dead bodies" did not testify at the first trial. That's right. There was never any forensic testimony as to the "autopsies" not a single word. Instead Marcia Clark (and we know what her ancestry was) put on another pathologist who testified for eight days about what another pathologist had done. When the time for the second, illegal trial came around Daniel Petrocelli (most of whose partners, including his mentor, are of Hebrew descent) still could not find a pathologist. He did the same exact thing. He called other pathologists to the witness stand to testify about the "autopsies". All this testimony was hearsay, unacceptable in any real court. Once we realize that there was no forensic proof that either Nicolle Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman (the Talmudist) were dead, the pattern begins to fall into place. That was the first mistake. But there were others. The big one is the murder weapon. SURPRISE #2: Nobody ever produced a murder weapon. Is this important? Of course it is. Every Revisionist knows that unless you have a murder weapon you cannot have a murder. The various prosecutors (with their established connections to the Traditional Enemy already established) never produced a murder weapon. By definition they could not prove the physical evidence of a murder. One reason that their failure to produce a murder weapon is vital towards showing that the murders never took place is that the weapon alleged to have been used makes no sense. O.J. Simpson was a gun collector; he owned no fighting knives. In fact, O.J. Simpson routinely kept a .357 magnum revolver in his car. It is absurd to believe that a gun user would pick up a random knife to attack two people. A gun is much more efficient and was the weapon that O.J. Simpson knew how to use. There is no evidence whatsoever that he knew how to kill someone with a knife. All evidence therefore points to the conclusion that a knife could not have been used to kill Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (the adherent of that tribal cult). The second absurdity that reveals the knife hoax is that no one ever saw this alleged knife even though they searched his house thoroughly. No one can even describe the knife. All we were ever told is that it was sharp. There is no reason from this to suppose it was a knife. It could have been any sharp instrument. It could have been a hand axe. It could have been a piece of broken glass. It could have been a straight razor. It could have been a piece of Pennsylvania jasper chipped to a fine edge. It is an indication of the dishonesty of the hoaxers that, even though they cannot produce a knife, they insist that Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (a convinced Zionist) were murdered with one. Some even point to the fact that O.J. Simpson visited a warehouse for Swiss Army knives several days before the alleged murders. The allegations of the hoaxers are ludicrous! Are we expected to believe that O.J. Simpson was fumbling with a Swiss Army knife while he was attacking two people? In this stressful situation of overpowering two people O.J. Simpson somehow is supposed to have found the right blade. Or maybe he just killed them with the fish scaler - Simpson hoaxers will believe just about anything. The third absurdity is that it is claimed that the "knife" (which does not exist) did things that were physically impossible. As everyone knows knives are designed for certain things. This "knife" had to have had a wide blade for it alleged, but never proven with forensic evidence, that Nicolle Brown Simpson's throat was almost slashed completely through. But when the hoax assailant attacked Ron Goldman (whose mother and father were Jewish) it suddenly turned into an instrument that produced small, deep puncture wounds to his chest. Perhaps the hoaxers want us to believe that he folded the blade he used to attack Nicolle Brown Simpson back into his Swiss Army knife and fumbled with the knife to get out the awl. Simpson hoaxers will make almost any outrageous claim to advance their dishonest theories. There are other absurdities to the case that the conspirators fabricated against O.J. Simpson. One of the "experts" (who never saw the scene of the crime or the murder weapon) testified that there were TWO people committing the "crime". Apparently - since he did not testify that there were two "knives" - we are supposed to believe that O.J. Simpson and his alleged accomplice passed the "knife" back and forth as they attacked two people. The icing on the cake, however, is what O.J. Simpson is claimed to have done to himself. According to the legend created by the fabricators (which, as we have shown included several Tribal Members and shabbas goys for the Traditional Enemy), O.J. Simpson supposedly cut himself several times while he was committing the "murders." This preposterous allegation just proves how desperate the fabricators were. O.J. Simpson was a skilled athlete who would not have cut himself when using a "knife." To state otherwise is to fly in the face of reason. If you do not believe this go to your kitchen and take a knife (one that can both produce deep slash wounds and imperceptible puncture wounds if you can find such an instrument) and cut up a chicken or two. See how many times you cut the inside of your fingers. Then tell me how a professional athlete with superior motor skills did what didn't happen to you. It is this final absurdity which, I think, is the crucial element in explaining the fabrication. The wounds O.J. Simpson received are not those of a person wielding a "knife;" they are the type of wounds a person receives when defending himself against a knife attack. If O.J. Simpson was at the scene of the "crime" - which he denies - the evidence points in another direction. Apparently he found Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (one of The Chosen) together in a compromising position. When he was in a state of shock either Nicolle Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman (an agent of the Sanhedrin) attacked O.J. Simpson with a knife. After he fended off the attack and fled the scene, the pair knew how the public would react to their violent and unjustified attack on an American hero. To protect themselves they fabricated the entire "murder" scenario. I am sure that you will agree that Nicolle Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman (connected by race to several conspiracies) are still alive and chortling over the manner in which they pulled the wool over the eyes of the public. The Revisionist methodology applied to this case proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. The horror is that this conspiracy was perpetrated against one of the most popular and respected figures of our time. If the Traditional Enemy did it to him, they can do it to you. THE MAD REVISIONIST: We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion. We invite your support and submissions. More works of REVISIONIST GENIUS: 1) THE MOON: A Propaganda Hoax 2) The Parthenon: A post-Hellenistic Fabrication 3) Exposing the sinister fraud behind The Irish Potato Hoax of the 1840's 4) THE TITANIC: Hollywood Propaganda Fraud Exposed! 5) Undeniable proof that World War II never happened (including, confessions of a former WWII Believer). 6) Proof of the Allies destroying Holocaust evidence: Fuhrerpants 7) More evidence disproving the Myth of the Civil War, at The Hoax of the Nineteenth Century; brought to you by CONDOM (Committee For Open and Non-biased Debate On the Mid-19th-century). 8) Conclusive Photo Evidence of the Non-Existence of Winnipeg Questions about Revisionism? Ask our resident expert, Dr. Leopold Iv, in Advice from the Sewer Other intrepid crusaders against the world conspiracy: The Anti-Squirrel Coalition The National Annoyance The Jewish Conspiracy FAQ A cash reward of $100,000 has been offered to anyone who can send us, by e-mail, conclusive physical evidence of the existence of the moon. This reward remains unclaimed. Can you prove that the moon exists? Write to us at: madrev@reptiles.org (NOTE: e-mail received through this address may be posted on this page) DISCLAIMER: All editorial content on this website is strictly not the writer�s/author�s opinion. THE MAD REVISIONIST, located on the moon, is owned and operated by accident. The content of this page is the copyrighted property of THE MAD REVISIONIST. Any illegal copying or circulating of this page, in whole or in part, without the expressed permission of THE MAD REVISIONIST will be taken as a compliment. - 13:52:39 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

continued.........: THE TITANIC Hollywood Propaganda Fraud Exposed! Research shows Cameron's movie is fiction by THE MAD REVISIONIST At this year's Politically Correct love-in known as the Academy Awards, director James Cameron's latest piece of mega-budget propaganda was the inevitable shoe-in for Best Picture. This was hardly a surprise, as it must be the 555th movie or TV program on the "Titanic". Titanic inevitably rang the Academy bell because Hollywood is Hollywood and what happened to the victims of the Titanic is not only the longest lasting, but probably the most effective propaganda exercise ever. Hardly a day goes by that the press, radio and television don't mention something about the 1500 alleged to have drowned. The figure is nonsense but media folk go on parroting what everyone "knows". I used to do the same. There have been many other disasters at sea, and most of them have hardly warranted a paragraph, let alone movies. Has anyone made a film about the 1,200 killed on board the RMS Lusitania, or the death of 1,100 on the RMS Empress of Ireland? As even The Titanic Resource had to reluctantly admit, "True, there have been worse maritime disasters, but the power of the Titanic story has an enduring quality that appears will never die." Any serious revisionist inevitably must ask why the establishment has pushed the Titanic myth on the public so tenaciously. Just look at the unusually long list of films that have been made about this alleged tragedy alone: Saved From the Titanic (1912) Titanic (1943) Titanic (1953) A Night to Remember (1958) The Unsinkable Molly Brown (1964) S.O.S. Titanic (1979)(TV) Raise the Titanic (1980) Titanica (1992) Titanic (1996)(TV) Titanic: Anatomy of a Disaster (1997) What other maritime tragedy has warranted such a barrage of Hollywood propaganda, not to mention hundreds and hundreds of books and articles, as have surrounded the alleged Titanic? Lots of people have died in many sea disasters. The Northern Shipwreck Database has archived more than 65,000 records of marine casualties over the last four centuries! What makes the suffering of the Titanic so special? All of this has culminated in James Cameron's most recent production. After eighty-five years the moguls of the movie world reckoned the time was right to cash in in a big way. And Cameron reckoned it was time for him to cash in too. "Movie of the year! Cameron takes on the Titanic!", screamed the cover-page in Newsweek magazine. You would have thought the disaster had just happened and that the film was the biggest event since the Battle of Britain. This film, however, contains so many flaws and inconsistencies that it is absolutely worthless as a credible historical piece. Let's start with the fact that the two principal characters, alleged to have had a dramatic love affair aboard the doomed vessel, were, in fact, simply names picked at random from the ship's manifests. There is no evidence that these two persons even met during the actual voyage. The truth is revealed when one watches the end-credits of the movie. Stashed away, in tiny letters, shown only after most people would be expected to have already left the theater, is the fateful disclaimer: "Characters, places and incidents in this film are fictitous. Any resemblance to actual events, locales or persons, living or dead, is entirely coincidental." [emphasis mine] Even the filmmakers are forced to admit that this movie - purporting to represent a historical event - is, in fact, a work of FICTION, just like Amadeus and Schindler's List! Am I suggesting that the boat did not sink, or that dozens, maybe hundreds of people didn't get wet and cold and maybe even broke an ankle? No. But propaganda is selective, and Hollywood propaganda is the most selective of all. There is no physical evidence that 1500 went down with the ship. Eyewitness accounts contain so many discrepancies as to make the whole story unbelievable. Some say the ship split in two before it sank, other's say it didn't. And it should also be noted that there were more than 16 lifeboats on board the Titanic - 17% more than required by law. The ship was probably scuttled (intentionally sank) after all the passengers and crew were safely aboard the lifeboats. They all escaped and filed monstrous insurance claims. The whole thing is a titanic insurance hoax. That is why the tear in the hull allegedly caused by an iceberg has never been found. All the hull damage that has been found and documented could have been caused by the ship hitting the sea floor. And where, exactly, is this so-called iceberg? How can revisionists be expected to accept that 1500 people were killed if the very instrument of their destruction is not even available for examination? Based on a complete lack of physical evidence alone, it is safe to dismiss the conventional Titanic story. (with credit to Secret Jew Mark Van Alstine) A Revisionist examination of typical TITANIC TESTIMONY CLICK HERE FOR THE SMOKING GUN Feedback: So Where did all the bodies come from? THE MAD REVISIONIST: We do not recruit; we convince. Truth has no need of coercion. We invite your support and submissions. For relentless Titanic terrorism, on the other hand, contact: For another Hollywood point of view, visit: Back to THE MAD REVISIONIST DISCLAIMER: All editorial content on this website is strictly not the writer�s/author�s opinion. THE MAD REVISIONIST, located on the moon, is owned and operated by accident. The content of this page is the copyrighted property of THE MAD REVISIONIST. Any illegal copying or circulating of this page, in whole or in part, without the expressed permission of THE MAD REVISIONIST will be taken as a compliment. And if you want to know how the movie ends... the boat sinks. - 13:54:39 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Here are some more fucked up theories Moonboy has come up with: 1) The Civil War never happened! 2) WWII never happened! (this would be a good one for Steve, Ron, and PapaSam) 3) The Titanic was never sunk! 4) I guess because of #2, the Jewish Holocast never happened! 5) Winnipeg, Canada doesn't exist! (This is a good one for you Canadians) 6) The Irish Potato Famine of 1840 never happened! 7) O.J. is innocent because Ron Brown and Nicole Simpson were never murdered! There's one thing I have to say about this: WHAT THE FUCK IS HE SMOKING AND WHERE CAN I GET SOME? - 13:54:54 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

phut:. - 13:57:17 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

phut..: CONTROLLING TRAVEL EXPENSES Small companies must find ways to reduce the cost of employee travel. Congress reduced the deduction for business meals from 80% to 50% of the cost. No deduction is allowed for a spouse unless he or she is a bona fide employee. Make maximum use of frequent flier miles; Make a deal with a hotel in cities frequently visited; rent cars only when necessary; and avoid high-priced hotels. Find a good travel agent who can save your staff time and money by delivering tickets, itineraries, hotel confirmations and other travel documents directly to your office. A good travel agent helps manage costs and identify savings. Often airlines offer tie-in arrangements with hotels and car rental agencies on top of frequent flier participation. Take advantage of them. Establish a clear-cut travel policy. Such policies set limits on expenditures and require adherence to guidelines on when travel is permitted and when a phone call will do. The formal policy denies "automatic" attendance at trade shows and similar meetings. Seek out teleconference services where both groups can visit a TV camera room. The conference can then be held via phone and video lines, saving travel time and travel expenses. Employees should be required to take the lowest airfare offered within a reasonable schedule. Try to book travel arrangements as early as possible. Booking air travel two or more weeks in advance where the stay includes a Saturday night can cut costs by at least 50% less than the cost of the hotel for the extra nights. Booking on connecting flights often costs less than booking on nonstop flights. However layover time might be such that the savings in airfare is counter productive. Overnight stays should be at moderately-priced hotels and "in-room movies" should be discouraged. There are discount hotel booking services that negotiate lower "bulk" rates and pass them along to smaller business. Book ground transportation from and to the airport whenever possible and practical. Many hotels offer free rides to and from the airport in a courtesy van or limousine. If you have to rent a car, book only mid-size cars or smaller cars and inquire about free upgrades upon check in. If other automobile insurance is in force, make sure the optional collision damage coverage is de- clined. Often smaller car rental firms offer better rates then the larger car rental companies. The smaller car rental companies offer free shuttle bus service minimizing any inconvenience. Many hotels levy a surcharge for each long-distance call and sometimes local calls, even those calls made on a credit card. Surcharges have been as high as $1, and that adds up when you make 20 or 30 calls. To save the surcharge at the conclusion of the call, press the # key and dial the next number. That way you pay for only one call. Ask the hotel about its phone charge policy. Use public phones whenever possible. Do not eat at the hotel. Ask the bell captains for the name of quality local restaurants; they are usually less expensive and often higher quality. Avoid tourist traps. If possible, have a big breakfast and save money on lunch; especially if the hotel offers a breakfast as part of its accommodations. All expense accounts must be supported by receipts. The Internal Revenue Code requires substantiation of travel expenses. Also, the better the supporting records, the easier to maintain control of expenses. Avoid cash advances. Not only will you save on bookkeeping costs, but the requirement of a reimbursement is an incentive for employees to submit expense reports quickly and accurately. Keeping track of advances is costly and time-consuming and often ends up with a loss of control. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This resource is (c) 1996 by, and excerpted from, The Small Business Advisor newsletter. To see a complete profile of this newsletter, click below. Find thousands of resources to help you in business, on the World Wide Web at Smart Business Supersite, http://www.smartbiz.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Go to the The Small Business Advisor Newsletter Profile now. - 13:58:40 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!? Is this place becoming a free advertisement zone? - 14:02:42 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

phut..: Front page, News, Sports, Money, Life, Weather, Marketplace Inside News � Nationline � Washington � World � Politics � Opinion � Columnists � Snapshot � Science � States � Weird news Search � Newspaper Archives � Our site Resources � Index � Feedback � What's hot � About us � Jobs at USA TODAY 06/04/98- Updated 08:47 AM ET Nichols faces sentencing today DENVER - Terry Nichols has one last chance Thursday to reveal whether he knows more about the Oklahoma City bombing plot before he is sentenced for his role in the deadliest terrorist act ever on U.S. soil. If he does, U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch might be persuaded to give him a lighter sentence. Guidelines call for a life sentence, but Matsch has offered to reconsider if Nichols answers lingering questions about the 1995 blast. Legal experts don't expect Nichols to talk, because the information could be used against him in an upcoming state trial, in which he faces the death penalty. Full story Oklahoma City bombing index Ariz. executes man for murdering couple FLORENCE, Ariz. - A man who admitted killing 17 people during a rampage across Arizona and California was executed Wednesday for two of the murders. Douglas Edward Gretzler was put to death by lethal injection in the state's first daytime execution. Gretzler and Willie Luther Steelman were convicted in the 1973 murder of a Tucson couple in their condominium. Gretzler and Steelman also killed a family of nine in California three days after the Tucson murders. Police say the two later confessed to six other killings. Steelman died in prison in 1987. Full story Border Patrol agent killed on duty TUCSON, Ariz. - A Border Patrol agent was shot to death early Wednesday while trying to arrest five suspected marijuana smugglers, who then escaped from the agent's partner. Alexander Kirpnick, 27, was shot in the head after he and his partner stopped the suspects around 1 a.m. A Border Patrol spokesman said his partner, who was not identified, heard a shot and found Kirpnick on the ground. Kirpnick was pronounced dead at a Tucson hospital. FBI agents scoured the rugged hills northwest of Nogales, about two miles north of the border, searching for the suspects. But authorities believe the suspects may have fled back to Mexico. Bilingual education ban faces lawsuit LOS ANGELES - As the dust settles from the California primary elections, the battle over bilingual education rages on. Opponents of Proposition 227 - a ballot initiative to end bilingual education programs in public schools - filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to overturn Tuesday's 61% "yes" vote. They claim the measure violates federal civil-rights laws. "Parents, including immigrant parents, should have the right to make basic choices about their children's education," said civil rights lawyer Deborah Escobedo. But supporters say the measure is "ironclad constitutional." Full story New athletic drug stirs doubts In the most extensive survey ever taken to gauge the use of creatine in professional sports, USA TODAY found almost a third of responding teams disapprove of the popular sports nutrition supplement. Critics say that creatine causes muscle cramping, tears and gastrointestinal problems - and that no one knows what long-term effects use of the drug can bring. Nevertheless, thousands of collegiate and high school athletes - and professionals like baseball slugger Mark McGwire - use the drug to help improve their strength. "It works. That's why people use it," says Gary Vitti, trainer for the Los Angeles Lakers. Full story Court lets NYC dim the red lights NEW YORK - After a protracted legal battle, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that New York City can force strip clubs and adult bookstores to move to other parts of town. The city borrowed a tactic that has worked successfully in other parts of the country: change zoning laws. Now, the city requires such businesses to be at least 500 feet from residences, schools, churches and each other. While supporters say the ordinances will improve the quality of life in the Big Apple by breaking up red-light districts, adult business owners say it's thinly-veiled censorship. Full story Small plane crashes in N.C., killing 2 WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. - A small plane crashed into a house Wednesday, killing the two men aboard and trapping a young girl inside the house. "My little girl is in there!" a woman shouted from the yard in front of the wreckage. A neighbor crawled under a wing of the plane and found the scared 10-year-old girl. She was not hurt. The victims in the plane were mechanics who were taking the aircraft on a test flight when it lost power three minutes after takeoff from Smith Reynolds Airport, Winston-Salem Police Lt. Otis Belton said. Judge questioned on Menendez marriage SAN FRANCISCO - The Commission on Judicial Performance announced Tuesday that it is investigating Los Angeles Judge Nancy Brown for trying to bring convicted murderer Lyle Menendez to her court so he could get married. A defense lawyer asked Brown to summon the brothers to her courtroom in June 1996 so Lyle could marry his pen pal, Anna Eriksson, before being sentenced to life without parole. Brown agreed, but her order was withdrawn by supervising Judge John Reid. So, she eventually conducted the wedding by telephone. The commission will investigate whether Brown used her judicial power improperly or wrongly authorized the use of public resources. Shuttle Discovery on course; TV's not SPACE CENTER, Houston - The shuttle Discovery is on schedule for a ninth and final docking with the Mir space station - but it may have to do so without a TV audience. Difficulties with Discovery's communications system are preventing the crew from sending TV pictures back to Earth. However, the trouble is not affecting communication with Mission Control, nor is it expected to cause problems when the shuttle and Mir meet on Thursday. But unless the problem is fixed, there likely will be no live TV pictures from the shuttle during its 10-day mission. Full story Shuttle launch Web site (NASA) More Science and astronomy coverage Arizonans pay last respects to Goldwater TEMPE, Ariz. - Figures from four decades of American politics were on hand Wednesday to bid farewell to former U.S. Sen. Barry Goldwater. Among the speakers was the man who succeeded Goldwater when he retired in 1987, Sen. John McCain, who honored the conservative icon's record of public service and remembered his heartfelt opinions and colorful language. "In all the history of American politics, he will remain a chapter unto himself. The rest of us will have to make do with footnotes," McCain, R-Ariz., said. Goldwater died last Friday of natural causes at his home in suburban Paradise Valley. He was 89. Full story Bomb scare delays Midwest air traffic OLATHE, Kan. - Air traffic around Kansas City was interrupted Wednesday after authorities found what appeared to be a homemade bomb at a regional air-traffic control center. Authorities removed a cylinder-shaped object shortly after 10 a.m. from a downstairs men's restroom at the Kansas City Air Route Traffic Control Center. A Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman said 175 to 200 flights were rerouted and 80 aircraft were held on the ground briefly at the Kansas City International airport. The object, shaped like a coffee thermos, contained an unknown liquid and had an attached fuse but was not a bomb, said FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza. NYC street vendors protest crackdown NEW YORK - Hundreds of street vendors closed their coffee carts and hot dog stands on Wednesday to protest Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's crackdown on sidewalk businesses. The city plans to close 144 blocks of Manhattan to street vendors in an attempt to bring order to the city's streets. At least 800 vendors gathered in a Manhattan park to protest the latest initiative. The vendors, many of them immigrants, say the latest action will drive them out of business, a claim Giuliani refutes. "Are they going to be out of business? The answer is no. That's an exaggeration," he said. Full story Skull gives clues to human development LOS ANGELES - Researchers may be closer to pinpointing when modern man developed from his primitive ancestor with the recent discovery of a million-year-old skull in East Africa. Preliminary studies show that the skull combines features of the both human ancestor Homo erectus and modern man, Homo sapiens, according to a report Thursday in the journal Nature. The skull bears a large brow ridge that characterizes primitive man; but, like Homo sapiens, it is widest near the ear level, possibly indicating a larger brain. Full story Deadly storms return to East TUNKHANNOCK, Pa. - The search for victims continues Wednesday after another batch of powerful storms hit the East Coast for the second time in a week. The latest round of violent weather hit hardest in northeastern Pennsylvania, where two people were killed and nine injured by an apparent tornado in the small town of Lake Carey. In western Maryland, at least three tornadoes struck Frostburg and nearby areas, damaging 75 to 100 homes. So far, authorities have not confirmed tornado sightings in Virginia and West Virginia. Just days ago, five people were killed as storms swept through Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Vermont late Sunday and early Monday. Full story Crazy Horse monument takes shape CRAZY HORSE, S.D. - A massive unfinished sculpture - taller than the Washington Monument with a head larger than all four faces on Mount Rushmore combined - sits imbedded in South Dakota's Thunderhead Mountain, where 50 years ago Korczak Ziolkowski first began work on a memorial to the great Indian warrior Crazy Horse. But when the grizzled and gray-bearded Ziolkowski died in 1982 at age 74, the world had yet to see anything beyond the 1/34th-scale model at the visitors' center a mile from the mountain. On Wednesday, exactly 50 years after the first blast, Ziolkowski's family will formally unveil the progress so far, a nine-story granite face of Crazy Horse. Full story Call details Hartman shooting aftermath LOS ANGELES - Comedian Phil Hartman's wife, Brynn, confessed to a friend that she killed the comic actor, but he didn't believe the distraught woman until he arrived at the couple's home and found the body, police said Tuesday. The friend, Ron Douglas, then reported the shooting to a 911 dispatcher, tapes released Tuesday reveal. While Douglas made the call, Mrs. Hartman locked herself in the bedroom where Hartman's body lay. Douglas had the gun used to kill Hartman and gave it to police, but Mrs. Hartman shot herself once in the head with a second gun as officers and Douglas carried the Hartman children from the house, police said. Full story Text of 911 call Go to Washington news Go to World news Go to News front page Go to USA TODAY front page Copyright 1998 USA TODAY. All rights reserved. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Front page, News, Sports, Money, Life, Weather, Marketplace �COPYRIGHT 1998 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. - 14:02:44 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

OH NOW WE GET THE DAILY FUCKING NEWS! LIKE I WANT TO HEAR ABOUT ALL THE SHIT THAT GOES ON IN THE WORLD TODAY!!!!! - 14:04:03 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT...thanks for posting the Jack T. Shit cartoons. I have never seen one in the original (maybe our border guards have some sense once in awhile), but I have never seen anything so depressing in my life (except what is happening on this page today). His mantra must be "MAY YOU ALL HAVE A TERRIBLE LIFE SO THAT YOU CAN GO TO HEAVEN". He should be comitted along with the other LUNEatic here today. - 14:19:52 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: Yeah, I guess the lunatic spammers are too stupid to use the "URL" box in the lower right corner. Or either that, they think it's linked to some Jewish conspiracy because they're so paranoid. - 14:23:51 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY::::Some of the things a mind can contrive- it never ceases to amaze me, - 14:41:40 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Is it safe now? Before I was rudely interrupted by looney boy, I suggested checking out a "Jack Chick" tract parody page. It's so funny, that I was inspired to do a parody. Check it out. I guess I need to get on the bandwagon now and post my own personal manifesto. (NOT) - 14:42:11 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: BTW, if you missed it earlier, here's looney boy's webpage. I suggest looking at it, because it's more paranoid than you think. I also suggest spamming him. - 14:44:40 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:JOETTE.. I can and am as curious as you. I and you cling to positions and consequently arguments arise amongst our consciousness. Is your subjective idealism in composition with reality? You are feeling easy on the outside, but not so funny on the inside, and you keep looking over my shoulder. - 15:06:40 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY1: What and how one's mind thinks, works and then places that into the confines of the written word, well, its like when as a youngster I used to grow fearful peering into rain puddles "thinking" that if I stepped into it, I'd fall into the sky I saw in that puddle. You kno', our childhood other world. Is that not about what we see of the 'Jack Chick' site? - 15:27:06 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL... You seem to like to grade other people's creative writing skills. Are there not oral teachings without archaeological evidence? Have some adopted a completely defeatist attitude with regard to archaeological evidence for the religious activities of non-literate communities? - 15:39:50 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL... Are you constantly amazed at what your own mind can contrive? You and I are boned like a saint with the consciousness of a snake. - 15:44:14 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...a beautiful loser..:-->LITH..your posts remind me of writings by Leonard Cohen after a bad LSD experience. - 15:56:10 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: your post is too littered with negativity to simply accept as conveying what you mean to posit. Do you mean to first obfuscate matters, or just your point of view, in order to communicate or do you want to communicate at all? Perhaps you just mean to bluster and beat your chest? - 15:58:10 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:JOETTE... You are so routine, but in a cutting sly way. Are you mingling around the water hole with the rest of the stringent jackels? May I ask what is your stringent position on religion, in general. I certainly do not want make the horses eyes bleed and not see death. - 16:01:54 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->I began reading "The Mad Revisionist's" manifesto, and right from the get go, it is simply not worth reading, unless it has been posted merely for entertainment purposes. For one thing, there is a statement in the "O.J. Simpson" chronicle where Marcia Clark is mentioned "and we all know what her ancestry is". Well, I don't know what her ancestry is, and what would that have to do with her prosecuting skills. Maybe it's just a game of persecute the prosecutor? - 16:02:57 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..you can lead a horse to water..:-->LITH..if I am cutting and sly, at least don't insult me by telling me I'm routine! At least give me credit for being a bitch. - 16:05:34 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->PHUT...since when do members of the NBA speak for players of the MBL? If anyone were to take your post seriously, they would see that you are putting pseudo-facts together just to make them fit your opinions. Sounds almost like bible thumping. Will you be back to answer my simple questions? - 16:08:56 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: "Constantly?" and your snake thing, what inanity do you mean to say? - 16:13:19 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. A man's mind may be obfuscated by liquor and your chest may be as red as mine. I think Joette likes the glory of whipping horses. Am I not communicating in what ever desired way? Tommorrow still turns into yesterday without confused humans obscuring reality. Why do the negative overtones appear so banal to you? - 16:14:06 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: You know, I have a book called "Very Bad Poetry", edited by Kathryn and Ross Petras. - 16:15:48 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Here's one of my favorite poems from "Very Bad Poetry": from "THE HUMAN TRAGEDY".... "And do they wear that lubricating lie,/ That fleshless falsehood! Palpitating maids/ Puff themselves out with hollow buxomness,/ To lead some breathless gaby at their heels/ A scentless paper chase!" by Alfred Austin (1835-1913) ________ So does this very bad poem remind everybody of someone we know... namely "LITH"? - 16:19:29 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. No, CARL the snake thing is not mine! Ask your Taoist friend about the confusion of words!!!There ain't no angels in the sky and you may begin to understand. Not that I myself hold any special knowledege (which might be routinely asked by some). Snake on the grass is so zoologically classifying as our we. - 16:20:39 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Y-It.. As a Taoist, you should know that life is more than one's poetry or prose however disgustingly negative it might appear. I am sure you settle for lies as easily as anyone else here. - 16:29:53 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: your reference it has to be considered pre-EE Cummings. For awhile now, I thot LITH was under the influence of that writer. - 16:31:09 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:LITH: I'm sure you settle for lies like everyone else also. - 16:35:46 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Moon person.. You may lack calendrical skill, but for others it is by the moon that they measure their months and also their "ages". - 16:36:12 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL... I may be influenced by the written word of others in a less or more degree as you. But what of oral teachings and their influences and their disclosure? Or are you still in cloister of pinpointing negativity and wanting the archaeological evidence of oral teaching of others? - 16:44:33 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

y-it:carl: i think you spelled "e.e. cummings" wrong. it has to be in all lowercase. after all, he started that all too hip, postmodern write everything in lowercase craze thats big with nihilists, narcissists, and the jaded. ;) maybe these people are just too lazy to reach for the shift key every once and a while (lol) but what do i care? im a taoist, and im not supposed to be concerned with words and semantics, even if its just a hobby. :) - 16:49:24 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Oral teaching and learning by heart of mnemonic verse is a part of the ancient tradition of nonliterate societies. They strike more than the keyboard of lower class letters and the beating of negative chests. - 16:56:33 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:LITH: Ah, now here's a topic I could be interested in. Oral teachings have some advantages that are lost in the written word. This includes tone of voice, body gestures, and accents. The written word is also too rigid to keep up with the changes in time. As for oral teachings, these can be changed to fit the context of the time period. This is the main reason why the Buybull inevidibly fails modern times, because things were much different in the past and in a different culture. - 16:56:46 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Y-It.. I knew you would fine oral teachings engaging; you are at advantageous point, while others here find it too negitively binding on logic. A body of knowledge can be preserved in oral tradition(and mainly in verse form for mnemonic reasons) and continuity achieved by explicit instruction. There are practices that confuse as surely Carl can attest. Things can be orally transmitted for "years" and some are said to be committed to memory in large amounts of poetry. - 17:14:02 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:A sanctuary is a lonely forest clearing. Later Taoist, I know you are not lost in words. - 17:16:17 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: If oral stuff is foreplay I'm all for it. If it is a learning mechanism then you must be a tribal kinda'individual. You kno', as one who likes opera sounds, poetry readings, stage stuff, its okay. Or, even the preacher types who portray a human element for their myths and superstitions. Do you have any paradigms, or are you just an attention getter? - 17:16:39 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:Y-IT<<>>pardon the ignorance, but what the heck is Buybull? Dost thou know? - 17:27:09 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

steven:damn, been playing too much UO. hehe - 17:28:07 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve: "Buybull" is just a word to make fun of the Bible, because it sounds the same and kind of implies "Buy your salvation" and "This book is full of bullshit." - 17:35:21 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:Y-IT<<>> DOH! duh, now I feel like a moron, hehe! I like it. - 17:51:42 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve: Yeah, I guess I get into making up homonyms, like "Y-It=Wyatt" and "Buybull=Bible." - 18:00:24 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..."may I feel said he (i'll squeal said she)"...:-->Y-IT...I'm crushed. I happen to be a fan of e.e. cummings. - 18:08:46 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT/CARL...w.r.t. oral teachings...I think they make for lazy study, and if someone is telling you about something, or reading a book or whatever to you, then they are interjecting their own interpretation into the subject. A written piece should be studied, and the reader allowed to make their own intrepretation. Especially in literary matters. There is no way, no how that a person can teach it. - 18:13:45 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: I wasn't making fun of e.e. cummings, per se, but in fun of those people who think it's real hip to write everything in lowercase. I also like some of cummings's work, especially the poems (eg. "the grasshopper") where he almost makes illustrations with the words typed on the page. - 18:24:29 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Ms. Pedantic ;):-->Y-IT..yes, we call that "concrete poetry". - 18:27:51 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-1+::J03++3: ! @l50 liK3 +0 m@K3 fUN 0F +h053 cYB3rG33K5 wH0 @r3 lo0kiN' f0r K3wL W@r3z! - 18:28:12 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: Sure writting has many advantages, like passing ideas from people who are dead to people who are now living, but writing does lack some things. As I mentioned earlier, writing can not express body movements or tone of voice, because oral messages often have to be passed face-to-face. I could be really angry right now, I could be making funny faces, or I could have a sour expression. But you can't know this through writing. Plus, oral teaching help improve our memories, because we're kind of forced to remember things if we have to say them in order to pass them on. Often mnemonic devices are used for this purpose, and poetry evolved from such mnemonic devices. Many things written in the medievil times were poetic, because many people were illiterate and had to use such mnemonic devices. As a good introduction for the arguement of oral vs. written history, I suggest reading Plato's "Phaedrus," where it is argued that writing is a system of recollection that reduces our abilities to try to remember things. - 18:39:46 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (Getting oral):Joette: Also I suggest reading "Technopoly" by Neil Postman. I'm not against writing, after all I have accumulated a library of some 400-500 books at home. About three of these books are about writing systems through the ages, which I find fascinating, because I like to study symbols. It's just that I recognize that everything has positive characteristics and negative characteristics, depending on its context and interactions with other things in the Universe. After all, I'm a Taoist. - 18:50:02 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...thanking you for the oral pleasure..:-->Y-IT..I have read everything attempted to Plato, thank you, but I will consider the other book you mentioned. And I agree, something written does not always convey the voice inflections necessary to pass on a thorough message (anyone who has e-mailed knows this) but that is the beauty of using one's imagination. Take for instance a screenplay/vs book...I HATED Jack Nicholson's interpretation of Randall P. McMurphy in OFOTCN. So, INMMHO it is that which is better to leave to one's imagination. We don't necessarily learn by listening. Learning comes best from a combination of all the sights. - 19:19:34 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->whoops! That should be "attributed to Plato" not "attempted to Plato" (shouldn't be listening to a ballgame when I write I guess) - 19:20:55 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: w.r.t. lazy study...what about those books on tape or whatever else it is? Perhaps the product is contemporary and all, but that medium that contrivance, it seems way too mechanical. - 19:22:17 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->man I blew it...learning comes best from a combination of all the SENSES. duh - 19:22:30 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..funny you should mention those books on tape..I was speaking about them with a friend the other day. I think they are good for people that have trouble reading. At least they are able to experience a story and such. But for those of us capable of sitting and reading, and understanding what is being written, I like the good old fashioned way to learn. - 19:24:32 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (going past foreplay):Joette: Speaking about screenplay vs. book, I think the best example is Shakespeare. We are forced to read Shakespeare in English class and become very bored. The reason why we're bored is because it originally was for the stage. Seeing a Shakespeare play is great (if you can get past those "thee"s, "thou"s, and "thy"s). Also, notice that a movie based upon a work of fiction always sucks? That's because the fiction was meant to be written. On the screen, we don't get inside the character's heads. In one of Neil Postman's books (I'm not sure if it was "Technopoly") he say's that writing is very internal, closed in, and abstract, where oral language is more external, open, and concrete. - 19:27:21 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:---> oops! I meant oral language is more external, out in the open, and concrete. When I say "open" I don't mean "more open to interpretation", because this characteristic is more common to writing. - 19:33:54 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..he's no cummings...:-->Y-It...never could understand how Shakespeare was boring...maybe because I grew up close to one of the world's best Shakesperean theatres, and so always had the opportunity of seeing the plays being acted by real actors. - 19:45:59 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: good point w/shakespear, I got my offspring to read some of the more tales/plays by having them read the roles and add some zest to the lines as they read them. Since then, as they got older and understood 'how' to read, they have read again some of his stuff. - 19:46:00 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl & Joette: Sorry about diving out this conversation, but I've gotta go. Write to ya tomarrow. - 19:55:19 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Arnold:"Read a book and lose yourself in anothers' though, He might tell you 'bout what is or even what is not, And if he's kind and gentle too and he loves the world a lot, His twilight words may melt the slush of what you haven't got." (The Incredible String Band) - 21:01:29 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->LITH..have you left us for good? - 22:24:58 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: LITH was a fun toy, hope he/she returns. - 22:42:46 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...me too. Talk to you on the morrow. - 23:00:04 on 4 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:Guy at work says his friend showed him how to dowse for water. Says he was skeptical at first when his friend dowsed out the water pipe, even though he knew that's pretty much where the pipe had to be. But he became a believer after trying it himself at friend's direction. He wandered off and detected something else in another area. Knowing the water pipe could not be there, says he, they soon surmised that he had found the gas pipe. I told him I had read of tests where dowsers where unable to find buried drums of water with any higher accuracy than non-dowsers using guesswork. No, says he. It works and he can prove it. Says he will bring a dowsing rod and show me. Says there is no question that it works. I say how will we know if we have really found water? He says the rod will tell us. Remind you of anything? - 3:47:29 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:GRANT... I am unfamliar with dowsing and all. Other people also dowse for gold and other metals, I think too. - 4:04:27 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:JOETTE... I must remember to watch the Belmont Stakes, but I will probably forget. I hope Real Quiet wins, but my gut feeling is that a longshot will win the race. The Belmont is a really long race - 4:07:25 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:rOB-- I was wondering if you had bailed out. They come and they go... - 4:09:20 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:This LITH person seems to have a mystical tribal attribute going on in his head. He/she seems to argue in asinine flippancy, but I do like his flippant prose or whatever you may call it. - 4:13:30 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:GRANT... Who comes and goes? --->The dowsers looking for water, gold etc. I have been busy, but like Spinoza I am not much of a herd mammal. - 4:21:56 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:rOB-- Best be careful. Lips will be all over you too. - 4:28:55 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:GRANT.... Each to his own, I say. If the Lith person believes in some sort of mystic existence, that is He/She right. I am for relgious tolerance. - 4:36:55 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:rOB-- I'd guess that LITH is atheist. I too am for religious tolerance, but don't think mystics generally come to atheist sites to practice it. Gotta go... - 4:46:28 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:GRANT.. I don't know what the LITH is, but I am not one for labeling people in a restrictive way. I guess what is essential is the difference in Nature between abstract concepts and common notions. In a sense, abstraction presupposes fiction, since it consists in explaining things by means of images(and in substituting , for the internal nature of bodies, the effect of those bodies on our own. - 5:00:19 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Mysticism, though encountered in all religions, is not encountered in all religions at all times; it is a historical phenomenon which belongs to a particular stage in the development of relgion. I think the LITH holds his/her oral teachings sacred, because they might be 'somewhat different' from the written form. - 5:07:44 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:To dowse for and encounter the willing herds of sheep is inexplicable as is the golden sickle. A practice may purvey the meat for an army of colloquialness. It was never in the plan. - 13:49:53 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: I just heard on the news that the "School Prayer" Admendment was turned down by the House of Representatives here in the States. I assume that this was the media's buzz-word for the Religious "Freedom" Admendment, which was a pretty scarry proposal. After all, when wasn't it free to practice religion in the States? What do you think those kids who got massacred in Kentucky were doing? They were in a prayer group! (Hello!) What the heck do you think the 1st Admendment is about? To see more info. about this admendment, follow this link to an anti-RFA site. - 13:53:47 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:JOETTE.. No, I do not leave but make a meld. - 13:54:13 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: That 'school prayer' was\is loaded with odious consequences. As I have mentioned I am reading a book about the inquisition as it formed in western Europe. So far it appears that both church and state as then they were peopled, both groups held to common goals, the people of both interests meant to have only "their" way. This was back to the very beginning of xtianity when it was struggling to separate itself from but retain the monotheistic aspect of judaism. So far, the frightful aspect of how these two groups of people proceeded by word, back then, embodied then the same spirit of word as that of todays school prayer thing. They both, statesmen and church types, waved and cried for tolerence all the while being intolerant themselves. scary! - 14:47:45 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL...I will try not to venture to negatively to suit your way. Oral teachings that lack archaeological associations might be not smell sweet to the the sword by your side. Their is tolerance of the branch kind which is not of state and church association. - 15:04:48 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:h2o?: once when I was kneehigh to a grasshopper, we were about to put in a well, it began with a fellow- water witcher, walking about with a forked stick. He proceeded about until he declared a likely site where the drillers went to work. Water was there alright, but just across the road was a hand dug well about 15' deep. So how far off could the witch be? Anyway, before the witch left, me and my bro asked him how he did it, he handed us his forked stick and asked if we felt anything. My bro said yea I tried it and as I recall it sure seemed like I felt the stick pulling downward. We continued to play with that stick walkin'all over, until we lost the stick. I am sure it was nothing mystical and there is a scientific explanation, but water-witches, just another description for the words i don't kno'. - 15:05:55 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL...You choose to steal what others have choosen to show, but are you graduating in one more term. This graduation might reach up the front to the back of your skull, and it might be a sign that you are dead. - 15:08:53 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. You are sure of the witch of scientific explanation which is fine in its useful applications as a mechinanism. The grasshopper is so unlike you, it fears no type of witch indoctrination. The sword by your side keeps killing friends and enemies. - 15:18:20 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:NOW getting right down to business...Have any of you watched the _Learning Channel_ lately? I was watching for the last few nights. Eric von Danikein (sp)(author of such books as _Chariots of the Gods_) had two specials on proposing his theory that aliens had visited and communicated with peoples of the past. While it is quite possible, IMO, that beings from other worlds exsist and may have developed space travel, there is no evidence that they have visited the Earth. He uses the yet unexplained as proof of his theory. If less than skeptical people were watching these specials, do they think this evidence he presented is "scientific fact" rather than mere speculation? I'm sure that there aren't any parental lock-outs on the Learning Channel, how about all these kids watching? The flip side of the coin I suppose would be that this may start the kids thinking when confliciting evidence is presented BUT just where do they hear or see this conflicting evidence? - 15:20:24 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. You too have a magical staff for evidence, but it might be my joy that no complete evidence will be found for my oral teachings. No, I make no grand posture here, but my sword is graduating. - 15:24:21 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..where DO they come from?:MASTER LITH- Do you have ANYTHING to contribute to this discussion? - 15:25:50 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Marlene: No, I haven't watched the Learning Channel lately, because I don't have a cable. When I was living with a roommate a few years ago, we had cable, and one of my favorite shows on that channel was "The Secret Life of Machines"... it was really interesting, I wonder if they still show it. Anyway, I wonder if these kids aren't presented with any conflicting evidence, then are they going to turn out to be like "Moonboy", who spams this discussion every once and a while about the moon not existing. Some of his other wacky theories include Winnipeg, Canada not existing, BOTH World Wars not existing, and the American Civil War not existing. - 15:31:28 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..so what good does it do?:CARL- "the prayer" is no longer legal to force on people here either but what many school divisions have encountered are "xtian parent's groups" sending out petitions to all parents trying to have the prayer put back into daily classes. Some have succeeded! In this division, the students who do not want to participate have to leave the room. Why should they have to leave the room? - 15:32:24 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Marlene: Oh yeah, I guess you've been gone for the past few days. LITH is someone who just came in, and LITH stands for "Lips in the Hills". Anyway, LITH is infamous for leaving convulted but terse phrases with verbose words. Just something to ponder on, I guess - 15:33:48 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:MARLENE... I am not a master of anything. Are you going to banish me, because I did not contribute anything. I asked Carl a question about archaelogical evidence for oral teachings. Maybe, an "I don't know" would be more refreshing than someone's chess set. - 15:34:14 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene... into the twilight zone:Y-IT- I travel into the non-exsistence of Winnipeg almost bi-weekly. They may have a point. One day your car can be parked on the street and the next it has disappeared into thin air. Not only do you no longer have a car, it will cost you $500 for it's "vanishing". - 15:36:19 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It... on the twilight:Marlene: Very funny. I've been to New York City a couple of times, and almost the same thing happens to your car there. Except sometimes it's replaced with a completely stripped car frame. It must be some kind of conspiracy. - 15:38:31 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Y-IT- Nope! I haven't been gone. I've been reading everything, just not adding other than my pain on the plain post. - 15:39:58 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: So I'm a "thief, witch, grasshopper and mgician?" While we are all multi-dimensional creatures those references I never figured to be, but since you apparently know of such things, what can i say but that such things are unknown to me. - 15:42:02 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..here's something to ponder:LITH- Banishment only can be done if the banishee is willing. - 15:42:54 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It...(eyes in the sky):Marlene: Oh yeah, the "ass in the grass!" - 15:43:22 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. I did not say that you were "really any of those creatures. I did not mean to offend, but the confusion of words is something that should be appreciated as Y-it can tell you. - 15:46:15 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: what usually happens here, that MARLENE may be implying, is when participants have nothing to say they end up by finally having nothing to say, but what they have said several times over. Even those types get tired of saying the same things. may be that is all MARLENE was pointing out, indirectly. - 15:47:45 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:MARLENE.. How true my "corn starched friend"! But the forked-tounge wields and displays many implications. - 15:49:23 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.... I agree on repitive aspects in that regard, but redundancy is necessary in oral teachings. - 15:52:15 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (<noun> in the <place>):LITH: Yep, I love word games. How 'bout some mad-libs! "You are sure of the <noun> of <adjective> explanation which is fine in its <adjective> <plural noun> as a mechinanism. The <noun> is so unlike <pronoun>, it <verb> no type of <adjective> indoctrination. The sword by your side keeps killing friends and <plural noun>." - 15:52:27 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:--->Ooops! that pronoun should be objective. - 15:56:14 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Y-It.. As a Taoist, I know of you're love for semantics, but is it that the way to the loving search. I am just winging it here with the keyboard. What do you think the sword by your side can symbolize? - 15:58:59 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Speaking of word games and random phrases, check out this "Random Goth Quote Generator!!" - 15:59:15 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: "Redundancy" as in preachments, dogmas, aprioris, myths, superstitions what do you mean; or how do you mean that idea- redundancy, if it is if it can have a value to anybody? How does such add to wealth of humanity? - 15:59:45 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (swashbuckling my way thru):LITH: The sword by your side could symbolize an ideology or moral that you live by. Because you can use it to cut down the ideas that do not live up to it with "evidence". Perhaps the sword is the "evidence" for your particular ideology. Then again, it could just be an ordinary sword. - 16:02:50 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL... I could mean it as a redundancy as in those terms you are trying to poke your scientific staff through my entrails. It may have a certain personal value to one, but is it really a question of adding " a gloss" to a person. What do you think adds to the wealth of humanity? - 16:05:57 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Y-It ... The first part of your answer is a "no", but the evidence part is right on the bloody toothed mak place. I know you are beyond "the evidence" being a Taoist and such, which as I earlier said very is advantageuos for you in your development. You are not binded by the words as most our here. It is fine but also a constant unsheathed sword. - 16:13:37 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Y-It.. I know you looked beyond the "very is" confusion even though it was unintentional. - 16:16:54 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:LITH: Nothing outside whatever is human can add to the wealth of humanity. - 16:17:38 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:The truth is a circle with its center everywhere, and its circumference is nowhere. - 16:23:16 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: Of the LITH pseudonym, seem that individual has a dominant fear of knowing and perhaps prefers the unknown. In the unknown- for "him", resides things that can be anything "he" wants to say of it. That is how the image of LITH begins to form. I like these pseudonyms that portray themselves without gender distinctions probably because they like (mysterious stuff). - 16:26:30 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:LITH.. How quaint and ever so binding to all sense and nonsense! You have crushed the grasshopper again in your hand. The grasshopper is jumping along the human skull and skeleton set in the hill-fort wall. The stone pillar is "constantly" being re-used as a threshold and beyond stone with carved head flanked by skull-niches. Many jackal heads are placed "constantly" - 16:30:23 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: Yep, it seems like LITH is into the vague, amorphous, and intuitional. Very "yin", to drop a Taoist phrase. And speaking of Taoism, LITH seems to be almost obsessed on the idea that I'm a Taoist. Anyway, the intangible and mysterious is always the source or "ground point" for creation because it's so open to change and interpretation. - 16:32:49 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: I guess the reason why LITH is obsessed with the Taoism thing is because Taoists typically encourage "yin" characteristics of mysteriousness, vagueness, and flexiblity. Especially when the society is excessively "yang", or rigid, strict, obvious, and sometimes violent. - 16:37:18 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL... I do not need a name , but keeping probing me with your reason. I frankly do not care of anything and yet nothing. It is not a question of liking or disliking ; it may be again be amusing to me to see you fear the lack of archaelogical evidence for certain oral teachings. You have distinguish yourself because the unknown frightens you as it does me, but I may be dead already in circular arguements, my dear logical friend. - 16:38:13 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Well, I have to go brunch my shuttlecocks. - 16:40:31 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Y-It.. Yes, Taoist I am into vague words of ambiguity. But please a spoksman has no tongue to bite off anymore, it is the lecherous of invisibility that sees the confusion. - 16:42:17 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Y-It, Interpret me as you like, but would you like to cut your tongue out and see the forest clearing. I may interpret silence as consent. - 16:49:13 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. I am done today being your amusement, and I see the future is your mind. Your mind is unattached to the skull in the forest sanctuary. - 16:53:04 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->LITH..I must be thick. Exactly what does your post to Y-IT mean? (the one about cutting your tongue out). - 16:55:22 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: The LITH is getting to be a bore for me, he is quickly becoming just another toad in this sandbox. - 17:08:32 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..maybe he comes from the depths of the shooms:JOETTE- I think it's something akin to the fern-sniffing thing about "the sound of a tree falling in the forest" or some other nonsensical crapola. LITH- Actually I don't #$%^&* care how you interpret my silence. IMO, I may as well be communicating with the dead as try to communicate on your self-elevated level. - 17:26:55 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..stiff, I'm sure..:CARL- But even the toad in the sandbox seems to have a purpose, ole lith even lacks that! - 17:29:39 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LAMD---:--Ah yes, I like that... I like that a lot...do you blame me?... hey, I'm only human! - 17:35:52 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>I agree the LITH person gives me a headache! - 17:36:45 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (I'm back and bigger than a breadbox):Yeah, LITH does seem a little narcisstic. (sp?) It's one thing to speak in riddles, but it gets to be annoying when that person critisizes everybody with no clear purpose. - 17:49:49 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene...007 complex methinks:LAMD???? Now just what does that stanf for???? Why are there so many people so paranoid about using their damn name? Like really, what's going to happen to them if they do??? - 17:59:30 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:STEVEN- I think the name "lips in the hills" would be enough to cause a migrane! Really, does it make sense, unless of course it may be referring to Dolly Parton's kinfolk. - 18:05:04 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (Now really, Money Penny):Marlene: I was trying to figure that out myself. Maybe it stands for "Lips Above the Moon's Darkness," or it could just mean "Lard-Ass Medievil Dork" :) I think people are getting more paranoid here. - 18:06:50 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>bahahahahahaha! - 18:20:42 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (Let's go to Dollywood!):Marlene: On "Lips in the Hills" being Dolly Parton's kinfolk, I finally get it! Ha!Ha!Ha! That's a good one! It could also be "Lips on the Hills"! - 18:26:51 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..pin the tail on the donkey time:Y-IT- OR....Nose in the Valley..NITV OR...I'm still awaiting an answer on LAMD. Of course we could always guess. LA medical doctor....or.. - 18:40:16 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: If one picks one of the sites on the "Atheist Chat Rooms and Message Boards" they therein seem all a-titter about the prayer thing. When was it that the last such religious thing was before the USA's legislative body? While it has not been approved this time, vigilance and clear but rigorous thinking must remain in place. Otherwise, who knows what could become of things, another era o'dark ages, that is a difficult scenario to imagine, but I've spoken and listened to some real stupid jc types and similar such. - 18:44:52 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: Didn't Reagan try to push something with school prayer? I don't know if it was ever proposed to Congress or not. Besides, what's strange about the RF Admendment that was turned down, is that the RFA advocates claim that kids can't pray in school, which is kind of bunk. After all, there's the whole thing about "moment of silence" in the mornings, prayer groups outside of classes, but still on school grounds, and no kid was ever arrested for saying grace before eating lunch. - 19:08:39 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (got the blindfold on):Marlene: Let's see, we got "Little Angel Mixing Drinks", or "Liberal-Anarchist Moving Dangerously", or "Limbs Attached to Mountain Deer"..... - 19:13:57 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: Oh yeah, one more thing about the Religious "Freedom" Admendment is that the word "God" appears in it. This is strictly verboten, since "God", "Jesus", "the Almighty", or "Him" doesn't appear once in the Constitution. - 19:24:12 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

LAMD:--MARLENE--LAMD stands for "Lips Around My ....( You know what) - 19:39:03 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:LAMD: Ah yes! That's a good one. I guess Marlene & I lost the bet on our speculation for that acronym. - 19:43:02 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..pinning the wrong thing on the donkey:LAMD- I agree, that's a good one. Were Y-It and I off on that one! - 20:02:26 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: Well I read through several of the articles at that site and those ol'boys do exactly what the theistic visitors of this site do. They become selectively ignorant. Not one of those prayer types matched what they meant to promote agin'that line goes, "We the people in order to etc.etc" of that line, I don't see it say the people are to serve a god or jc or the vm the holy ghost or the jew god or zeus or anything like that. Wonder what they old boys wanted other than to control and have a slave-like class of people to serve and provide those that stand closest to their "god"? - 20:22:05 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:MARLENE<<>>were you off on it? - 20:43:01 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:STEVEN: They say it can happen on the net. - 20:49:00 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->If anyone had as shitty a day as I did, this may bring out some of your frustrations... - 20:52:23 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene...net now:STEVEN-I have a headache! - 20:56:56 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: As the slave thing goes, the RFA types can't really be ignorant of the facts that up until about 700CE, the greco roman judeo-xtian types were always battin'around by law who when why and why not they could and could not "own" the other as a slave. Forget about the dark people they- jews and xtian types, owned each other as slaves, the dark ones were just a later adjustment to their morally elevated state of right and wrong. Who was that guy who used to post, "No god is good." Well that sure appears to be a truism. - 22:03:12 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

James--->Atheist...:I see we are all still having fun...the background on this LITH character doesn't look good, I wonder if he is speaking in tongues? - 23:12:46 on 5 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:JAMES- How come you still call all of us "atheist" instead of "all" or something like that? I think Y-IT is a taoist or something similiar (kind of reminds me of Bill). Anyway this LITH guy lives in a language world of his own, for sure! In response to your last post to me...I really don't feel that the xtian morality is always the best morality although they do teach some basic morals that most of us pass on to our offspring. Morality should be acts and rules carried out for the good of humanity therefore in the name of humanity not done in the name of a god or some other supernatural entity that has no relationship to humanity. One doesn't have to have any religious notion to do what is best for his/her/or a bit of both's species. - 1:30:17 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Damn! I always seem to tune in here after you've gone for the weekend! Anyhows that "no god is good" guy was our long lost friend lucifer(with a small "l"). I have no idea where he is. Actually I think I have his homepage bookmarked so I'll see if I can conjure him up. - 1:34:05 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:I can cut my physical tongue and still speak. The usefulness of scientific knowledge is reticulation (as mentioned about the embankment). As for the moon leech that comes to this site, he,as I am sure you know, is lost with blinders of knowledge. I also appreciate the scientific way; a lunar eclipse is schedued with its eclipse contacts, umbral magnitude, geometric conditions, and all such relevant terms. I have as many warts as anyone who posts here. Mine used calendrical skill not as an hologram. Humanity has no elevated stage, but I make a mend with the trees. I have contibuted here, but the question of contribution does not concern me. I distrust the written form, especially with this machine. I do not have a judgemental crucifix zippered across my lips either, if you are wondering, and I am certainly polar from the word "atheism". No fret and worry, though! I do not seek your conversion, as does the binding Christian. If I have vanquished the written form for play, I may not have "need" for other things like the morals of another. OH yes, it is highly subjective. I asked Carl what he thought of oral teachings without archeological evidence, but he thinks I think in boredom. A subjective philospher of the Either/or thought boredom was the root of all evil, but then again evil and good are not real unlike the dendrites of the tree branch. I can be demanded to communicate in a civilized state on any topic, but I surely do not hold all the answers. Also I hide my identity, because I have commited an "uncivil act" in the eyes of the valley society( the skulls should prove upon deductive reasoning). I come here as a toad like you to play the jackal game in the sand machine granule. My intention is not to argue like the Christian or theist who has lost the ontological/whatever argument from the inception. You can play with circular arguments/ and arguements until death, because there is only one winner debating logically and that is logic. There is no shame or lost of reason in that fleeting victory,but it does dwell and knock the dead leaves into constant motion. I may be superstitious, and I have no intention of losing arguements in the written form on this subject (clearing for a new chess match) either, because I see the chasms of Christian debasement. I do not channel or speak in tongues either but only by the tree-side or sleeping on cemetary plots. I know the dogs of Ursa Major are fixed and consequent and have no power at all to shut any operation down. I am sorry for the length but really sorry for the written word. - 7:31:36 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:Lastly, a moralist pig , JAMES, wants to wallow in his own moral shit! - 7:33:51 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->LITH..you may not think that labels are for you, but me thinks it's time you cut to the chase and label yourself. Since you have taken it upon yourself to label me a jackal, I would be most grateful if you explained how one melds with trees and why you would sleep on a cemetary plot. What "religion" is this you are talking about? - 11:34:59 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

Rob:Perhaps LITH is an anagram for I, HLT? Come meet the trees... - 12:25:56 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..et tu ROB?:-->instead of the incessant mocking, I would like to know about LITH's beliefs. It may be one area that I have never explored, and it just may be the thing I have been seeking all my life. - 13:55:56 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene WARNING WARNING:JOETTE- I don't know if you really want to go there. Remember he may lead you to commit uncivil acts! Yikes, what a wild guy! - 20:08:47 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:LITH. Sometimes a slang expressiion is the best way to state something, so I'll make use of one. You're all whacked up. You keep blabbering about how you don't like to communicate and go on and on. You have figuratively cut your tongue out to keep from verbalizing. I suggest you do the same with your fingers so that you won't use your keyboard. Emulate the trees and be silent. Since you haven't said anything worthwhile, you won't be missed. You will then be able to spend your time lying on your favorite gravestone under the shade of a weeping willow. - 21:04:05 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. As perhaps in the formulation of concepts, I respect their uses. What of the Schonfinkel result might I ask? He analyzed the variable but his treatment is less pure than one could wish. If we were to eliminate bound variables,we might then have the elimination of free variables. I see the adequate logic, set theory pushing through mathematics; I have no qualms of this knowledge. I use my pseudonym as a free variable. - 22:27:46 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:CARL.. Archaeologicalts should remember a scientists descripitions of "facts" as particular obsevational data relating to all time. It has to be acknowledged that there is no logical relation between human activity in some of its aspects in some of its aspects and the evidence left for the archaeologist. Into "our" present enquiry about me, we are dealing with the aspect concerned with religion, belief, ritual, priesthood, etc. You are looking for the bliss of free variables, but it is like searching through the fog. - 22:43:22 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:I'll be your surgeon and would like to pick your brains routinely also, but noncompliance is seldom smooth as a woman's skin. I have seen the Christian hate and we were wiped out by the Christians long before anyone was building medieval castles, or so does one "believe". Extinct culture cause confusion among the language. Genocides will occur by humanity and their will be fragments left of the earth. I and whatever type of "Druid" are not the architects of Stonehenge, but we only use it as a logical application. Through archeaological misinterpretation, we are men, woman, and child not high exalted priests with white beards. We may have used Pythagorean mysticism and the golden sickle for both sacrifice and harvest. I am extinct as a human species with zoological classification. The Indo-European newcomers led the bronze age and the new genepool also. The transmission of Indo-Europeans and the genepool is current archaeological theory and later the Christian scribes would forge what they deem in a positive light for preservation. Some scholars say the Germans may be closely related culturally to the Celts as being a subset. This is at least in archaeological terms annoying for German archaeologists. Religious, political, and social functions were performed by the "draoi" (druid). The kings were only quasi-religious figures and it was the priestly casts whom performed the music, prayers, ritual fires of sacrificing animals and the occasioinal war prisoner or criminal. Senoir memebers of the caste of druids held the rites accordingly . Casear and subsequent kings would publish Gaulish sacrifices in which a Druid was required to be present. Tibal culture fragmentation occurred where leaders would use psychology, magic, herbs,and other techniques (weather prediction). Yes, I am a modern day variation "druid" and I like to sleep on cemetary plots to communicate with the dead (among other things). I said I am not indoctrinating anybody here but being a toad like you as well. I hope I answered some of your questions, and I hope I am welcomed back to discuss, which is what this site is used for. We all belong to the cult of free association; I just believe in more things than you that is all. - 23:35:26 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...the wrong magnificent beast won at Belmont..:-->LITH...I am more than a little interested in your beliefs. I sense a hesitation in actually discussing it, lest we jackals feel it is time for a feeding frenzie. If you would be so inclined, I would be like to know more, and if you want, I invite you to e-mail me at jocjopet@golden.net. I won't bite. - 23:52:34 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

sorry! - 23:54:06 on 6 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (Rhiannon, will you ever win?):JOETTE: I'm sorry, I hope I haven't cooked my geas. It was just my aisling sense of humour (fire, not flame). - 0:39:59 on 7 Jun 98 GMT

LITH:JOETTE.. The invitation is acknowledged but the oral teaching associates freely. In calling the exampled algebra a calculus of concepts, I was using the unhappy term "concept" generally to cover truth values, classes, and relations. The values of the free variables, which I shall now render 'X','Y', ETC. say good-bye to you. Individuals figured only in the informal explanations. I see your curiosity at the forest clearing pillar. - 0:43:56 on 7 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->LITH..hmmm, I used to think I was a fairly "bright" person, but I cannot understand your analogies at all. I was hoping to learn more, not from a sterile book or slanted documentary, but from a person who practises a certain faith. Oh well, such is the way of the creatures of the forest I suppose. - 4:08:35 on 7 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:SO, LITH- Just what were you trying to say to Carl? That the Celtic Druids learned by rote? Only with the influence by xtians did they then start writing down their beliefs and rituals. - 14:29:39 on 7 Jun 98 GMT

SKIPPY SKIP/ ROB/rOB/LITH:Yes Marlene, the Fili (poet man) performed the written work. He, therefore got more special treatment than the "Druids". Druidism transcends a geographic boundary, but there is a correspondence point between it and the Druids of Gaul. TO Joette--> We 'sprung forth' has a fight movement against the Romans of Gaul and Britian and to Christianity in Ireland. I am sure you can find more information about Druidism yourself and I would like to keep my privacy for several reasons (I mean that respecfully). You know that I do not like the Roman crowds, but I do like horse racing and movies. I know you can appreciate the 'free variable'. Schonifinkel was faced in the calculus of concepts with a runaway ontology. Maybe a denumerable universe of concepts would suffice, finite for each degree and denumerable over all. GOOD-BYE TO ALL HERE (I did not want to leave distastefully to the lips). Bill left this site because of anti-collectivism;I must do the same. We are all pigeons studing each other through the dendrites of the tree branch. Good-bye respectfully. - 17:16:32 on 7 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...don't go! - 17:35:58 on 7 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:rOB-- I'd like to see you stick around too. There is room. - 17:48:12 on 7 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:YIKES Rob/rob/lith etc. etc., you have ENOUGH names. Why do you believe Bill left the site due to "anti-collectism"? How well do you know Bill? He comes and goes and will likely pop in again anytime soon. So what's with this Druid thing? Has it got a big following? - 0:17:14 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: looks like the enigma-LITH, still spews forth its stuff, does that party seek followers? That horse thing, that was a good race. I get a kick outta'the hoopla and all of the effort by everyone to make that horse race a special event. Is that a waste, is it nonsense? - 15:38:33 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..careful, I want to LITH to comeback. In case you aren't aware, LITH and rOB are one and the same. - 20:01:32 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: that accounts for a thing or two, - 20:07:43 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->jocularity anyone? - 20:52:32 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (that name's getting stigmatic):JOETTE: Not more bloody netwinkers ;) - 21:08:00 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

-->PUGGLES...you be funny, mon! - 21:52:29 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: of the R-O-B pseudonym, the rOB is the late comer and the Rob is the long timer? - 22:04:53 on 8 Jun 98 GMT

Rob Knowles (=slow bonker?):CARL: That'd be right - 6:55:49 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Grant (non short-timer?):ROB--Perhaps only you would have spotted that in Carl's question. :-) - 11:49:14 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Steven (pissed because the Stars lost):gggrrrrr I hate the Detroit pink wings!!!!!! - 13:05:38 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: The Winking Jesus couldn't save my soul, but this page did! - 13:32:06 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: while crusin'about I ran into this site, I did not read it all but what I read struck me as a different point of view. - 15:07:35 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I went to look at that site, and kept getting the page that says "Continue". I tried several times, first being the 7th visitor, then the 4th, then the 6th...have you looked at the next page, and could you possibly put that URL up instead? - 16:01:50 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: I think Carl accidentally put an extra backslash on the URL. Try this. - 16:11:49 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT..most amusing...thanks for the laugh! - 16:12:07 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Y-It got it, - 16:15:26 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-It/CARL..that's okay now. Interesting articles which deserve more scrutiny later on. Gotta go (funeral :( - 16:20:46 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: The only thing I don't like about this explaination of the mythical Jesus is that there are a lot more references to Biblical passages than historical documents. Sure, we can all prove inconsistancies in the Buybull. Also, there is nothing mentioned about the curiousity of the literal translations of some of the names in the New Testament. For example, "Jesus Christ" literally means "Jeshua the Messiah" is Greek. Also, in the original Greek and Jewish New Testaments, Mary is described as a young woman and not a virgin. The whole concept of immaculate conception stems from a bad translation into English. Then, Potius Pilate asked the people, "who should I set free, Jesus or Barabbas?" This is a curious situation for two reasons. One, this was unheard of in the Roman days because Roman colonies were ruled with an iron fist. Two, the name "Barabbas" literally means "Son of God" in Armaic; this is strange because in a sense, Pilate asked the people who should I release, "Jesus (The Son of God) or the Son of God?" - 16:32:12 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY1: Reading some of the articles a xtian religious believer would have to be blind and as vlose to an absolute ignorance as may be possible. It refers to Quelle periods as these writings would fit in time and location. While one can go on being a xtian they would also have to know that they dupe themselves into a continued point of view that their supposed 'scripture' is just manmade, but devine only delusionally so. - 16:50:45 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: When I really began to note the religious belief thing, one of the first 'mysteries' I ran into was that "Q" thing. The point that caught my immediate attention was that the "Q" thing had its developmental phases. That point so said, means to me that, in time and due to certain events the "Q" factors could be made out and related to the world as it was back then. I will see what else may appear. - 17:00:13 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: It's that whole preference of "faith" over "fact". Sure, we need to take some things into faith, especially the existances of places we've never been before. For example, we have to take into faith that people have been to the moon and captured actual photographs, or else we'd wind up like Moonboy and believe that the moon is non-existant. But there is a point where believing in faith goes too far, as in your typical fundie. Also, your typical fundie was probably brainwashed at an early age into believing that facts and logic are tools of Satan. Children are very impressionable. Richard Dawkins came up with a concept that "Religion is a Virus" because it is spread from generation to generation through the brainwashing of religion into young minds. Here is an article written "Mother Jones" that briefly describes this concept. - 17:05:28 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-IT: One of the points I make with the religious concerns faith and belief, these are natural actions of the racing or idling human mind. Either serve as psychological releases so that one does not cringe or go about in a state of continuos fear. But in all cases a person must go forward in order to determine whatever might lay before them. This point of view also arms my words against devine words composed by fear ridden driven cavemen as the wandering jews and the classical greek thinkers. - 17:24:19 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (You Only Live Twice):CARL: "Q" was involved in the development stages yes, but it was "M" that started up the missions. - 18:49:51 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ROB: Oh I didn't mean to deprive such belief any of its escape lanes. I mention that "Q" thing only because it was one of the views some xtian guy ran to for cover when I was asking him a question or two relating to the inconsistencies o'his book. They- religious believers, will all grasp at something when they can't say o'either their godthing or their book o'myths. The religious believer means only to control at whatever, - 19:14:16 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Interesting site! Y-IT- Dawkins' word for that theory is "meme". It's also suspected that the person may be subject to belief in the supernatural by the way of a gene. - 19:30:42 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Marlene: I don't know about superstition being passed through genes. The whole genetic thing is getting blown out of proportion lately, to a point where it is becoming a myth in itself. I'm not kidding when I say this, because some genetic engineers claim that they can predict everything that's going to happen to a person by meerly looking at their genes through a microscope... I mean crystal ball. - 19:38:28 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

James--->Joette...:Please tell me what saddens you about a funeral and why? - 21:32:21 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..a funeral doesn't sadden me. It's the death that saddens me. - 21:56:40 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..do you have Theochat bookmarked? Could you post the URL please? - 22:09:14 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Arnold:In response to the question of genetics playing a role in religious belief, there have been two major studies done of mono-zygotic (identical) twins separated at birth and raised in completely different environments. This is the perfect test for determining what traits are genetic and which ones are purely learned through the environment. The studies found high levels of genetic influence for a wide variety of behaviors. Religious tendencies were found to be about 50% genetic. Of course, this does not mean that religious belief is necessarily good or that it is even a good trait for survival. Our genes have provided us with an appendix that serves no purpose, but usually needs to be removed to keep us from dying and wisdom teeth that also have to be removed. I have found that many atheists don't like the idea of genetics playing a role in religious belief because it would seem to reduce free will. It also introduces some paradoxes when considering religious beliefs. - 23:53:03 on 9 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:ARNOLD- On the contrary, many atheists agree with deterministic traits. It's the theists that spout "free-will". - 1:39:56 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

jaywilson--just passin' through--:MARLENE: Good point there. But will a willful free will freely deter a determined determinist? Howdy ROB whose Bond is as good as his word (have you read all the books and watched all the movies like a good F-lemming?), and GRANT me your pardon for my not having responded to your query, Mr. Polokov--soon, I promise (school's out this week!). - 3:43:03 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Polokov:Not to worry Mr. Wilson. I caught your roamin' nod. - 4:25:25 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Passing through>>>>>:I cannot cope with this never ending Petit Borgois Deviatanism. - 10:55:46 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:PASSING THROUGH- What kind of "deviatanism" were you looking for? - 11:56:28 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Arnold: About that test that shows that genetics have a 50% influence over many traits, I can detect bullshit in that test (Don't panic! I'm not blaming you). First of all, I heard on the news the there's a 50% chance that genetics makes someone intelligent. This is nice, but what about the stupid people? Does this mean that genetics causes a 50% chance of making you stupid? And if so, what if you lack an "intelligence gene"? It means that there's a 50% chance you'll be stupid, and a 50% chance you'll be smart. Wait a minute! Why don't I just flip a fuckin' coin!? You have to be really weary about someone saying "50% chance" of, because most of the times, it doesn't mean shit. The chances are the same as flipping a coin, which is what I'm sure the researchers did when conducting the test. Also, I see the point about athiests not liking the idea of religion, or anything for that matter being determined by genetics. If someone tells you you're going to turn out a certain way because of your genes, kind of brings back ideas of "original sin" and having no control over your fate. For example, some advocates for genetics would argue that you can make an intelligent person by simply cloning Einstein. That's nice, but what people who superficially know genetics don't realize is that genes are POTENTIAL. Just because a rock sits on top of a cliff, doesn't mean it's going to fall on the Roadrunner; Wiley Coyotee has to push it off. If you keep ol' Al in a box after you clone him, believe me, he's going to be dumb as a post by the time he reaches adulthood. After all, I heard many times that humans have the genetic capability to live to be 120-150 years old. But this doesn't mean shit when you get hit by a truck or catch the Black Plague. - 12:20:20 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: had to run yesterday but here is the URL for the kukoos nest site. - 14:25:59 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: of your 16:32:12-09jun98 post on the myth thing, that seems to be a very common oversight taken up by learned folks. They 'run' to the cover of academic discipline. This seems to mean that they impose a restriction on themselves and the thumb rule appears to be "be nice". {Perhaps truth is not nice?} But, they do not ever mention the points you refer to, nor do they mention other things like the late-posting of the petrine text. The catholic encyclopaedia does. I saw it said so, in that same set- in the Berkeley public library. All this seems to say delusion and myth and superstition is preferred by nnety-five percent of the world(?) and the usa. - 15:45:06 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It {Perhaps truth is not nice?}:Carl: "True words may not be pleasant; pleasant words may not be true." -- Chinese Proverb - 15:50:56 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Sorry about this but, the thing I saw concerned the passage in the buybull(see y-it) that told the jc followers to take the gospel to the world. This was not said by jc, some italian fellow was visited by the almighty in a dream to tell Paul this message and Paul, recollected upon hearing this that he'd had the same dream or visit, or "revelation". Neat, huh? - 15:54:44 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY1: The "pterine text" is one of the best known forgery, after all what would the old jews know about the word "church". - 15:59:07 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

rOB (in the playing sand again):Carl... The oral teaching can not be a forgery of any type of writing technology. I am sure a reformatory thought of the word "church" occurs in resignation. Resignation in the face of the follies of mankind is the price of wisdom. And true wisdom wonders whether wisdom is not folly, too. - 18:30:31 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Anti-collectivism is a blurring line; a cold barren place of empty churches. - 18:36:09 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:rOB: So, direct me to that 'sure' path you found that permits you to extend 'allowances' to events now known of but as it is composed in written word. True wisdom, does that include ideas like, to get along go along? a patient submission.... - 18:48:31 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Carl... The poet may use language to change us by radically altering, or at least extending our experience; this no defense of a poetic style. Worss are not constitutive elements of all experience. When speaking of Kant's category of casuality, it is not necessarily a constitutive element of EXPERIENCE. - 18:56:49 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:SORRY , I ment words---the other thing could be a superstition of mispelling. Carl, I know no sure path of allowances of any kind ( when talking of beliefs). - 19:00:34 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Carl.... Dominance and submission are controlling words of the zoological kind (WHICH I know you like ); it is a pendulum of the extinction of species. It is nice to see you at least beginning not to eliminate things so abruptly. Sometimes the calculus of concepts diverges from the ordinary logic of quantification in its aloofness from details of degree. Schonkinkel analyzed the "variable" only in combination with a function theory that is in effect general set theory. - 19:14:26 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:rOB: Zoological types r my likes, you have some wires connected incorectly, some atheist here have contested w/me on that very point as humans go. That is a terrible mistake assumed or presumed for a points of view on the human thing. That view is as wrong as the theist view that prefers the mythological view o'humans. The human as a 'such that' of either pov- myth or animal, well, both are false to facts. General set theory, yea, its' got a austere quality about, don't it? - 19:50:08 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:CARL.. oH BOY, Remember what Y-It said of the confusion of words and I know my verbose analogies are somewhat unpalatable. You are binding in terms etc. The copping and padding become graphic also when turning from math without Schonfinkel's convention of parentheses. Yes, predicate-functor logic does not achieve an elimination by restoration of names or singular terms.. For the purpose of predicate-functor logic is itself theoretical: a deeper understanding of the"variable". There is no thought of forswearing the practical convenience of quantifiction and the convenience of substituting names and complex singular terms for quantified variables. - 20:16:40 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:CARL.. I must go back to work now, see you later in a "variable light". - 20:18:13 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

sounds from the hills----:Anti-collectivism is a blurring juncture indeed; similar to the half-full/half-empty glass of water. Is one "detached" from all, or rather just "apart" of all? One can choose the latter. - 20:24:42 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Puzzled Passerby:rOB and Carl. I'm glad you two know what you're talking about. Personally, I think if you can't express what you want to say in simple English, it's not worth saying. - 21:04:16 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Cyril:Puzzled Passerby. Right on. I'd say it was Greek to me but I am Greek and I don't understand it. - 21:07:04 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...teach me master..:-->rOB..I am happy to see you back on the playground. I would like to ask you some questions w.r.t. your beliefs: when you communicate with the dead, are they people you knew in life? Why must you sleep on a grave to communicate? These are completely serious questions, and I hope that you will reply in the same vein (but so's that I can understand it, okay?) - 21:20:56 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Hillbilly Passman Greek: True it may look insane, may read outlandishly, but the rush is so much fun. - 21:57:51 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..Sherlock Knowles found this site and passed it on to me. It is very interesting but raises a myriad of questions. Given some of the information contained therein, I understand better why you "write" the way you do, at least on this page. However, I am curious about The Groves. Are you a member of a Grove, and do you live in a "celtic community"? I noted from this site that there are no groves anywhere near I live, although the author's site is from a university just a few miles down the road from where I live. - 22:59:46 on 10 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:rOB- I have a question too. Is there a certain dress required to become a member of a grove? - 1:32:44 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE: NO PROOF BEYOND THE EVIDENCE-------- There�s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His existence. Atheists completely discount this truth, while challenging every true Christian to present proof.--------- Since it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the fact itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence in all of God�s creation, the challenge that atheists make to Christians is both a foolish challenge and an impossible task for the Christian.-------- Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence they deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God doe not exist.-------- This deceptive principle has been exemplified time after time in courts of law. For example: A person commits a very heinous crime. All the evidence that proves the person�s guilt is presented in court by the prosecutor. The evidence overwhelmingly proves the person�s guilt.--------- However, the criminal denies he committed the crime, and his lawyers, while seeking to deceptively prove his innocence, do all they can to discount the evidence presented by the prosecutor. And while discounting the evidence, the defense attorneys constantly challenges the prosecutor to prove their client is guilty. -------- What the defense attorneys do is cleverly discount the evidence in the minds of the jurors and shifts focus from the overwhelming evidence to challenging the prosecutor to prove their client�s guilt to the jurors beyond the evidence. This becomes an impossible task and the jurors are deceived into regarding this impossibility as an inability of the prosecutor to prove that the criminal is guilty. Therefore the jury regards the criminal as not guilty. Juries are deceived by this diabolical tactic all the time.-------- The prime debate between true Christians and atheists and other non believers is whether God exists. The evidence that God exists is overwhelming; but atheists discount the evidence while seeking to get Christians to prove His existence beyond the discounted evidence. - 2:50:10 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Arnold:I don't think groves have strict dress codes, but I suspect a woodchuck costume would NOT be inappropriate. - 2:52:40 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- It appears we have animal ancestors, doesn't it? Assuming there is a line to cross where we become no longer animals, you say we have crossed it, (by way of reason I assume) but others say we have not, as we still have too many animal characteristics. Where is the myth or similarity or relationship to myth in this? It's an arbitrary line in an arbitrary spot IMO. Placing reason on a scale of 1 to 10, where is the line? Between 3 and 4? Between 6 and 7? Who decided and by what criteria? I still maintain it's a matter of symantics. Perhaps if you were to explain your reasoning... - 4:06:23 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:rOB-- What degree of collectivism do you favor? A group of individuals who belong to a religious group display a different type or at least degree of collectivism than a society which shares with each member the fruit of all labor. Where is your line? Ought we sacrifice individuality for the sake of the greater good, or do we merely need to be part of something larger than ourselves? - 4:07:55 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:ROBERT T. LEE-- Do you ever hum the "Theme from 'Rocky'" over and over in your head? - 4:54:11 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Joette & Marlene.. The other Rob (Rhiannon ) was right about the breaking of geas and is one step and beyond the written word. Grant-->as being a Druid, I obviously have a degree of collectivism about me (which is unavoidable at times). I would lean towards the "anti" side of the term and become polar too. I think out of all the "atheists" venturing the carious adventure here you are IMO the most patient with religious beliefs. You seem to uphold individual traits, which might be a hopeful collective trait one would use (say in political affairs) in a society........ I'll crow back to this effulgent machine with some necessary emphasis. Goblins of surcease and villians of wise, they pranced your brain through the long, long night. Sir Rastus Bear who'd ever believe, you'd be by a poem redeemed?? - 9:04:24 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Robert T Lee.. Your hollow skull niche reduces the occular tuberculosis along with the "EXPLETIVE"! - 9:07:51 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Bill..:rOB, I'm not totally gone. I hope everyone has been doing OK. I do lurk and post (re 'sounds from the hills') from time to time, as I did yesterday. I just got back into town a couple of days ago from vacationing in Key West. You are correct in saying that I am generally anti-collectivist, but I do identify---to some degree---with a lot of things�.Druid, Pantheist, Buddist, Taoist, to mention a few. I just generally don't want to be labeled. I haven't posted here much lately due to being busy with house remodeling, vacationing, and family stuff. It does take time to write here. Besides I think everyone pretty much knows my beliefs and I don't wish to become repetitive. - 13:12:29 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...I understand what geas are now, but does this mean that you are not allowed to explain your beliefs or to answer questions pertaining to same? - 14:08:54 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Interesting site, I bookmarked it for further review. These folks- the druid sort, I guess now, that they do and contemplate the sensuous aspects and its relevance to and o'humans. As that is a guess I now set it aside to see what that site says of those folks. - 14:30:13 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T LEE--I am glad you are presenting these points, especially when you say: Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence they deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God does not exist." And then you make an analogy of a defence lawyer casting a shres of doubt into the jury's mind to get a not guilty verdict. You rihjtfully rcognize that since the theist is the one making the claim--and the atheist is not--the theist then assumes the burden to prove that a god exists, and that an atheist's role is to then to discredit these attempts to prove. However, you are making a few assumptions here that are leading you to few false conclusion. The things that YOU see as overwhelming evidence have obviously convinced you of a god existing, and you are puzzled that others are either blind to them --or even worse, enjoy being atheists and will refuse to accpet this evidence--regardless of how overwhelming it is. Although there may be some atheists who take this position--it certainly is not a rational one. I embrace the atheistic position simply because I find no evidence whatsoever, let alone it being overwhelming, to support a notion of a God. You obviously see these apparent "evidences" as being proof positive of there being a god--but I am confident I am aware of every one of these alleged proofs, and when they are examined closely, rigorously, objectively and honestly--each one of them is flawed in some regard and will therefore be "trown out of court" If I were in th defence in the "court" you mention--when it is time to reach a verdict--you would have no case at all, no evidence whatsoever for the prosecution's side. Each piece of evidence you would present would be discredited when being exposed to this scrutiny. I also suspect you are attempting to read into an atheists motives as being the direct opposite of a theists--and this is where most theists go wrong when engaging in a theist/atheist debate, and especially in a evolution/creation debate. The theist will believe, regardless of what counter -arguments are made, and regardless of how convincing they are. This is due to him having "faith"--which leaves him locked in this position. The theist must be forced into ignoring and evading reality, reason and one's own mind--just as a means of keepnig his belief alive. However, the theist then assumes the atheist does the same, only the other way--regardless of the evidence that shows there is a God, I will NOT belive. BUT, if an atheist ( or the evolutionist ) takes the side of reason, and rationality, he is committed to "go with the evidence" he is committed to face reality, and integrate it into other existing facts---AND he must therefore believe a God exists, or even accpet creationism, if he is committed to ACCEPTING REALITY AS REALITY--and again, the theist does NOT make that commitment, therefore talink the irrational position, and not even being on the same playing field. Unless, a theist commits himself to observe reality as being something that cannot be evaded, committing himself to reason, the only standard by which "proofs" can be made -( the only means by which a person can recognize reality ) there is no point for a rational person, or evoltionist to even engage in further discussion. Reason doesn't count, so how could anything be proven? This becomes so glaringly obvious when at some point in EVERY such debate--it is ALWAYS the theist that doubts the veracity of logic and suggesting that god is "beyond" logic. At that point to me, they have lost the case, because up to that point, the veracity of logic was pre-supposed in the debate, but the theist feels his case can only be made if he changes the rules at some point in the game--and this to me just says "I can no longer win under these rules we have agreed upon, therefore I would like to change them , so I can, and WILL " - 14:48:13 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: The response begins w/an IMHO, the diff.is in what and how one reads R.LEE musta'chosen, whenever, to read and views w/favor those writings of mythical intent and now, whatever R.LEE writes will lean to his and out of his favors. In his mythical view a godthing made humans- this is his mythical view because in my readings of his point of view(pov), it is based a wide assortment of ancient myths and various supertitious tendencies. All such means- to my pov, is that his view is false to facts. As for humans being animals, that view also is false to facts. - 14:56:23 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT1: The animal pov, this legacy like attribute is very ancient also. Theism attempts to separate the animal from the human thing by its creation myths, also very old. Before then humans must have noted similarities and 'learned' from these similarities by perhaps mimicking the favorable animal traits that allowed them- hearly humans, to succeed. And so it- animal man explanation, formed and continues into today that very ancient 'teaching' is now a lore of a bygone infantilism. - 15:31:54 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:CARL-- I'm with you on the first 7/8 of your post, naturally. Objectivist Nathanial Brandon said faith is the equation of feelings with knowledge, and that a mystic is one who treats his feelings as tools of cognition. One must abandon reason early on to stop here IMO. Now about that last 1/8; which facts, dang you!?! - 15:32:15 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Peter: Don't try to use logic when argueing with RT Lee. After all, he thinks that logic is the tool of Satan! - 15:35:22 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Animal:GRANT2: Hang on, since it appears we are victims, the sum of our reading learning and compositions, so it is that I have a conclusion, humans are not animals. I've chosen to read and seek to understand math and science. I've had to read some outta'sight stuff. And o'course these topics have brought me in touch with a good assortment of writer thinkers. In the on going I've read only things done by humans and not once anything composed by an animal- dog, porpoise, ape, whale, etc. I wonder what their science or math would be like. I'm pretty sure their god would be like them, but what would the geography of a whale be like? What would a theory of relativity be for a bird? and so on. Animals only intention is its survival, within its limited domain. The living thing that they are seeks merely to maintain its occupied area of space for as long as possible against all else. Its only human similarity is that the living thing of it conceptually means to continue. In this regard theists imagine eventually being with their creator the godthing. Animals live reproduce and die. Humans learn. - 16:08:11 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: the animal post was me, what happened I do not know, except that I was thinking'bout stuff. I asked did I just do that it was funny. - 16:12:06 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Grant (Maybe you are not descended from monkeys but I sure am!):CARL-- That WAS funny. I don't think it's as much disagreement as talking on different wavelengths. - 16:23:54 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

HI GRANT........:Petit Borgois cosomopolitanists, that who! - 16:32:46 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: I was reading some messages on a Taoist Web Board today, and one of the topics that came up is how wisdom immediately turns into kitsch when it becomes popular. Then, when this happens, everybody only knows the superficial part of that wisdom, without delving deeply into it. For example, not many know what the heck "yin/yang" really symbolizes, but everybody thinks its a "cool symbol". Also, no one realizes that its real name is the "T'ai Chi," which they incidentally get confused with the martial art "T'ai Chi Chuan." I notice that this is also happening to Wicca and Celtic religions. Any one want to add to this? - 16:35:35 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Question: How low should your APR be? Yahoo! Weather - London F� or C� Weather : Europe : United Kingdom : London Today Fri Sat Sun Mon 8� at 2:45pm GMT Rain Hi 12 Lo 5 Showers Rain Partly Cloudy Partly Cloudy �-10 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35+ Hi 20 Lo 7 Hi 13 Lo 7 Hi 18 Lo 9 Hi 18 Lo 10 More Information Wnd chil: -2� Vis: NA km Wind: 27 km/h Direction: N RH: 100% Dewpt: 8� Yahoo! Resources Weather Maps Weather News Ski Report Yahoo! Travel New City Search Neighboring Cities Enter a new city name: (e.g. 95135 or San Francisco or San Francisco, CA) Bedford UK Southend on Sea UK Bedgebury Forest UK Brize Norton UK Chelmsford UK Sheerness UK Moreton in Marsh UK Back to Home Page - Back to Top of Page Yahoo! Weather and Yahoo! are registered trademarks of Yahoo! Inc. Copyright � 1994-98 Yahoo! All Rights Reserved. Comments?/Questions? - 16:35:50 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

not him again---:"T'ai Chi Chuan." - 16:37:12 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

man is man-made. Live Discussion Page This is the "man is man-made" live discussion page. Here you can post short messages about atheism, religion or anything related, in response to those you see listed below. It is designed to be the closest thing we can get to live talk on the Web. Please try to leave comments relevant to the previous ones. Thanks go to Ralf for writing the script for this page - if you want to chat about other things, or tell the world about your homepage, his web pages are the place to do it, not here! On with the talk... rOB:CARL.. I must go back to work now, see you later in a "variable light". - 20:18:13 on 10 Jun 98 GMT sounds from the hills----:Anti-collectivism is a blurring juncture indeed; similar to the half-full/half-empty glass of water. Is one "detached" from all, or rather just "apart" of all? One can choose the latter. - 20:24:42 on 10 Jun 98 GMT Puzzled Passerby:rOB and Carl. I'm glad you two know what you're talking about. Personally, I think if you can't express what you want to say in simple English, it's not worth saying. - 21:04:16 on 10 Jun 98 GMT Cyril:Puzzled Passerby. Right on. I'd say it was Greek to me but I am Greek and I don't understand it. - 21:07:04 on 10 Jun 98 GMT Joette...teach me master..:--&gtrOB..I am happy to see you back on the playground. I would like to ask you some questions w.r.t. your beliefs: when you communicate with the dead, are they people you knew in life? Why must you sleep on a grave to communicate? These are completely serious questions, and I hope that you will reply in the same vein (but so's that I can understand it, okay?) - 21:20:56 on 10 Jun 98 GMT Carl:Hillbilly Passman Greek: True it may look insane, may read outlandishly, but the rush is so much fun. - 21:57:51 on 10 Jun 98 GMT Joette:--&gtrOB..Sherlock Knowles found this site and passed it on to me. It is very interesting but raises a myriad of questions. Given some of the information contained therein, I understand better why you "write" the way you do, at least on this page. However, I am curious about The Groves. Are you a member of a Grove, and do you live in a "celtic community"? I noted from this site that there are no groves anywhere near I live, although the author's site is from a university just a few miles down the road from where I live. - 22:59:46 on 10 Jun 98 GMT Marlene:rOB- I have a question too. Is there a certain dress required to become a member of a grove? - 1:32:44 on 11 Jun 98 GMT ROBERT T. LEE: NO PROOF BEYOND THE EVIDENCE-------- There�s no greater argument for the existence of God than the truth of His existence. Atheists completely discount this truth, while challenging every true Christian to present proof.--------- Since it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the fact itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence in all of God�s creation, the challenge that atheists make to Christians is both a foolish challenge and an impossible task for the Christian.-------- Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence they deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God doe not exist.-------- This deceptive principle has been exemplified time after time in courts of law. For example: A person commits a very heinous crime. All the evidence that proves the person�s guilt is presented in court by the prosecutor. The evidence overwhelmingly proves the person�s guilt.--------- However, the criminal denies he committed the crime, and his lawyers, while seeking to deceptively prove his innocence, do all they can to discount the evidence presented by the prosecutor. And while discounting the evidence, the defense attorneys constantly challenges the prosecutor to prove their client is guilty. -------- What the defense attorneys do is cleverly discount the evidence in the minds of the jurors and shifts focus from the overwhelming evidence to challenging the prosecutor to prove their client�s guilt to the jurors beyond the evidence. This becomes an impossible task and the jurors are deceived into regarding this impossibility as an inability of the prosecutor to prove that the criminal is guilty. Therefore the jury regards the criminal as not guilty. Juries are deceived by this diabolical tactic all the time.-------- The prime debate between true Christians and atheists and other non believers is whether God exists. The evidence that God exists is overwhelming; but atheists discount the evidence while seeking to get Christians to prove His existence beyond the discounted evidence. - 2:50:10 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Arnold:I don't think groves have strict dress codes, but I suspect a woodchuck costume would NOT be inappropriate. - 2:52:40 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Grant:CARL-- It appears we have animal ancestors, doesn't it? Assuming there is a line to cross where we become no longer animals, you say we have crossed it, (by way of reason I assume) but others say we have not, as we still have too many animal characteristics. Where is the myth or similarity or relationship to myth in this? It's an arbitrary line in an arbitrary spot IMO. Placing reason on a scale of 1 to 10, where is the line? Between 3 and 4? Between 6 and 7? Who decided and by what criteria? I still maintain it's a matter of symantics. Perhaps if you were to explain your reasoning... - 4:06:23 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Grant:rOB-- What degree of collectivism do you favor? A group of individuals who belong to a religious group display a different type or at least degree of collectivism than a society which shares with each member the fruit of all labor. Where is your line? Ought we sacrifice individuality for the sake of the greater good, or do we merely need to be part of something larger than ourselves? - 4:07:55 on 11 Jun 98 GMT PETER:ROBERT T. LEE-- Do you ever hum the "Theme from 'Rocky'" over and over in your head? - 4:54:11 on 11 Jun 98 GMT rOB:Joette & Marlene.. The other Rob (Rhiannon ) was right about the breaking of geas and is one step and beyond the written word. Grant--&gtas being a Druid, I obviously have a degree of collectivism about me (which is unavoidable at times). I would lean towards the "anti" side of the term and become polar too. I think out of all the "atheists" venturing the carious adventure here you are IMO the most patient with religious beliefs. You seem to uphold individual traits, which might be a hopeful collective trait one would use (say in political affairs) in a society........ I'll crow back to this effulgent machine with some necessary emphasis. Goblins of surcease and villians of wise, they pranced your brain through the long, long night. Sir Rastus Bear who'd ever believe, you'd be by a poem redeemed?? - 9:04:24 on 11 Jun 98 GMT rOB:Robert T Lee.. Your hollow skull niche reduces the occular tuberculosis along with the "EXPLETIVE"! - 9:07:51 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Bill..:rOB, I'm not totally gone. I hope everyone has been doing OK. I do lurk and post (re 'sounds from the hills') from time to time, as I did yesterday. I just got back into town a couple of days ago from vacationing in Key West. You are correct in saying that I am generally anti-collectivist, but I do identify---to some degree---with a lot of things�.Druid, Pantheist, Buddist, Taoist, to mention a few. I just generally don't want to be labeled. I haven't posted here much lately due to being busy with house remodeling, vacationing, and family stuff. It does take time to write here. Besides I think everyone pretty much knows my beliefs and I don't wish to become repetitive. - 13:12:29 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Joette:--&gtrOB...I understand what geas are now, but does this mean that you are not allowed to explain your beliefs or to answer questions pertaining to same? - 14:08:54 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Carl:JOETTE: Interesting site, I bookmarked it for further review. These folks- the druid sort, I guess now, that they do and contemplate the sensuous aspects and its relevance to and o'humans. As that is a guess I now set it aside to see what that site says of those folks. - 14:30:13 on 11 Jun 98 GMT PETER:--ROBERT T LEE--I am glad you are presenting these points, especially when you say: Since atheists recognize that it is impossible to prove the existence of God beyond the truth itself and beyond the overwhelming evidence they deliberately discount, they blindly and deceptively regard such impossibility as real proof that God does not exist." And then you make an analogy of a defence lawyer casting a shres of doubt into the jury's mind to get a not guilty verdict. You rihjtfully rcognize that since the theist is the one making the claim--and the atheist is not--the theist then assumes the burden to prove that a god exists, and that an atheist's role is to then to discredit these attempts to prove. However, you are making a few assumptions here that are leading you to few false conclusion. The things that YOU see as overwhelming evidence have obviously convinced you of a god existing, and you are puzzled that others are either blind to them --or even worse, enjoy being atheists and will refuse to accpet this evidence--regardless of how overwhelming it is. Although there may be some atheists who take this position--it certainly is not a rational one. I embrace the atheistic position simply because I find no evidence whatsoever, let alone it being overwhelming, to support a notion of a God. You obviously see these apparent "evidences" as being proof positive of there being a god--but I am confident I am aware of every one of these alleged proofs, and when they are examined closely, rigorously, objectively and honestly--each one of them is flawed in some regard and will therefore be "trown out of court" If I were in th defence in the "court" you mention--when it is time to reach a verdict--you would have no case at all, no evidence whatsoever for the prosecution's side. Each piece of evidence you would present would be discredited when being exposed to this scrutiny. I also suspect you are attempting to read into an atheists motives as being the direct opposite of a theists--and this is where most theists go wrong when engaging in a theist/atheist debate, and especially in a evolution/creation debate. The theist will believe, regardless of what counter -arguments are made, and regardless of how convincing they are. This is due to him having "faith"--which leaves him locked in this position. The theist must be forced into ignoring and evading reality, reason and one's own mind--just as a means of keepnig his belief alive. However, the theist then assumes the atheist does the same, only the other way--regardless of the evidence that shows there is a God, I will NOT belive. BUT, if an atheist ( or the evolutionist ) takes the side of reason, and rationality, he is committed to "go with the evidence" he is committed to face reality, and integrate it into other existing facts---AND he must therefore believe a God exists, or even accpet creationism, if he is committed to ACCEPTING REALITY AS REALITY--and again, the theist does NOT make that commitment, therefore talink the irrational position, and not even being on the same playing field. Unless, a theist commits himself to observe reality as being something that cannot be evaded, committing himself to reason, the only standard by which "proofs" can be made -( the only means by which a person can recognize reality ) there is no point for a rational person, or evoltionist to even engage in further discussion. Reason doesn't count, so how could anything be proven? This becomes so glaringly obvious when at some point in EVERY such debate--it is ALWAYS the theist that doubts the veracity of logic and suggesting that god is "beyond" logic. At that point to me, they have lost the case, because up to that point, the veracity of logic was pre-supposed in the debate, but the theist feels his case can only be made if he changes the rules at some point in the game--and this to me just says "I can no longer win under these rules we have agreed upon, therefore I would like to change them , so I can, and WILL " - 14:48:13 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Carl:GRANT: The response begins w/an IMHO, the diff.is in what and how one reads R.LEE musta'chosen, whenever, to read and views w/favor those writings of mythical intent and now, whatever R.LEE writes will lean to his and out of his favors. In his mythical view a godthing made humans- this is his mythical view because in my readings of his point of view(pov), it is based a wide assortment of ancient myths and various supertitious tendencies. All such means- to my pov, is that his view is false to facts. As for humans being animals, that view also is false to facts. - 14:56:23 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Carl:GRANT1: The animal pov, this legacy like attribute is very ancient also. Theism attempts to separate the animal from the human thing by its creation myths, also very old. Before then humans must have noted similarities and 'learned' from these similarities by perhaps mimicking the favorable animal traits that allowed them- hearly humans, to succeed. And so it- animal man explanation, formed and continues into today that very ancient 'teaching' is now a lore of a bygone infantilism. - 15:31:54 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Grant:CARL-- I'm with you on the first 7/8 of your post, naturally. Objectivist Nathanial Brandon said faith is the equation of feelings with knowledge, and that a mystic is one who treats his feelings as tools of cognition. One must abandon reason early on to stop here IMO. Now about that last 1/8; which facts, dang you!?! - 15:32:15 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Y-It:Peter: Don't try to use logic when argueing with RT Lee. After all, he thinks that logic is the tool of Satan! - 15:35:22 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Animal:GRANT2: Hang on, since it appears we are victims, the sum of our reading learning and compositions, so it is that I have a conclusion, humans are not animals. I've chosen to read and seek to understand math and science. I've had to read some outta'sight stuff. And o'course these topics have brought me in touch with a good assortment of writer thinkers. In the on going I've read only things done by humans and not once anything composed by an animal- dog, porpoise, ape, whale, etc. I wonder what their science or math would be like. I'm pretty sure their god would be like them, but what would the geography of a whale be like? What would a theory of relativity be for a bird? and so on. Animals only intention is its survival, within its limited domain. The living thing that they are seeks merely to maintain its occupied area of space for as long as possible against all else. Its only human similarity is that the living thing of it conceptually means to continue. In this regard theists imagine eventually being with their creator the godthing. Animals live reproduce and die. Humans learn. - 16:08:11 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Carl:ANY: the animal post was me, what happened I do not know, except that I was thinking'bout stuff. I asked did I just do that it was funny. - 16:12:06 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Grant (Maybe you are not descended from monkeys but I sure am!):CARL-- That WAS funny. I don't think it's as much disagreement as talking on different wavelengths. - 16:23:54 on 11 Jun 98 GMT HI GRANT........:Petit Borgois cosomopolitanists, that who! - 16:32:46 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Y-It:ALL: I was reading some messages on a Taoist Web Board today, and one of the topics that came up is how wisdom immediately turns into kitsch when it becomes popular. Then, when this happens, everybody only knows the superficial part of that wisdom, without delving deeply into it. For example, not many know what the heck "yin/yang" really symbolizes, but everybody thinks its a "cool symbol". Also, no one realizes that its real name is the "T'ai Chi," which they incidentally get confused with the martial art "T'ai Chi Chuan." I notice that this is also happening to Wicca and Celtic religions. Any one want to add to this? - 16:35:35 on 11 Jun 98 GMT Question: How low should your APR be? Yahoo! Weather - London F� or C� Weather : Europe : United Kingdom : London Today Fri Sat Sun Mon 8� at 2:45pm GMT Rain Hi 12 Lo 5 Showers Rain Partly Cloudy Partly Cloudy �-10 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35+ Hi 20 Lo 7 Hi 13 Lo 7 Hi 18 Lo 9 Hi 18 Lo 10 More Information Wnd chil: -2� Vis: NA km Wind: 27 km/h Direction: N RH: 100% Dewpt: 8� Yahoo! Resources Weather Maps Weather News Ski Report Yahoo! Travel New City Search Neighboring Cities Enter a new city name: (e.g. 95135 or San Francisco or San Francisco, CA) Bedford UK Southend on Sea UK Bedgebury Forest UK Brize Norton UK Chelmsford UK Sheerness UK Moreton in Marsh UK Back to Home Page - Back to Top of Page Yahoo! Weather and Yahoo! are registered trademarks of Yahoo! Inc. Copyright � 1994-98 Yahoo! All Rights Reserved. Comments?/Questions? - 16:35:50 on 11 Jun 98 GMT not him again---:"T'ai Chi Chuan." - 16:37:12 on 11 Jun 98 GMT :: your response? :: Type your comment in the box below, adding your name and URL (if you wish) in those boxes, and click on the "Add" button. Name: URLShow old? - 16:39:18 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Question: Huh? Do you Yahoo, you Yahoo? - 16:40:57 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Oh sure, let's copy and paste everything. That's original! We've seen this before, especially with Moonboy. - 16:42:08 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..I liked your writings as "ANIMAL". In your alter-ego persona, you seem to write a tad more clearly..(smirk). You of course were speaking with tongue in cheek, but I have to tell you that there is an elephant at the Toronto Zoo, and I believe a gorilla at the Washington Zoo, that really enjoy painting pictures, and so the proprieters of each actually sell the paintings through showings to raise funds for their respective enterprises. Now, do you know if these animals are aware of their actions, if they know which colours work best together, and whether or not there is actually a message they are trying to convey within their artistry? (a la Picasso, whom I have yet to figure out myself). We do not know if they are going through motions forced upon them by humans, or whether they have this hobby for some other reason. If it is a hobby they decided on their own to explore (which would be impossible as I don't believe there are any art supply stores in the jungles) after having been exposed to it initially, would it be possible to conclude that there is more to the wild kingdom than mere survival? - 16:49:16 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT...we once had visitors (e.g. Quietsun and Grimwood) who got their jollies from copying and pasting this discussion page. The best thing to do is to ignore it, and carry on. - 16:51:17 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT3: Anyway as I inscribed I have read a good buncha'stuff, including religious believer stuff, and it too is just an aspect of the wealth of human doing. I no longer see religion as a grandiose like choice, it is merely something else of interest because it concerns some kinds of humans. But, that humans were made by a godthing, ergo, that they are part devine beings, or that humans are animals, none of which indicate what is constant or non-constant of a variable, nor what is science for its survival, that, only humans do. Humans are not animals nor are they part god, something made to exist by that sort of thing. Both views are false to facts,i.e., any thing done- enacted, by humans for humans. On that point M.Gorki said, "I exist, it is this same 'I' which is the worst enemy of man." - 16:58:59 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette....French 101..:-->I am no intellect, but at times certain offerings here annoy me. For instance, the pseudo-intellect who post anonymously, and seems to like to use the work "borgois" is bothering the heck out of me. "Borgois" would be the way someone from Brooklyn might pronounce Burgess Meredith's first name, but if he/she is trying to convey some sort of french language philosophical statement, I would like to point out that the word is spelled "BOURGEOIS". - 17:00:14 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...sorry to butt into your conversation with GRANT, but you have touched on this subject on previous occassions. I want to get something straight. If memory serves me correctly, it is your thought that human evolution has more evidence within botanical areas, correct? Or do you know believe that humans are a distinct species, that evolved within its own rank? - 17:04:11 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It (pronounced as BOO-zhwah):Joette: This is exactly what I mean when I say that some wisdom, intellect, or ideology turns into kitsch. When people follow things superficially to become "trendy" and "with-it", they join the ever growing masses of mindless sheep on this planet. - 17:04:34 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Now who is here and dislikes other folks pondering things and saying so. Any bets on how long this enterprising individual lasts? - 17:05:05 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->all apologies for the poor spelling in my posts. The hands are faster than the eyes! (and I have the audacity to criticise Mr/Ms Borgois! - 17:06:14 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT...excellent point. Although I would pronounce it Bouje-wah (very soft j) - 17:09:10 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: Actually the "zh" symbolizes a soft "j"... but I didn't know that sound actually belonged to the first syllable. - 17:11:43 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: allowing for the fullest possible conveyance of the word evolution, as it relates to the living, the living once drew upon the botanical. I imagine that link is the eyes, the thing that is because of sun-light. It is a thought here, anyway. If you can, locate a copy of JM Burgers, "Experience and Conceptual Activity" - 17:21:17 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT..small point, but the actual pronounciation would be like this "burzwa". But since we Canucks say "zed" and you say "zee" maybe that still doesn't make sense... - 17:23:47 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...I am brain dead, and so have trouble reading anything of a serious nature(pun intended) these days, so please bear with me as I ask some silly questions. Would this "evolution" be true of all species? If we were to back far enough, it is true that the original fishies that eventually crawled from the ocean would have somehow been formed from plant life, but then the same type of evolution would have had to take place for all things. - 17:28:10 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette & Carl: Actually, from what I remembered from Biology class, animals evolved from plants on the cellular level before they reached the multi-celled organism stage. For single cell life, there are three basic types that are classified by the way they obtain energy. There's the bacteria type, which burns sugar into energy, alcohol and CO2, without the use of oxygen; and then there's the animal type, which burns sugar, with the use of oxygen, into 17 times the energy and CO2; and finally there's the plant type, which produces its own sugar from light, CO2, and water, and then it burns this sugar with oxygen to produce the same amount energy as an animal and CO2. - 17:34:32 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:Y-it=Of course he does--but only when adressing the question of whether God exists or not. That's because logic shows his claim is unsupported. How nice it would be if any one couldthen use this same tactic when claiming anything. Make a claim, and when logically it is shown the claim is unsuppored, just then make another claim saying the original claim is "beyond logic" --therefore it is valid. Lets be grateful that there are some rational coventions out there that recognize the irrationality of such a manouvre, and lament the fact there are still millions out there that attempt to use it. If and when the "irrationals" are a thing of the past--maybe mankind may start thinking of himself as civilized--and I will, to my very last breath to do anything I can to fight this irrationality. I like this world. - 17:38:19 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Peter: Yeah, I think the tactic of refuting logic on the grounds that it goes against what you support is more commonly known as "Occam's Razor". Basically, this concept is used to counter any evidence against your claim, to a point where the other person gives up or you just run out of counter-evidence to support your claim. I know, it's kind of a confusing concept. - 17:43:16 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT..but not to worry, we all know of it! - 17:53:32 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: As i try to ponder this, i see evolution as a means for the existence of lvings things but not to be understood and viewed as a linear enactment. It is not some Platonic progression upwards to some perfection. Certain qualities probably exist in all forms of living things. With evolution life will exist as it chooses, dare we entertain the view that perhaps it- life, is perfect in itself. - 17:57:49 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

STeven:Y-IT<<>>the 'ying/yang' has many meanings. The male and female side of nature, light and dark, good and evil. It is funny that the dark side (female) encompases evil, darkness, etc. The symbol and its meanings shed light on the culture that produced it. - 18:47:25 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven: Yeah, the point I was making is that many people don't realize what "yin" or "yang" means, they just think it's a cool symbol. But what you said about the "yin" part being "negative" and "evil" mostly comes from Confusian concepts, since they tried hard to emphasize "yang". As for Taoists, sure the "yin" is dark and mysterious, but it's not necessarily evil or negative. Infact, Taoists often think that negativity is a matter of perspective and emphasize the balance of "yin" and "yang". This can be seen in the Tao Te Ching, where the yielding "yin" is encouraged, because it was written in the Warring States period of China. - 19:33:40 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven: As for the latest trendiness of Wicca and Celtic religions, I'm thinking about this whole new "Goth" craze, where everybody tries to look dead without knowing the true wisdom behind Wicca or the Celtic religions. I'm sure half of them don't even realize that "Goth" really refers to the ancient Germanic tribes. - 19:36:46 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT..could you be selling people short perhaps? Could the Goth look not be enjoyed purely for its look, instead of what is behind it? Could not the resurgence of ancient religious artifacts (bad copies, mostly) just not be enjoyed for the esthetic value without having to research its beginnings? Isn't okay for a point to come along in a person's life where it is okay just to enjoy something, instead of becoming expert on it? - 20:05:38 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT...other side of the coin - should a person be forced to share their knowledge in the aforementioned matters so that the person partaking of the symbolism can do, or wear, or purchase, certain items? I call to your attention rOB's reluctance to share his beliefs and/or knowledge of Druids. While I have expressed keen interest in it, wanting to talk to someone practising instead of reading books, it is not my place to demand that he share what he knows. - 20:08:59 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...it would be ridiculous to believe that we are evolving until we reach a perfect state. I leave that to the Hindus for that belief. However, we do evolve to adapt to our environment. Instead of evolving into some perfect being, we will probably evolve into some form of mutant who will not require keen senses, as machines will be developed to take over for the senses we lose. - 20:13:32 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: Well I guess the point I'm trying to make is that people who superficially follow something because its trendy, often become self-proclaimed "experts" at whatever they are following. I find this no different than Fundies who only superficially know the Buybull, remember a few favorite passages, and then suddenly become "experts of the Word of God". If they try to go deeper, then they could understand more about Christianity, and perhaps even realize its contradictions. - 20:14:00 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Y-IT..I agree wholeheartedly. Even as I was writing that post, I thought about the similarity between what I was writing, and bible thumping. - 20:17:41 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Joette: Yeah, I think rOB was being cryptic about the Druids in order to prevent it into becoming something kitschy. Then again, if you are too mysterious or try to hide your ideas too much, then people will think you're wierd or never understand your perspective on life. There needs to be a balance between obviousness (yang) and vagueness (yin) in order to spread an idea without corrupting it. Well... gotta go. - 20:28:56 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene...white makeup does not become me:ARNOLD- How about a beaver? Anyhow..rOB..no matter what your Celtic religions still involve the supernatural, something I don't accept. STEVEN- I agree with this yin and yang stuff coming off as fairly sexist but then again don't all religions? - 21:41:38 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- If your interested in the Celts, there is a fairly good book written on them by Frank Delaney called _The Celts_. - 21:51:18 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..actually, you will be pleased to know that the Druids did not practise sexism according to the URL I posted yesterday. I was most pleased to read that, and to see that the goddesses and gods are pretty much equal. - 22:10:40 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene...an oak is an oak:JOETTE- Well then, I can at least give them that! Mother goddesses are common in nature based religions but human sacrifice turns me off. - 22:54:00 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..and the spider says to the fly:PAPASAM- Are you still web attached??? - 22:55:53 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. Yes, I'm still here. I agree with you on your view of the supernatural, whether as religion or any form of so called spiritualism. It's all so much garbage, usually generated by money grubbing frauds and supported by gullible fools. Say you saw a weeping icon in a church and people will come in droves to see the "miracle". Say you can communicate with spirits of the dead and you will have to beat off the people trying to get into your "seance". Barnum was right. "There's a fool born every minute". He should have added--and there's always someone waiting to take advantage pf him." - 23:56:42 on 11 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Papasam...wasn't it "there's a sucker born every minute"? - 0:38:51 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...In the book you mentioned, does the author address human sacrifices? The reason I ask is that I read that the Romans, in the midst of trying to conquer the Druids, began telling stories that were far-fetched so that the Druids fall in disfavour with others. I do know that it was not unusual for them to have a skull or two in their households, but were they not the skulls of criminals of the time that were executed? It is interesting to note that two different sources have two different opinions on the matter, and that is why I think someone who does know would fill us in on the facts as he knows them....maybe I should start speaking more poetically to get his attention ;) - 0:43:57 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- I just got in so I'll have to look that info up and post it in the morning. I think you'd be surprised! As you say, you'd think someone who IS a Druid would fill us in on this subject. PAPASAM- Rather like a car salesman, non??? There's an ass for every seat.... - 3:28:55 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- In an ideal world I suppose people wouldn't feel they need the crutch that religions and superstitions provide. Maybe atheists have just accepted that there is no such thing as an ideal world. - 3:36:21 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:And I know, I know, the theists will say that the former statement is "depressing" but it's not. - 3:38:30 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE. The correct word is "sucker". - 4:34:13 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. The idea of an "ideal world" is purely subjective. I think the rulers of Afghanistan believe they have an ideal world. Realistically, I cannot conceive of a perfect world. When I wrote "An Atheist's Prayer" it was in reaction to the fact that all the major religions of the world had a history of hatred and slaughter of non-believers. They pay lip service to peace and love but that's all it is - lip service. Hindus and moslems are facing each other off, now with atomic weapons at their disposal. As someone said the other day - "The thought that people who believe in reincarnation have an atomic bomb is frightening." Little wars all over the place - Bosnia, Albania, Eritrea, Ethiopia - most with religious undertones. The best the ordinary person can do is to try to lead a happy life in his /her own home. I guess I'm lucky. It worked for me. - 4:59:59 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

???TRUE???.......:A true story about Neil Armstrong: When Apollo Mission Astronaut Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon, he not only gave his famous "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" statement but followed it by several remarks, usual com traffic between him, the other astronauts and Mission Control. Just before he re-entered the lander, however, he made the odd remark "Good luck Mr. Gorsky." Many people at NASA thought it was a casual remark concerning some rival Soviet Cosmonaut. However, upon checking, there was no Gorsky in either the Russian or American space programs. Over the years many people questioned Armstrong as to what the "Good luck Mr. Gorsky" statement meant, but Armstrong always just smiled. Just a few years ago, (on July 5, 1995 in Tampa Bay FL) while answering questions following a speech, a reporter brought up the 26 year old question to Armstrong. This time he finally responded. Mr. Gorsky had finally died and so Neil Armstrong felt he could answer the question. When he was a kid, he was playing baseball with a friend in the backyard. His friend hit a fly ball which landed in the front of his neighbor's bedroom windows. His neighbors were Mr. & Mrs. Gorsky. As he leaned down to pick up the ball, young Armstrong heard Mrs. Gorsky shouting at Mr. Gorsky. "Oral sex! You want oral sex?! You'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon!" - 11:57:50 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PAPASAM<<>>I have not heard of too many marauding Budhists. - 12:28:54 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (TONGUE firmly in cheek):TRUE: Old news I'm afraid. You know how old Mr.Gorsky finally died? Burned up on re-entry... - 12:40:14 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:??TRUE??: Ha ha, very funny! :) That story made my morning. - 12:52:58 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven: I don't know, aren't those Tibetean Buddhists kicking the Chinese Army's ass, or was it the other way around? ;) - 12:54:23 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:Y-IT<<>>maybey the Tibetean Monks should build a nuclear device, and drop it on Beijing (sp) so they can prevent the loss of more Tibetean Buddhists? - 13:31:31 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steve: Yeah, that seems to be the logical choice that the Muslims and Hindus have taken. - 13:33:09 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:PapaSam: "The world of ideology is meerly a distorted reflection of the mind. It is a mental dillusion, a deviation from the real world." -- Hua Hu Ching, Ch. 42 - 13:37:32 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:Y-IT<<>>i was being sarcastic with the last post, which I hope was painfully obvious. - 13:37:35 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Steven: So was I. But unfortunately, writing can not transmit the tones, accents, and gestures of speech. Because of this it's hard to show your sarcasm through writing unless you make it really obvious. I had a discussion on this forum several days ago about oral language vs. written language. - 13:41:50 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PAPASAM<<>>according to your logic the US should have dropped nuclear weapons on Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, and Iran. I mean, think of all the American lives that would have been saved. - 13:52:04 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Rob:PAPASAM: Is the best one can do to "lead a happy life in their own home?." It depends on what you subjective idea of "best" is. If "best" (or more precisely "better") is to get rid of hatred and slaughter, then would you not agree one could do more than sitting at home contentedly tending the pot plants? Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting an absolute moral judgement I am just talking within the confines of what one regards as "doing the best". In turn, Y-IT: W.R.T the idealogy quote, I would challenge the negative tones of that quote. For example a perfect circle is something idealogical, though I'm not sure I would equate seeing a circle with being delusional. The notions of extrapolation beyond experience, and of paradigms are things we use all the time in life. - 14:03:56 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Rob: A perfect circle being ideological? I can't see how that is. Typically a circle is a geometric shape or symbol. As for being a symbol, sure there are ideological concepts behind that symbol, but often these concepts are subjective in themselves. Basically ideologies distort the view of the world because they conform to someone's subjective idea rather than the objective reality. So if our perspectives distort the view of the world, then how do we know the absolute truth? Well, basically the Truth is the common characteristics of all the subjective realities. It's like an art class drawing still life. All the artists are in a circle (ideological concept?) around the still life, and have distorted perspectives of it. Their drawings of the still life are their ideas or ideologies of the still life. But if you look at all the drawings together, you see the Truth of the still life. - 14:12:34 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Rob: Ooops, when I said, "...Truth is the common characteristics of all the subjective realities." I meant subjective ideas. By the way, don't get the word "ideology" confused with "ideogram", which is a type of writing using picture-like symbols. - 14:17:50 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Before searching, has anyone heard about a baptist revelation or something, that says the godthing will speak to a family through the father and that ma' was to do as the godthing directed, via the hubby? If the report is true, do those nuts want the dark ages or something like it? - 16:33:44 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (What comes a-round, goes a-round):Y-IT: Just a quick one as I am on my way out... Yes, you are probably right concerning ideology/gram, though I think the principle is the same (I haven't time to check the dictionary). As for a perfect circle, I challenge you to find a physical example. If you look on a small enough scale it will never be perfectly circular and eventually you will get down to the subatomic scale where things just become fuzzy in terms of position. But yet we still have a notion of a perfect circle, not through it reflecting an objectively existing perfect circle, but through our manipulating of idealised concepts such as dimensionless points. I'm not sure how this relates to subjectivity, my point was more that the quote seemed to imply something negative, in that an idealised concept was somehow delusive (is that a word?!?) as opposed to extrapolative (I think that is a word ;). I would be careful with what you were saying about truth being the common charecteristic of all subjective realities- I think maybe saying it is the common source of all subjective realities may be safer, though it still doesn't really tell us anything about the "truth". But on what you said, then if a god were subjectively real to the majority of the population it would seem to suggest god's existence was the truth. (so much for short posts ;) - 16:49:44 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY1: I found it and emailed an opinion and a question. - 17:08:27 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Rob: When I think of "dillusion" I don't mean insane. Besides, I think insanity is something relative to what is "normal" in a particular society. Anyway, everybody has their own ideas of the meanings of words, and by "dillusion", I think of an ideology that is a distortion of the real world. If a perfect circle doesn't exist in the real world, then wouldn't the idea of a perfect circle be a deviation (dillusion) from the "imperfect" circles in the real world? Besides, it could also depend on someone's definition of "perfect". I assume by perfect, we mean that all points on the circumference are equidistant from the center. Maybe someone's idea of a "perfect circle" is something different. (I know it sounds strange, but I'm sure someone else out there has a different definition of a "perfect circle") - 17:09:00 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: This almost sounds like what the Promise Keepers are trying to promote. - 17:10:28 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..:CARL- Yes I heard that on the news last night ot the night before. The baptists have adopted the "man is the head of the household" policy. Like Y-IT says, it sound very like the pk's and the noi crapola. My partner had a good time with that news when he heard it, lol. That was at least two days ago and he's still waiting for that apple pie he ordered me to make. - 17:20:19 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: Hey, I heard that our ol' buddy Pat Robertson is saying to Disney Inc. that if Disney tries to promote homosexuality, then God will smite them. I think that's funny. Maybe Pat will have to smite Disney because God is "just too busy". - 17:31:22 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

jaywilson--jus' bein' goofy--:Y-It: Perhaps Michael Eisner ought to slip Pat a Mickey. - 17:51:55 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Y-IT- IMO homosexuality is a fact of life. I don't know if Disney is promoting this sexual orientation anymore than it promote heterosexuality. Ole Pat should be thanking his lucky stars that Disney also promotes religion at times. - 17:57:12 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Marlene: Well, I think this whole Pat thing is in response to Disney promoting some Gay parade. I agree that Pat should be happy about Disney promoting religion, but then again, everything that Disney promotes is very kitschy. - 18:02:23 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: Does it seem to appear that whenever someone who holds a slanted view (typically someone after something or adhereing to an agenda) they portray their topic or affix it with attention getting words. "Promote" I don't recall the disney reps making that particular point nor any other agency describe their acts of accomodation as a 'promotion of the gay thing'. Those folks like P.Robertson, are they that thing-evil, that they know so well? - 18:08:51 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: Yeah, I see your point. Disney never specifically said "promote" but Patty-cakes throws that word in Mickey's mouth. Pat *is* evil in a can (just add holy water). - 18:11:57 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: Elsewhere I saw some xtian type inscribe that 1.6 million unborn are killed every year. I oft'times wonder what the real number would be? Here in Berkeley there was only one reported incident of an unborn type found in a dorm garbage receptacle. Outside of that one similar reports of the unborn found are nil. 1.6 mil.who are they and where are they? - 19:15:56 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: is that 1.6 million in the US or the world? Also, do you think they inflate the numbers with kids that died at birth? - 19:18:01 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: my take on that, it was thw eorld over. - 19:41:46 on 12 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:STEVEN. The use of atomic weapons to end WWII was justified. It ended a war that had been started by the Japanese when they sneak attacked Pearl Harbor and went on to attack the Phillipines,the Dutch East Indies, Guam, Singapore and so on. The war lasted over four years and cost our country over hundreds of thousands dead and wounded. But then again, you have stated before that you didn't care how many thousands of American lives were saved. Well, I do. Your attempt at sarcasm in your last posting implying that I would justify the use of the A Bomb in other circumstances reiterates your point of view that American lives had no value. Why don't you visit a VA hospital and tell the wounded veterans how you feel? Tell them what idiots they were going to war so that idiots like you would have the freedom of expression to insult them and the memory of those who died. You disgust me. You insult your country by saying we are the only country to bomb civilian targets. For a History major you're prettty ignorant of your subject. In 1935 Italy bombed Ethiopa. The mission was led by Mussolini's son. He described how beautiful it looked when the bombs hit the ground. A ground photographer present at the sight of tyhe bombing showed some interesting pictures,including the one of the Ethiopan "Anti- aircraft Artillery", which consisted of some loin cloth wearing natives waving their spears at the sky. Japan invaded Manchuria by softening it up with bombing runs. Ditto China. I still remember the picture of the little girl running, her clothes blown or burned off her, as the planes flew overhead. Wasn't there something about them bombing an "Open City?" Have you read anything about Germany's Luftwaffe bombing Poland? They really worked over the horse cavalry. I still remember the newsreels. They did leave some of them for the German Tanks. So, what do you do now Steven. People from all over the world come to this country. Some Cninese who were caught when the ship smuggling them in ran aground paid $20,000 and more to get here. We get immigrants from all over the world. I don't think there is a single country which hasn't supplied us with immigrants. Yet you find fault with us. Sure, we have plenty of faults, particularly racism. But even that is changing. Betweem new arrivals and intermarriage the face of our nation will change hopefu;ly for the better. But if you really feel you can't or don't want to fit in, the world's your oyster. By the way, if the Japanese had the A Bomb, do you think they would have used it at Pearl Harbor? - 0:38:10 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ALL. How much is one's life worth relative to others? If someone wanted to kill you would you kill him to survive? If two people were out to murder you, would you kill them both? How about three? Five? Ten? Do you think you would reach a point where you would feel "I can't kill that many people so that I may survive!" - 0:51:06 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE: -----THE FINGERPRINTS OF GOD----- All of God's creation has His fingerprints all over it. And these fingerprints witness to the fact that God CREATED or brought into being from NOTHING the heavens and the earth and all therein.----- The fingerprints of God are clearly seen in many ways: One is the fact that no creature has the ability to CREATE. Man can take what has already been created and change it or make a mixture of something with what has already been created; but man as well as every other creature and thing is totally void of the ability to actually BRING INTO BEING SOMETHING FROM NOTHING.----- I challenge any atheist agnostic, freethinker or unbeliever to show a single simple example of anything any man, creature or thing has brought into existence from nothing.----- The only One who has and who can do that is the AMIGHTY GOD. There's your fingerprints! - 2:19:09 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

jng:Science and religion were never compatible! 20th logical positivism severed any connection no doubt. Real philosophers need apply here find my address. - 2:58:01 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE Don't underestimate yourself. You created a god out of nothing, complete with fingerprints. - 5:01:10 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:STEVEN I forget to mention the "Buzz bombs" - the V2 rockets the Germans sent to London. So when are you leaving this miserable country? - 5:07:39 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

The V1 story is more interesting. The Brittish constantly reported the hits as being to the north-east of the actual sites. The Grrmans therefore progressivly aimed these devises to the south-eat away from the populated areas. Clever eh? - 13:46:45 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..finally getting back to you:JOETTE- From what I understand of Frank Delaney's book, _The Celts_, the Celtic religion did carry out human sacrifice as well as, while at war, cutting off and keeping the head of the ememy whether they be man woman or child. There is one picture in the book detailing the burning of hundreds of people in a huge wicker likeness of a man. Delaney himself, is considered an expert on the Celts and was born and raised in Ireland. - 13:47:03 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Just another thing I thought was interesting..they kept the heads because they believed that the "soul" was seated in the head. - 13:49:46 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..where there's fingerprints there must be a helping hand.???:RTL- If you were on a sinking ship and had a choice between a life jacket and praying to your god to save your life, which would you choose. How strong is your "faith'? - 13:52:24 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- As you know, I agree with you on xtians creating their god out of nothing. Where we disagree is on the subject of war and I still stand my ground that no war is necessary in this day and age. It is supposed to be the job of the UN to keep peace on this planet and were not doing a very good job. More effort has to go into this IMO. - 13:55:51 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----ANOTHER CHALLENGE TO ATHEISTS----- I challenge any atheist agnostic, freethinker or unbeliever to show the indiputable validity of the "Big Bang" theory. But remember, it is called a "theory" and not a fact by people of your ilk. Prove its validity right here and now without sidetracking the issue and without too much babble or wordiness. This is especially directed to one who calls himself "Peter." And when you find that you can't prove it, prove to all that you are not believing in a fairytale. Be very specific and direct to the points you must make. - 19:15:47 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..is blabbering all your capable of?:RTL- So what is it, the life jacket or your god? - 19:50:51 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:MARLENE. I don't believe wars are necessary either. If we or others like us ran the world there would be no wars. But we don't run the world. It all boils down to the lust for power.From the schoolyard bully to the heads of state the desire to control others and be king of the hill pervades the animal kingdom, including the human race. Arbitrary divisions usually based on ethnic or religious grounds are common, but not necessary. At one time imperialism between rival nations sparked war. Today we find Eritrea and Ethiopa fighting over 164 square miles of rocky terrain which is useless for farming or any other practical purpose. Sometimes we must fight when war is thrust upon us and we are attacked as was the case when Pearl Harbor was bombed and Germany declared war on us. When that happens we have no other recourse but to fight back with every weapon at our disposal. As an individual, if I were attacked by someone wielding a knife, I would kill him if I could. I'm sure you would do the same to save your life,as would any resonable person. - 20:18:57 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. A theory is just that, a theory. It is based on the best scientific evidence available to us. I am personally not qualified to go into the details, but you obviously wouldn't understand them if the facts were presented to you. You don't want to believe,because you are hung up with your mythology. Theories are not perfect, science is not perfect, but scientists are continually questioning and seeking further knowledge. As new evidence is discovered, opinions may change. You, on the other hand, do NOT question, you do NOT seek. You dare not question your mythology for you might find the flaws inherent in it and it would put chinks in your wall of faith. Don't waste your time here, go to your theo chat sites where you and your fellow brain dead theists can parrot your rote prayers to each other for the greater glory of your mutual idiocy. - 20:39:00 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----PapaSam, you are lost man. I don't think there's any hope for you man. It saddens me deeply to read such deep hatred and depravity expressed against your MAKER! - 21:08:18 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

transmaniacon MC:Robert T. Lee... "An ni nach cluinn cluas cha ghluais cridhe!" (what the EAR does not hear will not move the heart) - 22:21:21 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..:RTL- As usual, you fail to answer a simple question. When told the reality of a situation as Papasam has explained you resort to putting your delusion into a victim role. What indeed, you should be saddened about is your obvious illness. I suggest you either, as Papasam suggests, continue in your sickness along with the other sickos on theochat or as I advise, see a good doctor who can help you overcome your fears. - 23:49:04 on 13 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- The funny thing is that RTL is probably more effectively promoting atheism than any of us. - 0:56:18 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Arnold:"Indisputable proof" is a silly thing for a faithful believer in Bible mythology to be insisting on. The Big Bang (in its most currently modified form) is the concept in which all of our careful observations of the universe fit together the best. True, there are a few overlaps and gaps meaning that the theory still needs some amending, but it is constantly under review and adjustments are always being made in light of new knowledge. This is what makes it far superior to any pious religious faith; it is self-correcting, where-as the religions are self-perpetuating (avoiding change). Meanwhile, the believers insist they KNOW that a man once magically multiplied loaves of bread and fishes, and flew through the desert sky on the back of a devil. Suddenly "indisputable proof" is no longer sought. :) - 2:31:04 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Yes, he likely is. I saw a cartoon somewhere in which some maniac is spewing bibical drivel and holding a sign up about the coming rapture. Meanwhile, invisible to anyone there but the artist, satan and one of his sidekicks are saying "guys like this are putting us out of work". ARNOLD- Can you imagine, this guy dressed in a long white robe, with flowing red hair and a gold halo racing the other Arab guy with a blue robe, white head dress and a big black beard on the backs of two red creatures with pointy tails and little horns flying threw the sky in the middle of a desert? Wanna place some bets? - 2:44:26 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:Not one of you have yet to directly show any indisputable proof for the big bang theory. A lot of us are waiting, you descendants of the ape! It seems that since there are so many of you who are so highly "educated," at least one of you would come forward and present some proof. THE CHALLENGE IS STILL ON! - 4:41:20 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:RTL-- Don't you think some response to ARNOLD's post two above yours would have been appropriate in your last post, you biped?! - 7:17:33 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

What are you stupid chocolate bastards up to now? - 13:01:15 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

The man who calls himself "Peter"--:--ROBERT T. LEE---I am somewhat confused now, especially since you first asked that the "big bang" theory be "proven" by some theists here on this board. It requires a great deal of explanation and formulae to provide all the details of what is known about the Big Bang theory, which would make it very impractical to outline in this forum-- so if you are so interested in learning the details about it, I suggets you look at the book "The Whole Shebang" by Robert Ferris--for starters, or even try to chat up a professor of cosmology at a local university. As Arnold and Papa Sam have mentioned, the Big Bang Theory is the result of the evidence, and operates within the physical laws of the universe--and so far this is the result of the evidence. However, also as Papa Sam and Arnold have mentioned., new evidences are being found as the result of continuing research, and adjustments are made accordingly to the theory--if something "disproves" an earlier held belief--then that belief is abandoned, if something is found to modify the theory--it is added on. Unlike religion, who adheres to a belief, regardless of what new evidences are found ( self-perpetuating as Arnold mentioned ) the belief is still embraced. I find it remarkable that theists are unable to see how dishonest and slothful this action is, It is a call to ignore and deny reality--just for the purpose of keeping a particular belief alive. However, there is one aspect of all this that I suspect that you ( due to this recent attempt here to discredit the Big bang Theory )and a great deal of theists are unaware. Even if it is found that the Big bang Theory or even evolution is false--this does not advance creationism whatoever. To make the assumption that it does, requires the implementation of a false alternative and a pre-supposed conclusion. I am grateful myself there is at least some people in this world that would detect the fallacious nature of the conclusion you and many other theists would make. Also, I would like to add another point here Robert. This argument you are presenting is nothing new to many of the regulars in this chatroom. It has been my experience that even when such arguments are addressed, they are in the most part ignored simply because they "go against the creator". I think most atheists here revere logic and reason as the basis of discussion or debate, but if one chooses to deny these provinces, use it deceptively and only when it suits them--any further discussion is pointless. Unless you, or anyone strictly aheres to reason, any argument that is attempted outside reason--will be unreasonable--therefore invalid. Calling atheists names, cursing them for their non-belief is some thing of a school-yard level of verbal exchange--if your goal here is to see yourself worthy of any serious consideration--I would, for your sake, avoid this level of conversation. - 13:13:11 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Peter:--ROBERT-T LEE--..That should be "TIMOTHY" Ferris--not "ROBERT" Ferris... - 13:21:24 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Tim or Rob Ferris! Big deal. Very important. Big point score. - 13:26:41 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Try this instead------:http://www.picturepost.com/february1/19th9.htm - 13:56:03 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..maybe you should get a life:MR or MRS BIG DEAL- Since we're all so boring to you why do you even bother to visit this site? The only possibility is that your more boring than we are. - 15:42:46 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:What kind of worm would post something like that here? Never mind- self explanatory. - 16:22:12 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

James--->Atheist...:Death will overtake us all. Resistance is futile. What can we say as individuals about what we know of death? Where is it safe to draw the line in terms of what we know about death and what we hope about death; accepting that, that line defines our individual attitudes about existence and life on a daily basis. - 16:26:01 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..been there:JAMES- I, personally have been "dead" but jump-started back to life. What I know about death is that dead is dead, no rising from the body, no tunnel, no soul. - 16:33:49 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

James--->ROBERT T. LEE...:Precisely because I cannot prove the big-bang theory is why I do not believe in the big bang theory. It, in it's self is not, based on your criteria. But, putting all the facts on the table paints a pretty good picture of an explanation deserving of serious consideration. However, given the crux of your position is primarily rooted in your particular version of the Bible, it thusly and worsely cannot be substantiated and should not be believed. For example. you say God's fingerprints are all over this world. What do God's finger prints look like such that you can say they are all over the world. The bible tells you so? - 16:42:13 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

James--->Marlene...:In my narrow view, since you are still here, you were not dead. You are however an example where medical science equipment and judgement measured you dead. However, to all of our pleasure, you are in fact still among us. Therefore, and thankfully, you were never dead. - 16:48:13 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..charmed, I'm sure..:BUT JAMES- I was so dead, dead is dead and now, by lazurus, I'm alive, according to medical science equipment and judgement. It's pure joy to know that it pleasures you that I'm here, lol! Why does the Big Bang theory not do anything for you? - 17:49:55 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T.LEE:-----To one who calls himself Peter-----Thanks for so eloquently stating that the "Big Bang" theory is a farytale: You stated: 1." new evidences are being found as the result of continuing research, and adjustments are made accordingly to the theory-- " -----Notice your word "adjustments" ----- 2. "if something "disproves" an earlier held belief--then that belief is abandoned, ...." -----Notice your word "disprove." Any sensible person should abandon a farytale which has been proved not to be true, but you atheist create another fairytale in its place. Notice your words: "... if something is found to modify the theory--it is added on..." 3. "Even if it is found that the Big bang Theory or even evolution is false--" Man, why don't you admit the truth to yourself: You all believe in myths and disbelieve the truth! - 18:05:13 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Mark:RTL - LeRTL - I dought that you would accept any evidence that runs contrary to anything that your bible tells you. Let's reverse the challenge shall we? Can you Robert, provide any proof that any of the miricles that happened in the Bible actually happened? - 21:43:49 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T. LEE. Do you know how close your DNA is to that of a chimpanzee? How sad for the chimp! - 21:50:32 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Mark:Peter - How much you want to bet that Robert wouldn't be caught near a science book? - 21:51:45 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Mark:PapaSam - Creationists just use the similar DNA of chimps and man as more proof of a creation. Nevermind the fact that against any other species it's not as close. :^/ - 21:59:34 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Pa-leeze don't embarrass the chimp, lol! MARK- RTL likely burns science books. - 22:49:11 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--MARK--No, I wouldn't like to bet. - 23:10:47 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:-ROBERT T.LEE--I regret to say in light of your last post--that you have absolutely no interest in rational, objective inquiry, nor is there anything indicated in your post that suggest you even have any familiarity whatsoever with these methods. It's not my call to tell you whether you can post here or not--that is certainly your right to do so, as it is anyone else's. But your allegations have this strange quality about them in that they are divorced from any faculty of integration in a forum of rational discussion. The arguments you are presenting in an attempt to demonstrate your beliefs as valid are so embarassingly flawed that I suspect you have deliberately avoided learning anything that comes remotely close to scientific knowledge or logic. I also strongly suspect that you would reject anyone outlining even the mininmal parameters necessary in order to continue any discussion. Until, you at least show sins of even making an effort to LEARN what these parameters are--the temptation to ridicule, taunt and treat your posts like a joke, will be come more difficult with each entry. But this seems to be the only thing left, as you have rejected any opportunity to have your posts to be taken seriously. - 23:29:36 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---To one who call himself Mark-----I see by your question , Mark, that you actually believe those miracles happened. You are doing good mark. You are doing better than your peers.-----You query is: "Can you Robert, provide any proof that any of the miracles that happened in the Bible actually happened?"----Notice that you said "...THAT HAPPENED in the Bible actually happened?-----You know they happened and then you ask for proof that they happened. You illustrate a basic principle of atheism: It knows the truth, but it discounts the truth, and then asks for proof. As long as your atheism causes you to discount the truth that you know happened, then all proof given will be like no proof in you mind.-----Now, to answer your question: Which miracles do you ask about? only those spoken in Holy Writ, or any miracle God has wrought. God's miracles are numerous. The entire creation is a miracle. your own birth into this world was a miracle. But if you reject the proof that God created the heavens and the earth, which is a greater miracle, how are going to be convinced of lesser miracles. - 23:32:22 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...patience being a virtue..:-->RTL..still waiting for your answer to the question I posed to you on 8 previous occassions: How does one honour abusive parents? - 23:43:41 on 14 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----To one who calls him or herself Joette----You asked me the following question: "RTL..still waiting for your answer to the question I posed to you on 8 previous occassions: How does one honour abusive parents?"----- Joette, have you asked me this question because you were abused. If so, how were you abused? Was it sexually. That is, did your father commit incest with you. If so, heres my answer: If your father raped you, God requires that the government should have swiftly put him to death. If you liked the abuse, and didn't tell anyone, then both of you should have been swiftly put to death. - 0:00:09 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:--->RTL..you have to be the sickest person on earth. I pity your family very much. I think you should be put to death, slowly and agonizingly. - 0:13:54 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL..in case you have forgotten your bible studies, both of Lot's daughters bore his sons. They were allowed to grow and thrive and formed their own tribes. Now why would your benevolent god command governments to sanction swift death for some incestuous relationships, and not for others? - 0:26:57 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----To one who calls him or herself Joette-----Lot and his daughters were not under a corporeal government at the time. The governments of Sodom and gommorah had been rightly destroyed by the two angels sent by God. But even if the governments had not been destroyed, their atheism would not have allowed them to be righteous enough to put those who committed incest to death since they were also in favor of the greater crime of atheistic homosexuality. - 0:38:11 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL..since you are so intelligent compared to the rest of us, why can't you figure out if my name is masculine or feminine? At this rate, you will be giving me a nasty case of Gender Identity Disorder. Now, is athiestic homosexuality a greater crime than christian homosexuality? - 1:05:51 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:--->ROBERTA T. LEE..wouldn't you consider playing on these here man-made contraptions contrary to your precious Third Commandment? - 1:09:21 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. You are a sick perverted creature. You are also proof that your imaginary god does not exist. Any 'god' with any intelligence or moral goodness would never create a piece of shit like you. You are the best evidence in favor of atheism. Your inability to answer a simple question is no reason to launch a vicious and unwarranted attack on Joette, or anyone else. If you're imaginary boy jesus existed he'd be shaking his head and saying "That stupic jerk Robert T Lee has done me more damage than all the atheists put together. I wish he'd keep his big mouth shut." Well, since there ain't no such animal like your boy jesus, I'll say it. KEEP YOUR #&%$#@* MOUTH SHUT. Go spew your venom on your fellows on the theo chat line. - 1:15:13 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

John, a passerby:ROBERT T LEE There is no commandment against incest in the bible. If you were as knowledgeable about the bible as you pretend to be you would know that Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah. - 1:35:23 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Rober T Lee:-----To PapaSam-----You must be hearing voices. I never spoke: I only typed. - 1:36:58 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

John:Robert T Lee. Is your condition congenital or did you get that way by beating your meat too much? - 1:41:41 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. No kidding? I'm glad you told me or I'd never have known. - 1:46:02 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->Papasam..you must have rattled RTL..he spelled his own name wrong. Thank you for putting into words what has been on my mind. - 1:57:22 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----To Joette-------You asked: " RTL..since you are so intelligent compared to the rest of us, why can't you figure out if my name is masculine or feminine?"------I'd like to say Joette that if you are truly a female, I don't mean to mistake you for a male. And if that is your true name, I don't mean to make fun of it. But you must understand that atheism makes it tough these days to distinguish between a man and a woman. - 2:03:50 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...everytime he makes a post, he opens another can of worms...:-->RTL..you make these ridiculous assertions. Would you please explain your most recent one? And don't apologize for insulting anyone; it is obviously your nature, so your apologies are hollow and unbelievable. - 2:07:15 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Bulls win! Bulls win! - 2:26:39 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:RTL- Since your in the mood for answering women's questions, which will it be? The lifejacket or your prayers to your god? JOHN- HA! HA! HA! HA! - 3:40:14 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..your poor mom:Actually RTL, rather than insulting everyone here, your providing us with some amusement. Believers post here frequently either to inform us about their god or gods or whatever but then there are also assholes like you who think they are pleasing their delusion by bombarding atheists with fire and brimstone drivel or even coming down to the level of moronic babble as you have rained upon us. I'm sure your an embarrassment to all believers and worst of all an embarrassment to your parents. - 3:52:46 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:ALL: You know who RT Lee reminds me of? Another Xtain 'Net-weenie whose name is "Brice Wellington". This guy claims that he checks his daughters in order to make sure they didn't have sex... hmmm. He believes that women don't have the right to vote and should be spanked if they get out of line. He has the typical anti-semitism, and claims that French is a dying language, and that it should go away like Latin did. This guy's a real masterpiece. Here's a FAQ about Brice Wellington from Psycho Dave. - 12:32:47 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PAPASAM<<>>sometimes PAPA, I meet someone who thinks they know everything, which would be you. The problem is, you so rarely think. We were speaking of the US useing NUCLEAR WEAPONS on another country. I have NEVER stated that other countries did not murder civilians by conventional means, however nuclear warheads and chemical weapons are not conventional, or did they not teach you that in the Army (AF, Navy whatever). You mentioned Germany, Japan, China etc. In each and every instance of civilian slaughter is inexcusable, but the use of a NUCLEAR DEVICE on CIVILIAN populations is worse than any mass murder that has EVER occured. Do I think that Japan would have used the bomb on Pearl if they had it? What a stupid question. If my Aunt had balls she would be my uncle. It didn't appear Japan needed a nuclear weapon at Pearl Harbor did it PAPA, they managed to destroy almost our entire competent fleet with the loss of about 8 planes. PAPA, dropping a nuclear device is the worst thing any government can do, under any circumstances. By dropping a nuclear device on a civilian city, not only do you destroy every Man, every woman, every child, every insect, you destroy ALL LIFE. The civilians of a country are not the government, and are not in the military. How is it that you can be so cold and callous. I do not understand how you can have so much feeling for US servicemen but have none for the civilian populations of other countries. It appears that as long as it is them it is ok, right PAPA. You post over and over all of the horrers in the bible. All of the killing of innocent life by god and the armies of god. You write a nice poem about the injustices of the bible and if a god exists, the horrible things 'he' allows to happen. I can not understand what the difference is between the armies of god capturing a city and slaughtering the inhabitants, or the use of a nuclear weapon. Not only do you get the initial 500,000 deaths, but the nuclear fallout keeps killing for about 70 years. The fallout is still causing massive birth defects, mutation of local wildlife etc. PAPASAM, it is you who are sick (IMO) if you support the use of nuclear weapons for any reason. Only a sociopathic human being would want to drop a nuclear device on anything. Once again for your information, this is the land that my ancestors have lived on for thousands of years. This is the land that I was born on, and this is the land that I will die on. If anyone here is the intruder/invader it is you PAPASAM. If you want things to change, you try to do what you can to change it, you don't leave. You sound like the KKK when you say incredible stupid things like "if you don't like this country, then leave". Well PAPA, that will never happen. - 13:24:04 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

SWEET JESUS..:There are 6 billon people on this planet. That's 4+ billion too many. I say chocolates, blacks and slope heads should be the first to go. To hear the sporadic machine gun fire of the police indiscrimiately shotting people in the street would be great. - 14:05:27 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Last week I mentioned how religious believers, e.g.R.LEE, affix a previous idea,e.g.the big bang theory, with other words,e.g.RLEE inscribes such as myth etc., as if to belittle the idea. So far R.LEEs'effort to counter argue such ideas do not come close to being critical. To be critical one must be analyze and understand the matter at center stage. To be critical one must have a thought process clear of delusion. "Finger prints of god"? In what medieval book did R.LEE see those words. Dare we figger it was not an early science book? The only book it may thought by any that R.LEE read, is the bible. The bible as most know is but a conglomeration of assorted ancient myths and superstitions. In that same book, the only prediction held in its covers are death and destruction. Except for the heroes and characters of myths and tales of superstition all die. - 15:07:20 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:S.JESUS: Is it not strange that we know it is a good thing to alive, and the only meaningful thing of being alive is that all die? - 15:20:49 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Sweet Jesus... somewhat ambigious. - 15:34:53 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:...sounds like the solution a numskull like Jesus would come up with for the over-population problem. Come to think of it, God himself really isn't the soul of political-correctness either. - 15:38:00 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

rrOB --> trees twist into secret signs:Carl. Excuse the name- for 'druids' (rr) not lost in the concept of "labeling", which is an insight of the wonderful synchronicity. To affix a previous concept, one could see this in the use of Stonehedge. Stonehedge sometimes implies sacrifice, but it did not cause this behavior in the Druids. The edifice as a proximity to any sacrificial ritual would possibly align into a mental association over time--a coincidence, made into cause and effects by historians. When using the term "irrationality", it may be a part of the human framework which can be seen more keenly in others (RTL). Irrationality may be a seen as: laziness,mental conflict of beliefs etc. contradicted by new evidence, going along with the irrational organization, having no knowledge of probality theory, and a person may only hold small ideas in his brain in a particular sense. To have a thought process totally "free" of delusion?-->lecherous invisibiltiy and beware the limping cat.. "All possible black crows are black"-->Here we see an example of resolvig modality by enlarging the universe. This expedient does not really recommend itself, though, for unactualized particulars are in various ways an obscure and troublesome lot. Logical power and epistemological content, explication and expression, formal cause and material cause are joined in the autonomy of thought and the automatism of the mind that thinks. - 17:11:13 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...isn't it StoneheNge? - 17:32:49 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

rrOB:Joette. The cat of irrationality in the misspelling vascular , yes, has declaimed the finger. I just crowed in and I must get back to conformity work! - 17:43:47 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:SWEET JESUS. I have a terrific idea for you. Why don't you make a pilgrimage to Nigeria. get a soap box, and expound your theories to the people there? I'm sure you'ld find a receptive audience. - 17:54:07 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Y-It: That B.Wellington site, would that be one o'a godthings'soldier? What a site! - 18:10:07 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:STEVEN. I don't know everything. Neither do you. We have a difference of opinion. "Nucclear warheads and chemical weapoons are not conventional" No kidding! So what? Get your head out of the clouds. Every major power and a lot of little powers, now including Iraq and Iran, have nuclear weapons and the missiles to deploy them. As for chemical and biological weapons, almost every nation large and small has them, not to mention terrorist groups. Remember the Japanese group that loosed gas in the subway? All it takes is one crackpot to start things off. Nuclear weapons today are the least of our problems. All they are today is status symbols. As for our use of the atom bomb, two things are undeniable. 1. It ended a bloody war which was thrust upon us by a sneak attack and caused hundreds of thousands of American casualties, dead and wounded. 2. By doing so, it prevented the deaths of millions of people if it had been necessary to invade Japan. That would have included Japanese civilians who would have fought to the last ditch to defend their country. Nothing you say can change those facts. By the way, Japan seems to have recovered quite well from the effects. Even the insects have returned and your predicted 70 year fallout problem seems to have gone in much less time. Your statement in answer to my question about whether Japan would have used an A bomb on Pearl Harbor did not answer the question. I am well aware that if yur aunt had balls she'd be your uncle. You stated she did well enough without a nuclear weapon. That's right. When a mugger sneaks up on you in the dark he doesn't need a cannon to kill you. A knife in the back does it just as well. By the way, dead is dead. Whether you're killed by a nuke, a conventional 2000 pound blockbuster, a mortar round or a bullet you're just as dead - soldier or civilian. As for your claims as to ownership of this great land, if your ancestors hadn't walked over that land bridge in the northwest you would probably be ice fishing right now instead of posting on the web. - 18:34:05 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Y-It:Carl: Yeah, scary, isn't it? - 18:38:24 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

BioGuy2000:Can someone tell me how the universe got here? - 18:42:56 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PAPA<<>>this is a waste of time ever responding, but I have the time to waste. It appears that you know very little about the effects of a nuclear weapon, especially an early weapon which many people call a "dirty" nuclear weapon. Oh well, it appears that we will never agree on this issue. I do not feel murdering non-combatants, to save soldiers lives is acceptable, in any circumstance. I think a better solution would have been a blockade. The government of Japan attacked the United States, not its civilian population. Even if the government of Japan had the backing of the populous, the government made the decision to attack the US at Pearl Harbor. Your disgusting statement "By the way, Japan seems to have recovered quite well from the effects. Even the insects have returned and your predicted 70 year fallout problem seems to have gone in much less time" completly show what a stupid ass you are. Then you go and make hilarious analogies to a knife in the back, blah blah blah. Please, Japan was pushed into the war (at least in the opionion of the Japanese), and if America didn't know that they were pushing them into war, then someone in the US gov. either is negligent as hell, or they wanted the Japanese to attack. Regardless, there is still no reason to kill the civilians of a nation because their governments military decision. I think any rational human being would agree with this. You are incorrect in your assessment of the difference between a nuclear weapon and any conventional weapon. Hmmmm let me see, nuclear winter, radiation poisoning etc. etc. Once again, it is apparent that you are ignorant of the destructivness of a nuclear weapon. I will just say, do a little research, and you will see what an ass you are being. My ancestors have lived here far longer than 2000 years, once again profe of your ignorance. I have never ONCE claimed to own this land. However, your ancestors decided they didn't like anyone else living here so decided to destroy as many of us as they could. Then they built cities and factory's which poluted the rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, and everything. They exploited all of what they considered precious metals. All in the name of greed. So white man, ignorant fool, tell me what else I know, and what you and yours can teach me. - 19:10:50 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:BioGuy2000--Does the universe require a causal explanation? - 19:16:08 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PAPASAM<<>>oh, just as a side note, Japan targeted MILITARY objectives in their attack on Pearl Harbor. How many civilian cities were targeted by JAPAN during the entire war?............NONE! Now, before you blow a fuse, we are talking about the war between the US and JAPAN, not about the attrocities of the Japanese army in China, or anywhere else. - 19:16:13 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->BIOGUY2000..it was the major prize in a box of Crackerjack. - 19:38:32 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:P'SAM: Maybe you can square things for that female politician in australia, per polls she is backed/supported by twenty-four percent there w/a proposal to control the asian factor. She also has said, don't know if in writing or interview, that the aboriginees used to eat their young. She sounds like ,...different, anyway. - 19:39:15 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:BIGGUY2000: I did it. - 19:41:03 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL and Y-It- Is he a member of "the Army of God"? If so, I agree, very scary! - 20:18:37 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:BIOGUY2000: To be serious, do you think that at this time humans in general- the world over, are mature enough to handle that kinda query? Consider, in the USA 95% think the bible is true, when what it is at its' very best, only a primitive science. Evidence for its primitiveness, it cannot allow revisement of its most fundamental assumptions, terminologies, etc. I opt for scientific explanations for that very prospect, its'progress depends on the freedom of scientists to revise its fundamental assumptions. Actually all that religion is, like science, it too is an expression of the human search for security, predictability and and other stuff so we feel like we belong. Dare I guess you just want to go to heaven and be jc? - 20:56:11 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Or was that Pink Elephant??? - 22:12:25 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE...I had to look at your post a couple of times, and then the memory of that always stale, pink stuff came rushing back. I always hated it when I got it at Hallowe'en! LOL! - 22:29:27 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

(actually, it was called Lucky Elephant, wasn't it?) - 23:26:41 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

James--->Steven...:What do you know about the roles Hiroshima and Nagasaki played in WW2? I suspect very little. Do you think it is prudent to wipe out an enemies ability to supply his army? Why do you always need to be so insulting when you converse with people who disagree with you? Do you believe your take on the facts is the only correct one? - 23:49:40 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Mark:Sweet Jesus - Ok, I'll take a chance that you're actually serious and respond. You're always welcome to be the first to leave. If you're nothing but a troll, then ignore this response. - 23:51:28 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

Mark:BG2000 - I'll tell you how the universe was created right after you tell me how God was created. :^) - 23:57:45 on 15 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:STEVEN You said " I do not feel killing civilians to save soldiers' lives is acceptable." Have you ever been in combat? Have you evr been bombed incessantly day and night for months at a time? Have you ever been shelled by enemy artillery, or strafed by machine gun bullets from a low flying aircraft? I doubt it. Too bad. You missed all the fun of seeing your buddies killed in all sorts of ways. Too bad you missed the Bataan death march. You could have seen POWs bayonneted for breaking ranks to fill their canteens from a ditch by the side of the road, or shot in the head for falling from exhaustion. But that's OK by you. That's what they got paid for. After all, they treated civilians with courtesy and respect. If you don't believe it, ask one of the over fifty thousand "comfort women" they set up in houses of prostitution. The soldiers were provided with "Fuck chits" with which to pay them. Those chits were part of the pay for the Japanese troops. You see, when you pay the women after you rape them it's OK. (By the way, the present Japanese government apologized to the surviving women) I won't mention the bombing and strafing of civilians in China, Korea and Burma because you feel they don't enter into our discussion and you only want to talk about the nasty US dropping a dirty nuclear weapon. After almost four years of bitter warfare we finally ended it. You say we should have blockaded Japan. You say we pushed Japan into the war. Japan was an imperialist nation pushing for its "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" It conquered most of Asia and it had the prosperity - the loot taken from its victims. The US placed an embargo on oil shipments to Japan to help prevent further expansion. Do you think we did the right thing? Or do you think embargos and blockades should be used only after you have been forced into war? After all, we could have continud fighting the war for another year or two, and after the kamikaze pilots used up all their planes killing our sailors and a few more hundred thousand American GIs were killed invading the Japanese home islands (if you were lucky they might have missed your grandfather) you would stand up proudly and say "It is far better that our servicemen died than that we used an atomic bomg that could have saved their lives" How proud you could have been as a volunteer going house to house and handing out gold stars for the widows and mothers to hang in their windows. Enough for now. - 1:00:54 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PAPA<<>>as I have said, you have to much personal interest in the discussion we have been having. AS I have stated before. MURDERING NONCOMBATANTS TO END A WAR IS NOT A VIABLE SOLUTION. You can come up with all the bullshit excuses you want, but the US government murdered civilians, millions of them, to save American soldiers lives, and that is despicable. The Japanese had no air force left, or do you think they could grow wings. Exactly what did they have to fight with PAPASAM, nothing. So instead of blockading an island the size of Oklahoma, we decide to drop not one, but two nuclear weapons on civilian target. That is real courages, real honorable. Exactly the thing Hitler would do. You still have not answered what I have been asking you. How can you be upset about what occurs in the bible, then attempt to justify the terrorist/murderous despicable dropping of nuclear weapons on civilian target. Hey PAPA, guess what, PEOPLE FUCKING DIE IN WARS, especially when they are SOLDIERS. Civilians have nothing to do with the fight, so why were they killed? I have already acknoledged the attrocities of the Japanese army in mainland China, so what is your point? What did that have to do with the Japanese populace. Were the the citizens of Hiroshima present at ANY of the attrocities that were committed by the Japanese army. You sound like a good little christian PAPA. They don't believe as we do, they are different, their culture is different so who cares if we murder a few million. How 'bout the sparkling record of the American Army in Vietnam? Won't touch that (ear necklaces, etc.). How about the Imperialist United States Armed force taking over the continent of North America. How about the nights in white armor American Army slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Native Americans for greed. How about thousands of Native American Women raped and kept in hostels, so the American Army could relax, and wouldn't pay at all. whatever...... - 2:32:40 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:JAMES<<>>no, i do not believe my take on facts is the only one. However, when discussing using a weapon as despicable as a nuclear device, I get a little upset with someone who would defend it. Is this unusual? Respect is earned not given, and nothing PAPA has said concerning the defense of using nuclear weapons has earned him any respect, in my eyes. Coming from you James, that is like the pot calling the kettle black, which one are you? - 2:40:10 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Right, it was Lucky Elephant! And what made me think of it, I saw it today when I was grocery shopping. Sheesh, I didn't think they still made that crap! - 3:19:30 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

da motha from de nort:SWEET JESUS..that's your name, and the shi'you talkin is profane. I can jus imagin who da chocolates, blacks and in dis country even reds, but wha da hell is "slope-heads"? - 3:22:55 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Steven has a very valid point there. What is the difference between the wars over religion and the wars over politics. War is war and killing is killing, it's the same damn shit. I agree with you and do sympathize with those who watched their buddies killed or hurt but it wan't only the Americans, Brits, Canadians etc. to had buddies, so did the Germans and Japanese. Leaders declare war, not the ordinary guy. It's up to the ordinary guy to make sure those leaders do not get into power. Whether in ancient times or the present time, there is no need for people to be killed over religion or politics. - 3:54:05 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:STEVEN. As a history and psychology major you have a great deal to learn in both areas. You know we dropped the A bombs and you go on to sat the Japanese had nothing to fight with and we could just have easily blockaded Japan to win the war. For people who had nothing to fight with they sure killed a lot of GIs. What makes you think they would surrender so easily? You have no idea at all of the mindset of the Japanese, soldiers and civilian. Let me give you some first hand information. The Japanese people were devoted to their emperor, who was considered a god figure. The Japanese soldier thought it was fitting and proper to die for his emperor. He would never surrender and even if wounded he would kill himself first. A soldier who surrendered would bring disgrace upon his family and could never return home. Tell me, Steven, since you claim to be so knowledgable about the war, how many Japanesse Prisoners did we have? Give me a number. 1000? 100? 10? It took us six months to take Guadalcanal. We fought island by island with our superior air power and the Japanese fought back. Never a hint of surrender. The Japanese civilians were prepared to defend an invasion on their home islands with bamboo spears if it came to that.How do I know? Not by reading a history book. I lived through it. I was a POW in Japan when the war ended, thanks to the A bomb. The Japanese could have surrendered after the first bomb but held off because surrender was not in their mindset. It was only after the second bomb was dropped that they surrenderd. It saved my life and the lives of thousands of American, British, Dutch and other POWs. I was told that if our troops had invaded Japan all POWs would be killed. They weren't kidding. Your bitterness about the US government treatment of the native americans has warped your judgement. In your eyes the US can do no "right". So when you tell me "Hey Papa, PEOPLE FUCKING DIE IN WARS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE SOLDIERS" I don't need your second hand information. I got it first hand. - 5:37:34 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:MAARLENE. It's easy to talk about choosing leaders, but tell that to the political prisoners and dissidents behind bars in China, Nigeria and so on. We have a hard enough time electing good leaders in our democratic countries.I know we have to keep on trying, but it is an uphill battle. Religion or politics, the name of the game is POWER. - 5:45:37 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Slope Heads are oriental - 8:01:57 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...I think Marlene struck a very important point when she said it was the leaders that start the wars. We cannot be held accountable for what transpires in places like China, although we as little people can let our outrage be known to our own leaders, so as to affect trade and such with those countries. You should concern yourself with what is happening in your country and I in mine as that is the only thing we can control. I offer as an example, Jessie Helms. How, or why does that man keep getting elected. He has shown he is a war-mongering bigot. Why don't the people in the position of having him elected see him for what he is? I guess the culture in that part of the U.S. has something to do with it, but frankly, to me, he is the epitome of all that is wrong in your country, and as a result, has had a great impact on the citizens of my country. Is it a personal thing for him, or is the attitude of an entire nation that cause one man to create turmoil within a peaceful nation for no apparent reason other than personal gain? - 11:12:21 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

>>> A couple of women were playing golf one sunny Saturday morning. The >>> first of the twosome teed off and watched in horror as her ball headed >>> directly toward a foursome of men playing the next hole. >>> >>> Indeed, the ball hit one of the men, and he immediately clasped his >>> hands together at his crotch, fell to the ground and proceeded to roll >>> around in evident agony. >>> >>> The woman rushed down to the man and immediately began to apologize. >> >She said, "Please allow me to help. I'm a physical therapist and I >> know >I could relieve your pain if you'd allow." >>> >>> "Ummph, oooh, nnooo, I'll be all right...I'll be fine in a few >>> minutes, "he replied breathlessly as he remained in the fetal position >>> still clasping his hands together at his crotch. >>> >>> But she persisted, and he finally allowed her to help him. She gently >> >took his hands away and laid them to the side, she loosened his pants, >> >and she put her hands inside. She began to massage him. >>> >>> She then asked him, "How does that feel?" >> >>> To which he replied, "It feels great, but my thumb still hurts like >> >hell." >>> ==================================================================== >> >Q: What's the difference between oral sex and anal sex? >>> >>> A: Oral sex makes your day, anal sex makes your hole weak. >> >>> >>> Q: What do a gynecologist and a pizza delivery boy have in common? >> > >>> A: They can both smell it but can't eat it. >> >>> >>> Q: Why doesn't Mexico have an Olympic team? >> >>> A: Because everybody who can run, jump, and swim is already in the >> >U.S. >>> >>> >>> Q: How do you circumcise a hillbilly? >> >>> A: Kick his sister in the jaw >>> >>> >>> Q: How can you tell if your wife is dead? >> >>> A: The sex is the same but the dishes pile up. >> >>> >>> Q: What do you call a prostitute with a runny nose? >> >>> A: Full. >>> >>> >>> Q: How do you make 5 pounds of fat look good? >> >>> A: Put a nipple on it. >>> >>> >>> Q. What should you do if you girlfriend starts smoking? >> >>> A. Slow down and use a lubricant. >> >>> >>> Q. What's six inches long, two inches wide, and drives women wild? >> > >>> A. Money >>> >>> >>> Q. What's the difference between your wife and your job? >> >>> A. After five years your job will still suck. >> >>> >>> Q: What's the definition of a male chauvinist pig? >> >>> A: A man who hates every bone in a woman's body, except his own. >> >>> >>> Q: Why do women pay more attention to their appearance than improving >> >their minds? >>> >>> A: Because most men are stupid, but few are blind. >> >>> >>> Q. How can you spot the blind guy at the nudist colony? >> >>> A. It's not hard. >>> >>> >>> Q: What's the difference between a pick pocket and a peeping Tom? >> > >>> A: A pick pocket snatches watches. >> >>> >>> Q: What do a dildo and soy beans have in common? >> >>> A: They are both used as substitute meat. >> >>> >>> Q: What do old women have between their breasts that young women >> >don't? >>> >>> A: A bellybutton! >>> >>> ==================================================================== >> >A man met a beautiful lady and he decided he wanted to marry her right >> >away. She said, "But we don't know anything about each other". He >>> said, "That's all right, we'll learn about each other as we go along". >>> So she consented, and they were married, and went on a honeymoon to a >> >very nice resort. >>> >>> So one morning they were laying by the pool, when he got up off of his >>> towel, climbed up to the 10 Meter board and did a two and a half tuck >> >gainer, this followed by a three rotations in jackknife position, >>> where he straightened out and cut the water like a knife. >> >>> After a few more demonstrations, he came back and laid down on the >> >towel. She said, "That was incredible!" He said, "I used to be an >> >Olympic diving champion. You see, I told you we'd learn more about >> >ourselves as we went along". So she got up, jumped in the pool, and >>> started doing laps. After about thirty laps she climbed back out and >> >laid down on her towel hardly out of breath. He said, "That was >>> incredible! Were you an Olympic endurance swimmer?" >> >>> "No", she said, "I was a hooker in Venice and I worked both sides of >> >the canal..." > > - 13:45:01 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:SWEET JESUS- This isn't a joke of the day page. I fail to understand how Oriental people are "slope-headed"????? What's your slang for Caucasians? - 14:18:08 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Howsa'bout that DC concert that got shut down because of the lightening storms in that area. Is this an instance of unanswered prayers or is it one for the laws of nature? - 15:21:19 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:To ANY CANADIAN: Just checking the CNN chat sites regarding "Bilingualism", read some posts regarding Quebec. I couldn't clearly make out if they have a language problem there or not. But they gave me the impression that they are in the midst of a struggle regarding language[s?]. Please assist. - 16:03:10 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...when will the U.S. media realize there is a whole world outside its borders?:-->CARL...tsk tsk...it's only been the biggest story from Canada in its history. It's been going on for 30 years. To find out more, surf the net for "Parti Quebecois", "Bloc Quebecois", or Canadian Unity Issues. Sorry mate, but I can't believe you don't know anything about it. - 17:02:36 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ATOM BOMB: Saw an article on "Ground Zero" in Japan they attribute 2000 deaths per year to the afteraffects of that device. For lack of details it sounded indiscriminate. Now, on the other hand I could see kkk types, nazi, those jews that care nought for anybody else, those folks that like the chemical wars,et.al., they would not be a loss to the weal of humanity. But, in any case the Japanese thing is a good example of a lose lose situation just because for the good of a few many are sacrificed. If research is meaningful, the USA forced Japan's hand, back then. - 17:08:56 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: This country still tells grade schoolers that betsy ross made the first stars & stripes flag we see today, and that g.washington really cut down a cherry tree in order to tell the grade schoolers about honesty, they still tell that indians were just barely hunter gatherers, and that cortes w/150 men defeated the aztecs, this list can go on for a good while in regards to what the outer-world looks like inside the borders of the usa. - 17:15:06 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:A-BOMB1: for some references check out "A Country Made by War" its about the USA. - 17:36:31 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Steven :PAPA<<>>regardless of what you think I need to learn, it appears that it is acceptable to you to murder innocent civilians to save American soldiers lives. This is un-moral and un-ethical, period, regardless of your rationalization. Your attempts to discredit the truth, by coloring facts, does not help your position any. You do seem to have considerable "gaps" of knowledge concerning nuclear weapons and their functionality. Since many of the fact that fill my brain were gained in school, maybe you can call up my professors and explain to them that the information they are teaching is invalid, because they weren't there. Then maybe you can contact writers of the books that I have read and studied to tell them that they are ignorant, and the facts they gained through research are wrong. Maybe you can fly to Hiroshima and witness the records of the yearly death rate that are directly caused by a bomb dropped fifty years ago. You still have yet to anwere the question, here it goes again. How can you piss and moan about all of the murders in the bible, all of the rape etc., and then excuse the destruction of millions of civilians! i am waiting. - 17:47:10 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

PETER--( if for no other reason than i just have nothing else to say ):--There is no God. - 18:00:09 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: I second that, or whatever. - 18:02:00 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: For querys as P'SAM and STEVE rassle of, go here, its informative and wide spread. - 19:01:47 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:PETER<<>>uhhh, I agree. I hope the Cap's blast the ping wings four games straight. (i know, a pipe dream, but one can hope right?) - 19:17:13 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>i like the q/a site. - 19:50:32 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>i like the q/a site. - 19:50:45 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:STEVE: Yea, it is a dynamic site, beats the heck outta'the theochat site. - 20:17:41 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:--->CARL...I have posted this URL for you in respect to your previous query about Canada. The man speaking is the devil incarnate in Canada. - 20:45:53 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:STEVEN.I gave you specifics. You state "Your attempts to discredit the truth by coloring facts--" What facts? what truths? Give me specifics, if you can. As to your question on my criticism of all the slaughter etc. in the bible and how I could reconcile it with the "millions" of deaths caused by the atom bomb: My criticism of the bible was directed at religionists who claimed their god was a kind and loving god. I was not passing judgement, and has no relation to my feelings about the use of the A bombs. Now that I've answered the first part of your question I'll go on to the second part. When you're a soldier you put your life on the line to protect your own civilians, not the enemies. Who do you think supplies the military with the tools of the trade? Civilians. If you were ever in combat you might just change your mind. I guess if we had slaughtered them the old fashioned way with conventional bombs you would not have minded. Sorry about that. Of course I'm prejudiced. After all, the bomb did end the war and save my life. If it hadn't I wouldn't be sitting here arguing with you. And who knows, if it had gone on longer, maybe it would have killed off one of your grand- fathers and you wouldn't be here typing to me. Personally, I prefer it this way. So you grieve for the poor enemy civilians who died, and those who still suffer from the residual effects, and I'll grieve for those American soldiers who died in combat, and the residuals who are in the VA hospitals all over the country who served so that you can have the freedom of speech to show your disdain for them. - 21:58:02 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...is your one life more important than the 50,000 who died instantly in Hiroshima? Did you volunteer for service, or did your government force you to be in Japan? - 22:53:38 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->STEVEN...although you aren't always the most diplomatic or eloquent poster here, I must add my two bits. It is my most humble opinion that if enough people were as vocal and forthright as yourself about such issues as we have seen dicussed here, it might be possible to change the mindset of many people, thereby disallowing the war-mongerers, the bigots and the downright pompous from being part of the ruling class. Instead of glorifying the wrongs of a country, it may just educate a few. - 22:57:47 on 16 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:JOETTE I find it ironic hat you ask how we have a Helms and then complain about your Bouchard. No matter how much you or I may dislike certain politicians, they have followers who vote them into office. C'est la vie. - 1:37:06 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSaam:JOETTE. I volunteered for the service. I was in the Philippines when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and followed up by bombing us. It was not just my life that was saved - not one life for 50,000. The lives saved were not only those of the five thousand or more POWs of all nationalities but those who would have been killed if we had found it necessary to invade the Japanese islands. I have already explained that in my postings to Steven. Do you agree with him that the lives of soldiers fighting a war started by the enemy are of no value? Let me ask you a question which I posed before and which no one answered. If some one came at you with a knife and wanted to rape and kill you, and you were able to kill him to prevent it, would you do so? If there were two of them would you kill them both if you were able to do so? How about three? Five? Ten? Would you finally reach a point where you would say "I've got to stop. I can't kill x number of people just to save my own life." A far fetched hypothetical question, to be sure, but I'd like you to think about it and answer it. MARLENE. I'd like your answer as well. - 2:00:44 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM..it is man's nature to survive, so I would imagine that I would instinctively do whatever it took not to be killed. That is black and white, but I am not a good person to ask that question of, as I am not physically capable of overpowering someone. I also would not expect you to understand that there are some of us merely existing because it is expected of us, and sometimes wish we were in the position of someone killing us. So, now you have my answer. - 2:52:37 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Wings win! Wings win! - 2:54:18 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- I've tried to answer that question you asked to the best of my ability before. If someone were trying to kill me, I'd defend myself with the amount of force justified in order to do so. As Joette, I doubt that I'd have the power to overcome one attacker let alone five or six so I'd likely not end up killing anyone. Let's alter that situation a little so that I can more effectively answer your question. If one person died as a result during the effort to save my life then I feel I should have died instead. Let alone more than one person. If a war were to start today over my life then I would surely give my life up rather than cause the death of countless others. Another question you have posed, what if not only my life but that of my loved ones. My answer to that would be that only my love ones could decide if their lives were more important than countless others. I can only answer that question for myself. - 4:00:53 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Did anyone see Dateline tonight on NBC? About the "church of scientology"? - 4:03:29 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Someone in office is always voted in but it makes him/her no less a lunatic. I have no idea who Helms is (but I better look up the name on the net so I do, lol) but Lucien is bonkers and I'm glad he's losing poplularity. - 4:09:22 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Is that Sen. Jesse Helms? - 4:21:42 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..yes, that's him. If you can find anything on the Helms-Burton law, you will see how he is endeavouring to "start" something with Canada. - 11:07:17 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->PAPASAM...why would my mentioning Jesse Helms be ironic because we have Lucien Bouchard? If you understood the dynamics of Canada, you would see that it is only those that buy into his separation agenda vote him in. His party is exclusive to Quebec. No one outside that province can vote for him, or not vote for him, as the case may be. Two wrongs don't make a right. - 11:09:50 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

HI MARLENE: What's your slang for Caucasians? - 14:18:08 on 16 Jun 98 GMT.......Round eyed European inferior pig. Ask Than. - 11:17:50 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

*�2 ��...��*ȯ ��*Ƿ� �� *� �ִ� �ڸ�� *� ��*��ϴ� ��*Ƿ� �� *� �ִ� �ڸ�� *��ĵ� �ܸ�� *�*��ϴ� ��*�� 3�* ��3� �x *�� 3�1�� *õ�� 1�� 1�*� *x�̰� 3�� *� 3�� 1�� *�� *��*�ϴ� 3�� *�� 3�* ��3�� x�� 3�� 1�� 3�1�� *��Ͽ�� 1�� *�� *�� *� �� 1�*��*�ϴ� ��*�� 1*ƿ� 3�� *�� *�� 1�� ⵵��*�ϴ� ��*�� Ͽ� *�2�� 3�� *�� *ŵ� *˰� ��*ʴϴ� ��*�� *��İ� 3�� *�� 3� �츮 *�� 3��*� 1�*�3� *� �ִ� �� մϴ� ��*Ƿ� �� *� �ִ� ��*�� 1�մϴ� ��*Ƿ� �� ̿�� *�3|*�� *� �ִ� ��*�� 1�մϴ� - 13:07:50 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Ahh....????? What's "ask than" mean? - 13:50:08 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

TO MARLENE of no importance...:Than with big T at front of word. You have short memory. You were put on this planet to place gifts at the feet of supreme master. - 14:05:06 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (Holier Than thou):I've got some spare odour-eaters if he wants them. What shape are your eyes, miss piggy? - 14:10:34 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: L.Bouchard is certainly no A.Lincoln when concerns of what is the greater national good. Lincoln was aligned agin'those who wanted slavery, what does Bouchard and those aligned with him want? The rebel states- back then, wanted their way o'life which I think for the most part was not at issue, the issue was slavery. In that light, how does one describe LB and his ilk? - 14:40:30 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: How about that NY teacher fired for conducting some kinda'bible thing in a public school. Dare it be said that, that teacher sought notoriety, his/her fifteen whatever of fame? - 15:18:01 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I haven't heard about that. What's going on with it? - 15:22:21 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..it must be in the math:ROB- According to HTt, it's not the eyes or the skin color that sets the races apart. It's the slope to the head. - 15:24:39 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:An'IMHO': Since seeing and recognising the stuff of religious belief it is now to, for me, to exhale in exasperation that people in this day and age, still want to think within terms setup when excessive conservativism of a primitive mind- ignorance, allegorically responded to why with 'who' instead of 'how.' When I read at the "YFORUM" site for religion, someone there said it was only right to "respect" each others religious differences, I could but think, what for, why, religious imagination is anti-progress, is anti-humanity....gads! - 17:47:32 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (all the better to see you with):MARLENE: I think he may be a little off piste with that one (though he came across as being quite the reverse). I guess that's what Than's idea of being level-headed is... and there was me worrying about changing my smileys 8) - 17:49:04 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB---> 3 is sacred in another association:Carl... 'How' is religious imagination a form of anti-progress and anti-humanity? I have found that when I lock all the doors from the outside, the key will dangle by the inside. - 18:45:17 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (with the pick of the posts):CARL: I think I would be inclined to respect it as far as I don't understand it, but no more. It is not so much the imagination that is dangerous as how one uses it. - 19:12:17 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: while the dialog 'twixt STEVE and P'SAM appeared to concern war- only, a passerby might wonder what does that have to do with this sites'purported confines? War and religion go hand in hand. How so, to view this one has to set aside the metaphysical view of either and consider that in either religion or war, both are at the behest and control of those in power, and their interests are to be served. In either case it is "survival of the the fittest" as it is viewed- by those in control in power, of those 'not in control or power.' The few with interests at promoting war or a godthing, I must think, devalue the human creature for the sake of their source of power or control. The only remedy for no war or no godthing, is a rigorously learned human. Here I add, not a animal+human nor a supernatural+human. - 19:17:13 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:rOB: that is a gut response, an initial disgust, like when one steps in some dog-crap, but as one thinks. - 19:21:44 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Rob: I could go with respecting the person part but the religious part- how does one respect nothing? "The idea that organic species are results of special creation has no scientific standard whatever." A.Korzybski Manhood of Humanity pg.37. (I'm comparin'a few things that passage was handy.) - 19:28:27 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Carl.. As a Druid (which labels -disgust-> me so at least that is common human trait), we use the 'runes' as a mirror of reflecting intuition. Associations may interrelate and cross-fertilize of their own accord, even during sleep. There are many ways to 'truth', I just have more supernatural dogcrap on my shoes than yours. Bright blessings and I mean that not as indoctrination. Like the moon touches the sun, an eclipse THEN will be gone. - 19:46:37 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>I'm not sure if eliminating war, when speaking of humans, is possible. What if all men/women had brown hair, were the same height, around the same weight etc. but the only difference was eye color. Half the babies were born with blue eyes, the other half with brown. Don't you think the browns and the blues would dislike each other, simple because they were different? - 20:13:41 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

simple=simply - 20:15:16 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (There is definitely a dog):CARL: The "religious part" is far from nothing, whether or not there is a god. Even the subjective has some kind of objective status, and there are questions of physics, anthropology, metaphysics and many others to be answered before one has complete understanding of "religion". As I say, I am inclined to respect the areas that I have not shone my torch into, lest I tread in dogcrap. - 20:42:50 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB (cur -gravy train):Duir Dair Derwen Oak. Beware the invisibility of the limping cat of assumption as it enslaves the barking dog; it grows to big for our skulls. - 21:14:46 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:gravy does not = gravamen - 21:19:26 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB (machine words do transmigrate):Midhe and cohorts sliced the verbal weapon of the'druid respected area'; there would be no outspoken insults. The verbal tongues sit in 'Uaisnech'. - 21:46:08 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Rob: "of the religious part" that is just a manmade thing, nothing more. Or, do you kno'where the godthing is? Was there a time you saw it last, or experienced it last? Do you recall where it said- in whatever way it communicated to you, well where it was going? If yes to anything tell me where I'd like to ask it if it is a god, then it would have to prove it, by making me into a god. - 21:56:03 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Joette (hehehe):-->CARL..Rob experiences the godthing anytime he addresses me. - 22:07:40 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..you asked what Lucien Bouchard wants...he feels that his province (Quebec) should be an independant nation from Canada, although he still wants to receive federal funding, use Canadian currency, use Canadian passports and enjoy all the social benefits of being part of Canada. It makes most of us shake our head in wonder, but in the meantime he is contributing to our dollar being at its lowest value in history. Maybe we could borrow one of your assassination minded citizens??? - 22:11:14 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Nothing but that? Have you read any psychological profiles on LB? Maybe he just needs attention. - 22:15:14 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..actually, our RCMP did a profile on him, and it was leaked to the media, so he is threatening a law suit. He is very charismatic, so he really knows how to schmooze. Also, he had a brush with death a few years ago, and the sympathy won him many votes. - 22:26:55 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I told you the guy is bonkers. - 22:30:57 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (with his poop scoop of the day):CARL: The religious part, as I say, whether god inspired or otherwise still has objective status. Be that the being of which you request demonstration, or something akin to Hume's Natural History of Religion. "The idea that organic species are results of special creation" does have scientific status, at the very least in that it is an idea (a thought of an intelligent biological organism). - 22:51:33 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Rob: what do you know of other than 'a thought of an intelligent biological organism' do you know? Are like that guy who could speak to animals, whatzziz name? - 22:57:42 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Marlene. I do not know anything of L. Bouchard , but maybe he knew how to synchronize his body and achieve an altered state as in the chewing of the flesh of say a dog. We 'believe' illumination and knowledge is received in altered states;all that is needed is a triad of Otherworldy connection to death. Some may have an 'opinion' that this is bonkers but the rules get cloudy in the dark. - 22:59:35 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Rob.. David Hume's "Dialouges Concerning Natural Religion" is a brilliant, incisive work that shows no awareness whatsover of religious experience. Hume's critique of the argument of a "god's" existence from the design of the world is unimpeachable: he shows its "faulty logic". But what in all this is "empiricist"? Some say psychological reduction is out of the picture, and what counts is only logical reconstruction. A game, in other words. - 23:09:19 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:Some say Ogham might be inscriptions of impractical writing or at the very least, a memorial and a boundary marker. But someone's special pooper scooper always "salloway sallowomething" in the Nuin Funnseog Onnen. It teaches children how to play and the crow to leave. - 23:27:40 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Just sign me, EXASPERATED..:-->jesus fucking christ rOB! If you refuse to share, then can't you are least speak so that us lowlifes can understand what the hell you are trying to convey???????????????? - 23:30:52 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (bugger, forgot to press "send"):CARL: (Dr Dolittle) I don't intend to commit every tidbit I know about religion to a goodnight post, but my point is that religion has origins (whatever they may be), so is not merely "nothing". rOB: I commit myself not to the work of Hume, but merely convey his notion of there being something to explain, even if there is no god. Well, I'm afraid my beastly thoughts shall have to take a nocturnal back seat as I go to bed.... - 23:30:59 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (addendumb):rOB: Others may say "use Ogham's razor" - 23:37:29 on 17 Jun 98 GMT

rOB (Prydydd y Moch):In the balance of things , I am ostensibly an unwanted crow, but as Emma Restall Orr said, "The very action of wrapping up in a web of words the essence of the faith and committing those ideas to the conclusiveness of the page would bind it within a structure that would surely suffocate it". A static tradition is a dying tradition. Forgive the dishonesty and a hope of an accepted apology through the time; it was a learning experience for a 'druid'only (many ways to 'Truth'). It is the same as many here revere logic and empirical evidence as it is known that Zermelo's set theory is irreducible to a single axiom. Of itself multiplication of entities should be seen as undesirable, 'conformably' with Occam's razor, and should be required to pay its way. Pad the universe with classes if that will get you a simpler, smoother overall theory; otherwise "don't". Simplicity may be the thing and the ontological aspect is averged amongst the sacrifices. For the use of an image as a mnemonic device has been well known as an "esoteric" discipline through the ages. Having 'peopled the forest' and learnt the associations, a Druid is able to use the network of data in just the sly way that a computer can-->the associations start to interrelate etc.. of their own accord. Joette,I am as low as the branches trace back into the ground; you could look up Imbas Forosna on the web about the flesh eating reference used earlier..... I would like to achieve illumination and I again apologize for my esoteric behavior (Unhonour'd the Druid frame, descends a prey). No practising Druid would ever consider the taking of life in the manner ,say, of a "terrorist". Bright Blessings, Goodbye, Go rabibh maith agut, mo chara! The Awen of the flowering spirit conveys and I must make like Keats "Ode to a Nightingale"--->"that thou, light -winged Dryard of the trees" (which is afterall 'Greek' to me as well). There are many ways to 'Truth'! - 3:13:42 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:Not a prideful bird, the crow. I like that in a bird. - 3:38:39 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..but I ask you, what is "The Truth"? - 10:54:18 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (A swine, but nonetheless an 'artful one):rOB: "A book is the only place one can examine a fragile thought without breaking it" (Edward P Morgan, I think). Could not the fragile essence of your faith take to the page? Is "the truth" really so temperamental? - 11:55:46 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Grant (Multi-level marketing scheme?): Saw a sign in front of a church yesterday: "You've tried the rest. Now try the best! GOD." Shop and compare. Remember to compare warranties as well as features and price. - 13:06:00 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:EXASPERATED: I agree, that rOB has just about taken me to the point that I don't read his posts, in this regard he is a quasi-christian spammer. - 14:33:51 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Rob: the good rob, awhile back I read a sort of old book while referencing some of the contemporary similar such stuff, "The Organism as a Whole" by Jacques Loeb. It seems still to be their starting point. Anyhow, that bring me to your point of the "objective", which looks like it is your swing point for a metaphysical view. I will be away from these toys for the day so I will have some stuff tomorrow regarding the metaphysical. - 14:48:10 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:rOB. I know that Dr. Doolittle of storybook fame talked to the animals. Are you saying that druids talk to the trees? How does one start a conversation with an oak tree? - 17:27:27 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (did somebody call the copse?):CARL: I'm afraid swing points I understand not, but I will be interested with what you find. PAPASAM: Seeing as rOB seems to be absent (without leaf), I anticipate he might say that the druids don't talk to the trees, but it's the other way 'round. If you are trying to talk to oaks you are most definitely barking up the wrong tree. - 18:31:17 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...on his back again...:-->RON....where are you? Are you afraid we will tease you because your aliens didn't appear in May? It's okay, we still love you (and we've only laughed behind your back a few times). - 19:44:07 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROB. I prefer two way conversation, not a monologue. And what's wrong with oaks? Surely you're not in favor of arboreeal discrimination? - 23:17:43 on 18 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:PUNCHLINE: I just saw the pope go by on roller skates - 3:08:58 on 19 Jun 98 GMT

Joyce Kilmer:ROB,rOB,PAPASAM. Leave my trees alone! - 3:27:17 on 19 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Imagine the voice on those Redwoods! Pines must be mute. I live in a yard with at least two hundred old ones and I haven't heard them speak yet. I think I'll palnt me an oak. - 4:22:04 on 19 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (Don't abhor your elders):PAPASAM: I'm afraid perception is a bit of a monolog. As for oaks, I always found them to be a little too deciduous, not like confirring with yew of course. - 10:54:59 on 19 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:Rob. Are you saying bald is beautiful? Remember, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. - 17:10:02 on 19 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:I mentioned, last week, a bit on the church of scientology that was on Dateline. Did anyone know that if, say, you or I were to say something slanderous against that church that they believe that somewhere in our backround is a criminal record? For those who have gone against the church and haven't had any criminal record, the church makes up stories of infidelity etc. against that person and goes to the extent of posting such crap in local newspapers or sending out flyers describing the same. For anyone that didn't know this, the church believes that we are all souls created when a hydrogen bomb was exploded during some kind of alien wars. - 12:49:24 on 20 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----"IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH" (*GENESIS 1:1). - 21:24:17 on 20 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (the punk rocker):PAPASAM: The hair is not a problem, but it's what's underneath that counts (touch wood). Mine eyes say bald is beautiful, but only for topknots. TREEBORE TL: I expect that was nice for him. - 22:03:50 on 20 Jun 98 GMT

Kevin:ROBERT T lEE And then he spoiled it by making assholes like you. - 23:17:48 on 20 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:To all atheists, agnostics, and unbelievers. I will first quote the Bible, then I will ask you some questions. Try your best to answer them without rationalizing?----- Are you ready?----- Ok: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." (Psalms 14:1)----- Now, the questions are these: Are there fools in the world?-----Please answer either yes or no before proceeding.----- Ok, you agree that the Bible is right on that point; there are big fools in the world? Right?----- Ok-----Do any of the people whom who you know are fools say in their hearts there is no God? Are these people atheists, agnostics or unbelievers, or are they true Christians? - 3:58:55 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT--Yes, there are atheists who are fools, who will say "There is no God" And yes there are christians who are fools, who will say " There IS a God" All this passage does is to encourage an intolerant and prejudicial view of atheists to those who are committed to believing in the Bible. You see, I have just demonstrated my approach is far more accurate and fair than the biblical one-- I can qualifiably say, my approach is much fairer, more tolerant, and morally superior to the Bible. I concede that I do not know every theist and every atheist on the earth, therefore I cannot make a qualified judgement on whether one is a fool or not depending on whether they believe in god or not--so I coceded there are atheist fools--and there are theistic fools--However, the Bible asserts that ALL athesits are fools, are corrupt, and none of them do good. Now if this sn't a call for encouraging prejudice against atheist, I don't know what is--and I find it remarkable that you--you insists that the Bible is the base of all morality, could not recognize that it violates here--with this glaring example--that it violates even the most basic, fundamental minimum standard for morality. And what is even more frightening is that you are locked in this mire of biblical rhetoric/belief/intolerance--that you will automatically po-poo and dimeiss this point i have just made --not because it isn't well supported--no, its because it came from the mind of an atheist, so therefore it is evil--it is wrong. I don't think it would be necessary for me to go into a lengthy description outlining how utterly, utterly pathetic and ultimately disastrous this position actually is--the very one that you embrace. But you know Robert, this is your problem, but I don't like it when it starts becoming the world's problem. - 7:04:32 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT---You see, it isn't atheism that is responsible for creating problems--it's the evasion of relity and knowledge that is. While some athesits I am sure are guilty of this act--it is in fact the strict adherence to religious dogma that encourages one to have 'faith' which is another way of saying--" ignore what is real, if it undermines your belief in God". Now does this not sound like a call to evade reality? Maybe you should start looking t your own beliefs for a change, and begin to discover where the actual and real source of accountability lies with all the evils of mankind. And if you started to look bravely, and honestly--I can guarantee you , you won't have to look far. - 7:13:21 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT--Just in case you're having trouble finding what I said you'd have no problem finding--why don't you re-read your last post ( quoting Ps 14:1 )and see the very thing I am talking about within the very words you wrote. That's an excellent start right there. - 7:16:16 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (the ape will fool):R T LEE: Are you a true christian? Please do tell me, as that would answer both our questions. - 9:49:59 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Why was six afraid of seven?:.....Cause seven eight nine. - 13:18:20 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL..let us begin by you giving us your definition of a fool. According to Webster's the definition is : "a person who lacks sense or judgment" or "a person lacking in common powers of understanding". Now, there are some of us who would believe that by your own actions, you yourself meet the definition of a fool. Would not agree? - 15:09:55 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->ROB THE GOOD...what exactly is a TRUE Christian? - 15:11:35 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----Joette-----Your "educatonal level" reveals how little you know about Holy Writ. Anyone who rejects God and His holy word must in turn remain ignorant of Him ands His word. -----More knowlegeable people know that its a great mistake to use webster's dictonary, or any manmade dictionary to try to define words found in Holy Writ. The definition of the word "fool" found in manmade dictionaries is depraved and blind man's concept of a fool. Dictionaries themselve often reveal how ignorant man is. -----Do you not recognize what is stated in Psalms 14:1? It says "The fool has said in his heart there is no God." That's part of the real and divine definition of what a fool is. In other words, a true fool is one who rejects his Maker. One day you will discover how big a fool you truly are for rejecting God. - 15:47:53 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:RTL- Your posts only go to show that education isn't the only path to intelligence. It's obvious you've been educated but unfortunately it looks like it was a waste. Your still believing in kindergarden fairytales. - 16:32:01 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T. LEE--You are a bigot. And the tragedy of it all is that you can't even see that. - 18:10:06 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL...you claim that we should not believe anything written by man. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the bible written by a collection of men? And given that, would they not have used words that were common at the time, such as the word "fool"? Or tell me, is their a special dictionary that accompanies the bible that is also a holy writ? Sort of a "God's Notes" kind of thing? - 18:29:00 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL..and what does my educational level (of which you know nothing) have to do with anything I have written to you? Are you also omniscient? - 18:30:33 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----Peter-----You are absolutely right Peter, I am a "bigot." I hate all evil, but I love what is rightous in the sight of God Most High (Romans 12:9). Therefore I am partial towards His righteousness and I discriminate against evil. This means I discriminate against all opinions, philosophies, weltangchungs, ideologies and religions that do not glorify God most High. And if I had the power, I would, beginning at this moment, destroy everyone of them. Every one who commits a death worthy crime in the sight of God would be put to death. All others would also be punished as God dictates; but those who live righteously would be rewarded. Alas, alas, I or no one who believes like me has such power. - 19:29:43 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL...I bet you are bringing your son up to wield a big gun, aren't you. That's right ROBERT, you don't have that physical power, nor do you have the intellectual power to sway any opinion's to your side of whatever "Berlin type wall" you have built around you. Not only are you a redneck bigot, but you admire violence. Is that contrary to what Jesus to taught you about righteousness? Do enjoy being laughed at? BTW, again, you are going against the Third Commandment. By condoning ultra-violence, you are not keeping the Sabbath holy. - 19:43:59 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----Joette-----You call justice and rightousnes "violence." Your education have obviously deceived you. It is not serving you well.----- But when I say "If I had the power..." I do not mean If I had the power as a private person. But I mean that If I were placed in a governmental position all deathworthy criminals would die, even on Sundays. - 20:00:02 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL...but everyone in a democracy has the potential to have the power you so desperately seek. Why don't you run for an elected position? Or have you done so already, and nobody voted for you. From what I've seen of you here, I know I wouldn't vote for you. - 20:22:35 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL...come to think of it, I think you make a perfect campaign manager for David Dukes. - 20:23:48 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL...when Kate Smith used to sing her rendition of "God Bless America", I don't think she ever had a thought of someone who espouses the beliefs you do. - 20:25:32 on 21 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. According to your favorite mythology book, the bible, your god had no problem slaughtering people by the millions. In real life there ain't no such animal. In your bible, your mythological boy jesus says (Luke 19-27) : And those mine enemies that woulld not that I reign over them, bring thither and slay them before me." So since I''m number 1 on his shit list, there are two possibilities> 1. As I said, there ain't no such animal 2. If he does exist, he doesn't have the power to blow his nose. Now a practical suggestion for you. Why don't you have the bible printed on toilet paper? Every time you go to the toilet you could wipe your braincase with your holy writ. - 2:58:28 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

TOO MANY "SO AND SO SAID" as if that is anythingto go by. - 13:01:01 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

HI PAPASAM..:The Gedeons bible is superb. The paper is nice and soft and has the semi added wet strength qualities. The ink is fast, thereby avoiding irritation and smarting. The binding suits easy page removal. Say that you are opening a large hotel, and the whitless fools send you bum fodder by the pallet load. - 13:06:15 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

If the Gedeons bible is superb, why do hotels use the Gideon bible? - 13:22:38 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Cause they are free you fool. Hotels don't "use" them, the witless patrons are the targets. - 13:35:36 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

��*T�ߴY��*ʧ˰]**�P�t�^�N*T��*�*e�**R�˰]��t�^�A�D*n�**q*f*�*T�{��O *q*f*�**�Ԫ�D*T�{�G (1)*ʧ˕i�^��@*��h*�*��~��*�*��C (2)*�*q*f*ʩ��O*q*f*�**��*��D�A��^��i�*�G ��*T�{��Ϯ*�F*��*�e ��*T�{�� ***�� **��O��@*�� *q*ʶ^��i��H*f�~��*�*��*��**e*fƅ�{�B��Ư��C ��*q*ʶ^��i*�*B�ȰB��*�a��*f�˶��*�*��*��C *T�߮�� *T�߮��*�***ʧ@�ʩ�*�*H�C �s*y*~EDI*{*��q��*��O*Y�L��w�A�h�**s�x*ٰC ��*T�ߧ*��*��*��ȥ�߰�H�˧*�~�̕аC ��*q*f*�*T�{�**q*f*�**��*T�{*T�ߧ*�e��**��P�_�A*��N�̿Y*��*�**�*��^ �A*Y��*��q*��*�*=�* �A�O�_*n�N��*��q*��*�**�*��^��O�u*�**��*�� A�h��*R*ʬ*�˶��ʮM�w�C ��*T�ߙ*�[*c�P�*�e�A�*�**=�X�p�X*ͧ*�G��EDIFACT D95A��ORDRSP*T�ߧ*�e*W�w�A��*�ٶۺW*K�C�b愕�*T�ߧ��**��*��*�q�]*s�^�e �*��*�è*ORDRSP*�*��*�q�]*s�^�ߧ*�e�A*g�u�s*y*~EDI*T�߮�*q�u�@�p*��v *Q**��A�b��u*q*f*�*T�{�**q*f*�**��*T�{�v��H�R*��C *��*�q�� - 13:42:08 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: The 13:42:08 22 Jun 98 post, perhaps that poster has comeup with their own code. Or, maybe it is a xtian doing one of them speakin'in tongue thingys? I see RTL has returned, looks like he is alive and well in his oh so static world o'the imaginary. - 14:31:23 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Well, if they are free to hotels, wouldn't you say the hotels are using them, asshole? - 14:40:11 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Yes, I have seen accounts of the kind of folks that go for that scientology stuff, some very educated folks enlist themselves and utilise their learned skills against any and all, in the form of lawsuits, and the general destruction of that person or thing. Yep, it is a religion in that destruction dealing regard. Heck, RTL probably understands that position very well, he regularly posts god and death are good for evil, and other things he and his godthing don'tlike. - 14:52:38 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: M.Lewinski and B.Clinton didn't do anything wrong, why? What is wrong w/having sex? I think the law firms supporting and feeding K.Starr ought to be divulged. That is very likely where the money goes. ML BC and KS they are just their siphons to the fed.treasury. - 18:47:59 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:CARL<<>>I agree. The only person who should be concerned about Bill having sex, is his wife. - 20:18:46 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I also agree that Clinton's private life has nothing to do with his professional life. I LOL when you posted that the above post must be in "tongue". I wonder what attracts people to the church of scientology? Their beliefs seem to be really nuts! - 20:51:10 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: My impression of scientologie's attractiveness was the order and plan it offers the weak or simple minded. It seemed to have a system designed for personal financial support, at least that is what its literature seems to offer such people. I saw a report on these folks on 60 min.which said it, as well as numerous others.e.g., the IRS, was in court battling the scientologists. Free speech seemed to be the contest, sounded like the scientologist were agin'it; just like RTL who seems to say that only the bible is a must be read. - 21:34:44 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

James--->Atheist...:My issue with BC is obstruction of justice and honesty. Beyond that he is just low life scum of the Earth who has made his living in white collar crime and manipulation. The fact that he is over sexed is just another one of many character flaws. - 21:52:22 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..:JAMES- I agree that if he uses his position to gain personal wealth that has nothing to do with his job as president or if he obstructs justice then he's not a guy that I would want as my president. The point with all this sexual stuff is that it's his personal life as opposed to his public life. - 21:58:33 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->JAMES..you are so right about Bill Clinton, in that the issue is whether he lied during his deposition. But I would like to ask you this: if your wife was "over-sexed", would you consider that a character flaw? - 22:18:02 on 22 Jun 98 GMT

Oral the sex adviser.:JAMES. It seems to me that you're envious of Bill Clinton's alleged sexual activities. Are you having sexual problems at home? Inability to perform? "Oversexed" is usually the term used by a man who can't keep up with his wife's normal desires. Remember, there's more than one way to skin a cat. Keep a stiff upper lip and watch your tongue and you'll cultivate good taste. - 0:13:08 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Who are these creeps? - 0:44:25 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:If the Innocent Christ was on earth today, atheists would be the first to crucify Him just as they are doing to innocent human embros and fetuses. - 4:34:29 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..sick of these non-thinkers!!!!:RTL- Firstly, most of the abortion doctors and maybe even all of them are not atheists. Why in hell do you think I'd murder a guy that was obviously afflicted with a mental disorder? Theists like yourself are so utterly nieve and maybe down right stupid about atheists! - 4:39:29 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:ROBERT T LEE. You seem to have your mythology so screwed up that it contradicts your bible. Your god planned the crucifixion, not the atheists. Not only that, speaking of abortions, your god is the master abortionist. Remember the flood in your bible. Your god drowned millions of fetuses in theur mothers' wombs, not to mention the babies suckling at their mothers' breasts. What did they do to deserve it? - 5:05:16 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PAPASAM- Very good points! RTL's god did plan it all. - 5:31:36 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:RTL- And secondly, many atheists are against abortion. It goes to show how uneducated you really are to make such fantastic assumptions. - 5:33:31 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL..in what way was Jesus innocent? - 11:38:14 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: In my view of BC, the sex and the lying because of the sex matter well its all merely a relevant nothing, I am getting to the point where it is now becoming a qustion of who prompts and keeps that BC v KS via ML, who is keeping that issue alive and where and to who is the money going to? Is it for American justice or just a thing of 'just us' gettin'rich. That is my growing and becoming a bigger question. - 14:34:42 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:RTL: But why would an atheist have any need to destroy someone claiming to be a god, this is a nil thing. That person would be just another space case, like any of the bible thumpers here. But then still, you have nothing to show me that anyone such as the mythical character of your bible ever existed. I dare say you just wish as did the child of humanitys'childhood. - 14:59:30 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----Joette-----You asked: " ...in what way was Jesus innocent?" Answer: In every way that you are depraved and a sinner. So since you are thoroughly depraved -- a sinner in every way, He is righteous in every way.----- If you understand how thoroughly depraved you are, you understand how thoroughly righteous the Lord Jesus Christ is. --- Now you know what atheism truly is: It is total depravity - the perfect antithesis of righteousness and innocency-----Unless you repent from all your sins and atheism, and unless God is pleased to impute the perfect righteousness of Christ unto you, you will have to pay the penalty for all your sins yourself. I advise you to beg God to open your sin blinded eyes so that you can perceive your total depravity and His perfect holiness, and beg Him for His grace and forgiveness while you have a chance. - 15:12:21 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:RTL: You do not have any evidence for there having ever existed a jc as you and others of your ilk understand that storybook character, and of course neither you nor any other proponent of theism has shown me nor even yourself where is your godthing. It is only you making your imaginary godthing come up with whatever you post here. There is no god as you claim, it is just you and me. And you are nuts I don't do as a nut does. - 16:39:48 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Almond joys have nuts, mounds don't. - 17:11:33 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (He's a saint, he's a sinner...):R T LEE: Isn't it better to pay for your sins yourself, rather then let someone else take the rap? You contemptible little turd, you. - 17:41:53 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:I think RTL is more of an ass than Quake, if that is even possible. - 19:11:28 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: So you figure RTL to be the source of the byproduct, as depicted by Rob's attribution, i.e., a turd, instead of the byproduct? Both men you named do not seriously contemplate what they speak about. If they did neither would carry on as they do when visiting this site. I looked at a chatlike site on CNN about evolution, what I saw posted there was stunning! There are people out there, who would think RTL and the quack know that what either say is true! Those folks must prefer ignorance over anything. - 19:56:11 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE1: But then again, as I have inscribed before, there are some folks here with good grey matter, good memory good analytic prowess that also have said that jc was the only perfect man to ever live. I have asked them how they know that but none have said so far. Some say that there is a god but they can't say where it is when I ask, looks like wishful thinking to me. - 20:04:57 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->well, I don't mind being depraved ;>) - 20:57:58 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL..I bet you have a gun rack on your pickup truck! - 21:27:39 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Can you see past RTL's gruffiness, his exterior, and that he is really just a lovin grampa kinda guy? - 21:34:09 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (Don't mean to be a party pooper) or (I was only trying to pull up a stool):CARL: The post to which you were referring was, I should note, an entirely subjective one. My analogy was drawn from both my emotional state at the time and my view of RTL as a byproduct of evoloution (in the loosest sense of the word). Real contemptible turds, one might note, may be flushed away with considerably greater ease than the aforementioned party. - 21:51:51 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Here is a fun site, and something for future reference - 22:12:06 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...ROB THE GOOD>>Carl has found a pressie for you...:-->Carl..you are a web wizard! - 22:44:40 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--All I can say at this juncture is: Jesus Kee--Ryst Allfuckinmighty. - 23:05:09 on 23 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (7 up is lemonade):JOETTE: Thanks. I prefer the cryptic ones, but its subject matter was of interest ;) I hope that's "GOOD" in the amoral sense... - 0:09:36 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- I think you've hit the nail on the head by describing religion to be "wishful thinking". - 12:12:46 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

FREE newsletter All categories All reviews Weekly Picks Power Search SPONSORED LINK Free video! RESOURCES Join now FREE! Submit a file Feedback Help About CNET How to Advertise Jobs at CNET CNET SERVICES CNET.COM NEWS.COM COMPUTERS.COM BUILDER.COM GAMECENTER.COM SHAREWARE.COM BROWSERS.COM ACTIVEX.COM SEARCH.COM SHOPPER.COM CAREER CENTER Snap! pop most popular new newest titles pick top picks DOWNLOAD.COM's selections of the best available software. [PREVIOUS] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [NEXT] Found: 286 Displaying: 1-25 sort by: | title | date | downloads pick 3D Starchart 1.2 Gaze at an atlas of the stars on BeOS 5/11/98 750 pop pick 3D Ultra Pinball 2: Creep Night Get ghoulish with this 3D pinball game 1/15/97 100,515 pop pick 500 Cards 0.9.3 Play an old card game on your Mac 4/25/97 13,166 pop pick Aaron (68K) 1.6.1 Enhance your visual display in the Mac OS 4/21/97 8,860 pop pick Aaron (fat) 1.6.1 Enhance the way your Mac OS computer looks 4/21/97 25,985 pop pick Abuse 1.01 Save the world from biogenetic disaster 10/18/96 75,635 pop pick Activator Pro 2.0 Create Java applets with a click of your mouse 4/8/97 24,721 pop pick Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0.1 View Acrobat documents on the Web 7/22/97 36,735 pop pick Adobe Illustrator 7.0 Check out a free demo of the popular illustration package 5/12/97 11,589 pop pick Adobe PageMill 2.0 Design Web pages easily without using HTML 2/5/97 18,462 pick Adrenaline Charts SE 1.0.1 Add multimedia to your spreadsheets and presentations 11/14/97 2,921 pop pick Adventure: Colossal Caves Play the original computer RPG 5/29/97 16,881 pop pick Agent Audio (PowerPC) 1.2 Replace the sounds that any application makes 12/5/97 10,153 pick Aladdin FlashBack 1.1 Retrace your steps in any application or document with unlimited undos 5/22/98 1,301 pop pick AliasMenu 2.0 Access frequently used applications from your menu bar 5/26/98 7,272 pop pick Anarchie 2.0.1 Use this FTP client to download batches of files all at once 11/15/96 20,674 pop pick Apple CFM-68K Runtime Enabler 4.0 Get the updated version of this system utility 3/10/97 8,908 pop pick Apple Disk Copy 6.2 Open disk images created with Disk Copy for software installations 3/12/98 36,369 pop pick Apple LaserWriter Software Update 8.4.3 Update your Apple LaserWriter software 7/26/97 9,374 pop pick Apple Mac OS Update 8.1 Update Mac OS 8 for better performance 1/19/98 90,115 pop pick Apple Mac OS Update 7.6.1 (4/7/97) Update Mac OS 7.6 for greater stability 4/7/97 55,743 pop pick Apple MacTCP Update 2.0.6 Update your TCP control panel for better compatibility 2/27/97 7,914 pop pick Ares 1.0.1 Save the human race from invading aliens 10/9/97 12,897 pick Argus Switch between programs by using the keyboard 5/14/97 4,002 pick AudioElements 1.0 Create, edit, and compile audio effects on BeOS 2/2/98 450 [PREVIOUS] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [NEXT] Where to shop Advertiser links � Save on the latest software titles at Cyberian Outpost � Discover super computer bargains at Surplus Direct � Need software? Download it now at BuyDirect.com � Get computer products for as low as $1 at Surplus Auction � Explore the latest computing books at Borders.com Quick Search Help Power Search FOR MAC | GO TO PC Back to top - 13:59:44 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

phut - 14:00:59 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Quietsun, is that you? - 14:23:12 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Where did Y-IT disappear to? - 14:24:03 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: Well, have any seen that disclaimer placed inside Alabama school testbooks? I showed it to my offspring their first question, "Why would anyone do that to kids?" - 14:45:10 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:AMENDS: That s/b "Alabama school textbooks" not testbooks, - 14:49:28 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..Happy St. Jean Baptiste Day to all...:-->CARL..being from the Great White North, I don't know what the disclaimer says. Could you fill us in? - 15:04:47 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

David:This place used to be full of interesting things but it looks like now it is turning into junk mail... get it together people les you will lose track of your goal. - 15:20:45 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Lets see if the URL part of CNN works, if it does then simply scroll down to the piece. Those reb's if they were thinkers, they mighta' won that war? - 15:22:27 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: looks like the URL just locates CNN but the article appeared in 06\17\98 edition. - 15:25:54 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: Another passible pathway, then go to ABC News piece-SteveS 17 08 15 1/18/98 60, then see Darwin takes a drubbing, then scroll down. - 15:32:40 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..thanks...I am at work so don't have the time to look, but will read them when I get home tonight. This place is mighty quiet these days. - 17:16:46 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:JOETTE: I smile to think that its because the theist has nothing to say being that they are not thinkers, they do not use their minds and do not understand that their views espoused are but recounts of things already said. As something already said, it must be true; is that their position? Did you notice at that philo-site in its theology section they may have the catholic encyclopaedia? - 18:00:28 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Els<>Nls:Silence...Here I am...Here I am....Silent...Bright and clear.. It's what I am...I have died..Died..uhhh,uhhh,uhhh,uhhh,uhhh...Death with violence..Excitement right here...Died..Here I am...Right here......Ow..No mass,No mass, No mass, No mass...Death Is what I am ...In back of that crime...Here I am... Take a chance.. Dead.....Die She seems to think>She seems to weak>She takes a week to get over it>She likes the sea>She likes to see>She likes to think>She has all of it>She likes the sound>She likes the sand>She likes to stand>She can't afford to sit>She likes to be>She likes to be>She likes to go>She likes the time>She owns the time>In guilt and perpetuity - 18:18:16 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..it's a rap:Now we seem to have Snoop Doggy Dog. Sheesh! Anyone read Skeptical Inquirer this month? - 18:56:14 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Pete the passerby:FREE NEWSLETTER Go peddle your bananas somewhere else. - 19:15:53 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

dana:If anyone in Alabama has a scanner maybe he could scan the disclaimer for me? =) My little brother is going to visit a friend there next week, but since it is summer she probably won't have her science book. - 19:55:41 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->DANA..this is the article that Carl was referring us to. - 20:07:01 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL..thank you for pointing out that waiver. I am very disturbed by the fact that school boards are being forced to advocate religious views. That's like a kid telling their teacher "My name is Johnny" and in the next breath saying "Well, maybe my name isn't Johnny". If certain organizations are given the right to confuse school children this way, then why bother sending them to school at all? Sheesh. - 20:10:27 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->DANA..great site! There are certainly a lot "of us" out there, aren't there? - 20:16:59 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:"of us": at one of the chat sites on atheist chat and mssg.board one of the posters there included some numbers regarding theism probably lying about the numbers attending churchs and the number of nonbelievers- of religion world wide, it was very impressively more than believers. Then o'course some theist were saying how this pc thing would expand, doing so even now, the number of people wanting to know jc, et.al., so whats p.r. and whats fact? - 21:48:58 on 24 Jun 98 GMT

QUAKE:ANSWERING COMMON ARGUMENTS As we deal with the theory of evolution and the way it affects scientific thinking, we need to take the evidence and put it in its proper perspective. Scientific facts do not conflict with the Bible. What we need is the skill of discernment; the ability to separate what is scientific truth, and what is philosophical speculation. In order for evidence to qualify as fact, it must be observable, testable and repeatable. Using these criteria, evolution cannot be classified as scientific, instead it is a philosophical or religious theory. Of course, scientific facts can be used to support a theory, but if a theory contradicts the evidence, either the theory has to be modified to fit the facts, or the theory must be thrown out altogether. This holds true for evolution, and for that matter some creationist theories. The most important scientific skill to develop is the ability to separate assumption from fact. This is a leading cause of confusion. Scientists declare evolution as fact only because they assume it. An example: the science of genetics is observable, testable, and repeatable in the present within species. However, we cannot experimentally test its applicability from molecules to man in the past over millions of years. Therefore we cannot verify if macroevolution is true. Let us examine some common arguments and assumptions evolutionists use and answer them in a creationist framework. The Survival of the Fittest One paramount argument for the theory of evolution is the idea of "survival of the fittest." Early evolutionists thought that predators have a beneficial effect toward the species they prey upon by removing the old, sick, and maimed. The selection of the weak as prey is central to the dogma of evolution. Recent evidence instead indicates that random selection, not selection of the weak, determines which animal is eaten. Further studies show that under certain situations there is a selection against the strong and healthy, with predators passing up weak and sick animals for healthy ones. The implications of these studies against evolution are obvious. E. Norbert Smith conducted experiments where he offered two mice to a snake, one mouse active and healthy, the other listless and sick. The snake usually selected the healthy active one first. In fact, the ill mouse often remain unnoticed in a secluded corner for hours.1 What does this mean? Supposedly through natural selection predators continually upgrade the breeding stock of the prey species providing the selective "force" for evolution. If the opposite is true, or if random selection is really the case, no "driving force" exists. The Horse Series is Horsefeathers The Next Stage In Horse Evolution? Science textbooks often present the horse series as proof of evolution. What they actually present is a collection of assumptions. There is no proof that the fossil horses found are ancestral to one another. In fact, evolutionists gather these fossils from various parts of the world. It is impossible to establish proof of ancestry from them. They present the horse as growing in size from the ancestral horse to the present. What proof is there that it didn't "evolve" the other way? Dr. Duane Gish points out that fossils of South American hoofed animals show a sequence in the opposite direction: from one-toed to three-toed to five-toed hooves.2 The size of the horse is no evidence for evolution. Various size horses live today, ranging in size from the gargantuan Clydesdales to the Lilliputan horses not much bigger than a dog. Eohippus was first described in the literature as a hyrax, not a horse. There are physical inconsistencies, such as rib count between fossil horses. Eohippus and modern horse had 18 pairs of ribs, Orohippus had 15, and Pliohippus had 19. This is not what you would expect if evolution were true. It is more reasonable to believe that the horse is a created kind rather than evidence for evolution. Archaeopteryx Evolutionists have maintained that the Archaeopteryx is a link between dinosaurs and birds. Five known specimens of Archaeopteryx are found in the fossil record. Evolutionists said the bones were solid like reptiles, but now they know that they were hollow, like birds. Like all birds, it had a wishbone. As for the teeth, there are several modern birds with teeth or toothlike projections, such as the sawbill, the pink�footed goose, the grey�lag, and the white�fronted goose to name just a few. Claw-like structures on the wings are also found on young of the hoatzin, a modern South American bird. Creationists have no problem in fitting "Archy" into a creation model. He is simply another created bird with unique characteristics, no more strange looking or reptile looking than any other modern bird. Proof of evolution it is not. Embryology An early evolutionary idea is that the developmental stages of the embryo recapitulated the process of evolution. This appears in the literature and textbooks, and is a popular argument. It has since fallen into disfavor with most evolutionists because there are too many problems and inconsistencies in this theory. The idea is that the development of the embryo goes through evolutionary stages from cell to fish to amphibian to man. Although folds on the neck of the developing embryo have been interpreted as "gill slits" of a fish, it has been proven that never during the development of the embryo do they have any of the characteristics of a gill. In spite of the evidence against it, this idea still appears in the textbooks and some teachers continue to teach it. It is another example of how certain ideas die hard when people want to believe them. Unfortunately, this argument was used to promoteabortion during the Roe versus Wade decision. After all, according to this rationalization, we are not killing a human fetus, but a fish or a frog. Because the development of the embryo recapitulates evolution, we don't really know when human life begins, so they said. Ernest Haeckel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, drew diagrams of dog embryos identical with human embryos evidently to provide propaganda for this theory. Though scientific literature has repeatedly published the erroneous nature of his drawings, they still appear in some biology texts today. Peppered Moths Another argument evolutionists often illustrate and misinterpret in science textbooks is that of the population studies of the peppered moths. There are two different species of peppered moths. The lighter variety was more abundant before the industrial revolution, and the darker variety became more abundant after factories darkened trees with smoke. Is this evidence for evolution? No. This example only shows that two different populations can change with a change of the environment. There is no evidence here of mutation or change from one species of moth to the other. The peppered moths pose no problems for the creationist; it is simply another example of conservation within God's creation, of balance between environment and creature. Here we should distinguish between micro-evolution and mega-evolution. Creationists do not have any problems with variation of characteristics within the species, or microevolution. The change in population of peppered moths is such an example. We contest mega-evolution, or the theory of molecules to man. The Problem of Cain's Wife When God created the earth, He created it perfect, to last forever. With the introduction of sin into the world, it caused the process of decay and death. Because the earth was young, there was no problem with genetic interbreeding, nor did God establish any laws against it. Only when mankind had become so polluted genetically that God provided laws against intermarriage between family members. Adam and Eve had many more children besides Cain, Abel, and Seth in their long life. One of their daughters, Cain's sister, became his wife. Some have speculated that Cain's wife came from a pre-Adamite race, but there is nothing from scripture to suggest this. Where Did the Water Come From, and Where Did It Go? The great Flood of Noah was precipitated by the opening of the fountains of the deep, vast subterranean reservoirs watering the earth with artesian springs. The earth's magma heated this water, causing it to upwell and flow out onto the earth. A water vapor canopy circled the earth, filtering out harmful radiation. When the fountains of the deep broke open, massive continental upheavals occurred, causing great volcanic and tectonic activity. The earth's crust floats on a giant sea of magma in plates. The additional weight of the fallen water vapor canopy coupled with released subterranean water would have caused the earth's crust to shift, split apart and move, creating the continents and the present ocean floor. The Origin Of Race Some people have made the unfortunate suggestion that the black race descended from Ham, the son of Noah whose descendants were cursed. There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures to imply this. Ham had many descendants spread throughout the world, the Phoenicians, Canaanites, Ethiopians, and Egyptians among them. There is nothing to suggest that Shem was white, Japheth was Asian, and Ham was black, as some have claimed. Even if it were the case, it is an abomination to justify racism or racial superiority based upon this idea. The truth is, dark skin pigmentation is a dominant and beneficial feature, providing protection from the sun. Lack of that pigmentation means that the normal process to produce the pigment does not work, possibly because of mutation. In central latitudes such as Africa, India and Melanesia, absence of pigment could have become less dominant over a period of many years. The dark skinned races would have been more likely to have survived in a hot climate. Studies have shown that it would take only eight generations of inbreeding to produce any of the races. Racism, such as that exhibited by Nazi Germany, was based upon the evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest. Hitler tried to establish that the Aryan race was "more highly evolved." Evidence is to the contrary: the white "Aryan race" is most likely the result of mutations short�circuiting melanin production. Since melanin has a protective effect, white skin is an unfavorable characteristic subject to sunburn and skin cancer. The Sanctity of Human Life When God created mankind, He instructed Adam to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. God set up the marriage covenant for a purpose, to bring as many Godly sons and daughters into the world as possible, eventually into eternal life. Divorce, fornication, adultery, abortion, and all other sexual sins operate contrary to God's purpose. The miracle of love, marriage, sex, conception and birth is never sinful, only man's perversion and pollution of it. The mind set of population control prevails in the world today, and operates contrary to the principle of God's instruction to Adam. The world suffers famine, destruction, war and disease, all which are the results of mankind not operating under God's principles. The world blames all of this on God. They buy into the lie that God is unable to take care of their needs, or did not create enough resources to sustain the population of the world. Therefore, they reason that the earth's resources have to be hoarded, and the population of the earth must be reduced. Governments introduce birth control measures, which are sometimes enforced oppressively like they have been in China, where it is against the law to have more than one child. The false doctrine of survival of the fittest strikes again. We must take the pressure off those who have the wonderful gift of raising large families. God has reserved a special blessing for parents who enjoy raising children to follow Him. Child number ten from a large family should not be made to feel like he is unwanted or a threat to the existence of the world. Large families should never have to suffer such persecution. If Mrs. Franklin stopped at sixteen, Benjamin wouldn't have been born. I don't believe God condemns birth control either, but if His ultimate aim is to populate heaven with Godly children, we must choose the best means to fulfil that purpose, whether it be one, two or ten. Each of us has a special gift. God has called some to be single, giving them special ministries, others He called to have many children. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and He can cause all His children to prosper. Those who abide by His principles of sowing and reaping can tap into the power of Jesus, who was able to feed the five thousand with five loaves and two fishes. The earth is not filled to its capacity. Famine and disease exist because of mismanagement of the earth's resources by man, not because of overpopulation. These problems existed even in ancient times, when resources on the earth were abundant, and before there was ever an increased population. It takes faith to believe that God is able to provide the needs of the world. But, He will do it only when man operates under the principles He has established. If we trust in Him, He will perform miracles. Tooth, Claw, Mosquitos and Gnats We can be certain that God created the original world perfect. But, what a terrible effect the fall of man had upon this perfect world! Isaiah paints a picture of the coming millennium where the lion shall eat straw like an ox, and a little child will play upon the adder's den. During that time, nothing shall hurt or destroy. That's what it must have been like before the fall. The fall of mankind and the conditions after the flood brought upon this world a whole different order where man and animals are at odds with one another. Whether characteristics such as teeth and claws, predation, parasitism, and disease were created by God or were the results of the corruption of God's perfect creation by Satan, the Bible does not say. All we know is that creation did change drastically at the fall. Satan is an opportunist, and could have allowed mutations to cause disease and alter God's original purpose for his creatures. On the other hand, God may have altered the features of his animal kingdom to give them extra protection given the fallen state of the earth. Mosquitos, gnats, locusts, and bugs also serve a purpose in God's creation, though it is in a fallen state. They are part of the food chain. I can't imagine mosquitos in the garden of Eden, though. Remember, before the fall, man had complete dominion over all God's creation. So mosquitos could only have become pests after man relinquished control of the world to Satan. A favorite trick of Satan is to blame this all on God. But the world fell because of Satan. It's his mess, so don't fall for that. We must not make the claim that creationists have all the answers to every question. It seems that when we answer one question, we raise ten new ones. But, the sheer complexity of the universe is just another indication of God's power and creative ability. Creationists and evolutionists both have to take the origin of the universe on faith. It is just a matter of which is the more logical explanation of the evidence. - 1:39:18 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:Now who's worse? Quake or RTL? - 1:42:32 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..we have to give RTL some credit. At least he doesn't do the stupid copy and paste thing! - 3:20:42 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:QUAKE. None of the science data you so laboriously presented came from the bible. There is no science in the bible. The bible says the sun stood still. Do you believe that? The bible speaks of the four corners of the earth. Do you think the earth has four corners? Do you really believe lions ate straw and mosquitos didn't bite before"the fall of man"? You say your god made a perfect world before man spoiled it. Did man create earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, cyclones, hurricanes, floods and so on? If your god is such a big time operator and all powerful, how come you complain that Satan is kicking his ass all over the place? Who's the boss? Didn't your god create Satan? If not, where did he come from? For a supposedly omnipotent god he's sure got a lot of problems. He creates imperfect men and imperfect angels and an imperfect world. Before you go around criticizing science, get your mythical god to clean up his own act. - 4:17:58 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--QUAKE-- Fuck off. You were, and you continue to be an asshole. - 4:21:36 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: So the quack says there is a theory and the facts, if the theory is no good due to lack of evidential support then throw out the theory. So does the quack fancy himself a scientist, all the good thinker/writers I read say about the same. I still see scientific theory as still the better option and much more reliable then a godthing, if the bible and it adherents are evidence of its apparent and preferred ignorance. The sun stands still? That is stupidity and not theory at all. - 14:53:21 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--At this point what the Quack thinks cannot be integrated with what is real. He is just an asshole - 15:24:26 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

guarding Granny's home:Content to stand alone. Waiting , watching, and guarding Granny's home for 17:00 hours and more. His face reflectng simple joy, but he is not happy, plaster boy. "Careful sonny not too close, unless you want a lethal dose of hardening. Patienty waiting for some shade, wishing he could run away. Suppressing any urge to roam, such devotion from a little gnome. I once saw a calico that thought he could fly. And then the lanky Dobermann that tinked in my eye. A pacifist by nature, with amble commen sense. But if I had my druthers, I'd druther be a fence. Now Granny, she's a good one, she shines me now and then. And come around the fall, I'm due for some paint again. While standing, I thought the Carboniferous amphibian Eryops had ribs with lateral expansion, but it was most likely used more for swimming without regard to the rigid thorax. Though, I am plaster but on keeping Granny comfy, I try and earn my keep. I'm just wishing I had some eyelids, so I could get some sleep. - 16:15:02 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Of course you can see that if one chooses to continue with that format, that of negating on a point by point approach, the bible and theism in general could be easily discounted as any kind o'theory. I find the view generally made by those I referred to- to the quack, in regards to theism and scripture as, views composed when humans were ignorant of applicable explanations of the world, for the ancients misunderstood it. Folks like the quack prefer that ignorance of the ancients. - 17:44:32 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--CARL--But the thing is that one could refute every one of the quacks points using ait-tight reasoninga nd irrefutable evidence. However, he has adoptd a position that-counter evidence the 'theories' he espouses is irrelevant. His 'faith' makes damn sure of that. So if one understands that regardless of how well one constructs a reasonable argumment, and how that argument has been pre-detimed by quakester to be false--I see no other alternatives other than addressing him with the most vitriolic insults imaginable to his beliefs and himself--if for no other reson than being creative when forming these attacks, or just ignoring him. Any other alternative to me would be pointless. I usually ignore him--but when I don't feel like ignoring him, I chose the other alternative. - 17:58:17 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Adam ��COPA DEL MUNDIAL!!!:GOOOOOOOOOAL!!! Yee-ha y arrribe! Despite a conspiracy by the referees, Mexico has advanced to the second round. Problem is, they'll probably face Germany. Achtung! It's been awhile since I kicked God's ass, BBD&O. I'm getting pretty restless.... - 18:21:53 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:PETER: Yes, the quack does hold to a prejudicial faith that hinders and blocks all forms and kinds of communication. What a waste of space the quack is, can you imagine how many wonderful meaningful single cell creatures that could exist in his space? - 21:45:04 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM...real men don't play soccer (or should we call it futeball?). I saw some highlights tonight, and whenever someone scored they would kiss the ball. Is this a sign of some latent gay homosexuality? - 23:37:38 on 25 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Quack and Gish! Ever read some of that guy's garbage or read one of the debates he's had? Trust Quack to gush over Gish, lol! - 4:07:18 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: While in our short span of existence few can and most all can't, for whatever reason, be cutting edge scientists that is no reason for any to opt for the unsanity o'religious foolishness. I cannot see, still, any other reason than the control of others as why some folks as the quack pick someone as gish to support their point of view. These folks seem to yield their 'why?' to the childish answer of 'who' instead of how. As far as I see, their- religious believers, 'who' has not led to a right understanding of human nature. That is the struggle of the human of science. This is the stuff of my POV that humans are not mythological nor zoological creatures. - 14:51:05 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

bump - 16:37:35 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (Spied a monkey):CARL: In what ways do you distinguish humans from zoological (I won't say creatures) organisms? Is it merely a matter of degree, or a fundamental difference? - 16:53:20 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Rob: How about dimensions? The simplest example for this approach, I've seen, is the query, does one treat a cube as a surface because it has surface properties? Now I don't mean to be or seem conclusive or absolute with this view, but only to say this sort of account sets best to my thinking and reading and so on of this question. I have yet to see any connection with a godthing and no reason to confuse humans as but animals. - 18:04:34 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->CARL...I posed a question to you a long time ago, about your previous post. I will try to find it, as I think I was more intelligent that day, and so don't want to ask a stupid question today. But speaking of degrees, how far back would go to think they we have more botanical properties than zoological? - 19:26:51 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...spot the monkey:-->ROSEY ROB...that's so cute! - 19:28:22 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..:ROB- How did you find my baby picture!!! - 19:52:04 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..family ties:Speaking of our cousins, did anyone watch the special on TV about how the "space chimps" are being treated? - 19:54:40 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: several days past, I referred to that philosophy site as where the catholic encyclopaedia might be it is there under education but it looks to be all there. If you wish here it is, enjoy. - 20:01:06 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Rob ("Door Into Summer"... now who sung that?):CARL: I take it then you mean a matter of degree. I think I tend to look at things almost from the other way around, in that what we see in the less complex forms of life is a limiting case of more general principles which would encompass humans. It's similar I think to physics, where one can look at two areas of physics as either "different", or just limiting cases of more general laws. ALL: Anyhow, I am off for the summer vacation tomorrow so will say goodbye to anyone still awake. If I get online then I'll see you soon, if not, back in 15 weeks.... - 20:47:06 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:Rob: If you are there yet, the discussion about the cube thing and why it is not a matter of surface area but cubic area is the point of issue. To confuse surface with cube area would be contrary to geometry and well, then for example, where would engineering- as we see its manifestations today, where would it be, would be at all? - 21:11:23 on 26 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (I'm no square!):CARL: Last one, I promise;) I guess my point then would be that the analogy doesn't hold (IMO ;) - 1:16:32 on 27 Jun 98 GMT

with every scratch it reappears:In a dog's life** A year is more like seven** And all too soon a canine** Will be chasing cars in doggie heaven** It seems to me** As we make our own few circles around the sun** We get is backwards** And our seven years go by like one** Dog time- It's the season of the itch** Dog time- With every scratch it reappears** In the dog days** People look to Sirus** Dogs cry for the moon** But those connections are mysterious** It seems to me** While it is true that every dog will have his day** When all the bones are buried** There is barely time to go outside in Summer-Play** Dog time- With every scratch it reappears** Dog time- With his tail between his ears** I'd rather be a tortoise from Galapago** Or a span of geological time** Then will be living in these dog years** In a dog's brain** As we make our own few circles** Around the block to obedient school we've lost our senses** for the higher-level static of talk - 22:43:34 on 27 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----"For *the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and *will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. " (2 Timothy 4:3-4). - 10:30:13 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:---Quake-----You stated, "The Origin Of Race Some people have made the unfortunate suggestion that the black race descended from Ham, the son of Noah whose descendants were cursed. There is absolutely nothing in the scriptures to imply this. Ham had many descendants spread throughout the world, the Phoenicians, Canaanites, Ethiopians, and Egyptians among them. There is nothing to suggest that Shem was white, Japheth was Asian, and Ham was black, as some have." -----This statement is error and if you care for me to prove it, please acknowlege it here and through email.-----There are a few other minor things you stated that are not true and a few that are pure specuation, but yor overall dissertation rates "GOOD." - 11:16:23 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->RTL..are you defending your African-American brothers and sisters here? Are you trying to show us what a clean, wholesome person you are, with nary a prejudice bone in your body? Just so we can get it straight, and so everyone else on this page knows more about you, I and a friend decided to spam you chatpage the other night. We experimented with what words we could use, and found that we aren't able to post the "n" word, but we did find that we could use the word "kike" and other deragotory word we know for other persuasions. Tell us what is behind this obvious hate for Jews. Remember, Jesus was a Jew. - 12:40:48 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

bump - 12:56:40 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Beump - 14:16:58 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Fist Fuck - 14:17:30 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Ah, that's better. - 14:18:12 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene...maybe god's playing favorites:JOETTE- Good work! Does this mean that good ole godly RTL is racist? Mi oh mi oh mi! You'd think their god work enlighten them all with the same bullshit instead of causing them to inform each other of the "truth", lol! - 14:23:47 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

This hideous congratulatory shit. - 14:26:13 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Look at the same old same old crap the regulars spew.....it has a microscopic effect in the tiny bubble of this page. It makes only the writer feel dood. Its like personalised car number plates. It is only important to the writer/plate buyer. - 14:30:08 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..everday is like Sunday:-->ANONYMOUSE..."feel dood"? Is that like Motley Cure's "All the Young Dudes"? - 14:48:12 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

should be Crue! - 14:49:03 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene...weak wimps:JOETTE- Anonymouse obviously has no balls. - 15:44:05 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

** I Myth You**:For our wholesome divider of the dividers-* Robert T. LEE and his vampire commandments***************************************** I went down last night with a tatto madam* To a nude daggar fantasy domain* Wrapped in your commandment hell, I lost my breath* Chest to stimulating Chinese breast* Grisly smiles that don't flake off* Corny-colored demons leering* Vampire-commanded photos, sucking the skin* Seeding the night at the inker's parlor* Flash permabrand pricked for a dollar* Her wrist surreal a heart and flying skull* LETTERED IN COMMANDMENTS-"LIFE AND LOVE PASS SWIFTLY"* Grisly smiles that don't flake off* Corny-colored demons leering* Vampire-commanded photos sucking the skin*************************************************=three of those (*) imprinted on your forehead not in synthetic syntax. Of course, your mirror just duplicates it! - 17:03:19 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene...:Ahhh! ADAM was that you?? If so, no one knows the color of Corny. - 19:37:10 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->MARLENE..my bet is on it being rOB. - 20:09:43 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:JOETTE- Was he around during the days of Corny's rein? - 22:25:21 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..oops:How about..rain or even reign.. - 22:26:11 on 28 Jun 98 GMT

ROBERT T. LEE:-----CHRIST DID NOT DIE FOR EVERYBODY-----It's an understatement to say that most people don't perceive or acknowledge that the Lord Jesus is the one and only true Messiah.----- But what has not been sufficiently understood is that the reason most people fail to perceive that fact is because the Christ was never meant to be their Savior.----- Contrary to what most people think, the Christ didn't perfectly obey the Moral Law, die its penalty, raise Himself from the dead and ascend back to heaven on behalf of every single person of mankind; not even for the vast majority of people who claim to believe in Him. The Christ came into this world to die for only the few who are His Elect.----- This is one reason why the unadulterated teachings of Holy Writ seem as myths and irrevelant to most people - why they seem to them to have no place in these so-called "modern times." And in a sense, those who think such are right. The eternal blessings of heaven were never meant to have any positive place in everybody's earthly lives and eternal existence.----- The free gift of, eternal life is not handed out by God to everybody. Whenever God's chosen people fail to recognize that fact, they will waste much time trying to turn goats into sheep.----- Ultimately, there are only two masters of all mankind. But slaves must be obedient to the master to whom they belong. Whenever people are obstinate, blind or hypocritical about acknowledging, worshipping and being brought into obedience to the Christ, and whenever they refuse to or fail to peceive His exceeding beauty and eternal glory, in most cases they do so because they have no eternal connection to Him. This simply means that they were marked out by God before the foundation of the world for eternal damnation (Proverbs I6:4;Romans 9:19-23). - 2:19:26 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--ROBERT T. LEE--Are you of his "elect" ? How does one determine whether who is eligible to be? To me this just smacks of a justification in another one of a seemingly endless attempts of creating an "us" vs. "them" situation--which is an instinctive trait hat goes back to the most primitive of human species. For this I don't really blame you for attempting to justify making this distinction, but some more civilized pockets of society have since recognized that such desires to manufacture these scenarios--even within a seemlingly homgenous collective--can lead to nothing but conflicts often resulting in wars and bllodshed. This inivitability becomes increasingly pronounced especilly when the criteria used to make the distinction is from mythicallly based references. - 3:19:06 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:PETER-- This is an example of the divergent viewpoints that can be biblically "justified." After a couple thousand years, xtians still can't agree on who goes to heaven. In other words, they can't agree on God's purpose. Too bad the bible isn't a bit more specific. I wonder if cultural anthropologists are studying the RTL types in North America. They operate on emotion and instinct as much as any primitive people and are much nearer and more convenient to study. - 3:54:17 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:GRANT- Maybe some of them are reluctant to study themselves. Although they may look at ancient gods or goddesses as being interesting but supernatural, they fail to understand that their god of the present is the same thing. - 4:18:28 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Grant:MARLENE-- Good point. We seem to see mythology for what it is- with the exception of our own mythology, of course. - 4:25:20 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

PETER:--GRANT<MARLENE--Whenever I get into these theistic debates with xtians, the discussions seem to always be strangely unfocused, at it seem smost of time iI am just trying to set up some comprehensible parameters for rational debate. The theist then refuse of course to comply with the even minimal standards for any such discussion--for ANYTHING, and this is prompted by their total inability to be objective about their own beliefs. They cannot--and while they are unable to do so--nothing gets resolved--ever. They know darn well their position will crumble as soon as they do. One could even take that further and suggest that one prerequisite for defining a religious belief is determined by the innate inabilty of NOT being able to look at that belief objectively. - 5:16:14 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Grant: Don't shake it.:God is like a present in a box. Numerous possibilities as long as you don't open it up and look. One moment you can hope it's one thing; the next moment another. Once you unwrap it and examine it, it is what it is and is no longer a string of possibilities. If you like the mystery and the possibilities, I guess you don't look in the box. Then you can convince yourself that it contains that which you desire. - 5:45:48 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

h2o:Near IR H2O Absorption 3000--3500 cm^{-1} real wi(8),xi(8),p0(35),p(34),t0(35),t(34),bnu(34),u0(35),u(34), *un2o(34),tau(7,34),x(34,8),y(34,8),sx(7,34),sy(7,34), *f(7),fac(34),tsx(35),tsy(35),z(7,34) data xi /.01986,.10167,.23723,.40828, * .59172,.76277,.89833,.98014/ data wi /.05062,.11119,.15685,.18134, * .18134,.15685,.11119,.05062/ open(unit=9,file='/usr1/aquila/kratz/ozone/mls70.dat', *status='old') read(9,*)(u0(m),skip2,p0(m),t0(m),m=35,1,-1) omega=3000.0 delw=500.0 omegas=omega sigma=5.67e-05 sconst=1.368e+06 tsun=5710.0 fsun=sigma*tsun**4 mlv=34 do 5 m=1,34 t(m)=(t0(m)+t0(m+1))/2.0 xlog=(log10(p0(m))+log10(p0(m+1)))/2.0 p(m)=10.0**xlog call flux(bnu(m),omega,t(m)) if(m.ge.26)then fac(m)=5.0 else fac(m)=1.0 end if xlog=(log10(u0(m))+log10(u0(m+1)))/2.0 u(m)=fac(m)*10.0**xlog 5 continue do 7 m=1,35 tsx(m)=0.0 tsy(m)=0.0 7 continue call flux(back,omega,t0(1)) c call flux(bsun,omegas,tsun)c bsun=bsun/fsun*sconst c average Kurglsus solar flux (W/m^2) bsun=0.02250008 call ck(ni,mlv,u,delw,f,p,t,tau) do 90 i=1,ni do 30 m=34,1,-1 sx(i,m)=0.0 sy(i,m)=0.0 do 20 j=1,8 if(m.eq.34)then y(m,j)=bnu(m)*(1.0-exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))) c y(m,j)=bsun*xi(j)*exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))+ c * bnu(m)*(1.0-exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))) else y(m,j)=y(m+1,j)*exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))+ * bnu(m)*(1.0-exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))) end if 20 continue if(m.eq.34)then z(i,m)=bsun*0.6*exp(-tau(i,m)/0.6) else z(i,m)=z(i,m+1)*exp(-tau(i,m)/0.6) end if 30 continue do 35 m=1,34 do 32 j=1,8 sy(i,m)=sy(i,m)+2.0*y(m,j)*wi(j)*xi(j) 32 continue sy(i,m)=sy(i,m)+z(i,m) 35 continue do 50 m=1,34 do 40 j=1,8 if(m.eq.1)then c x(m,j)=back*exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))+ c * bnu(m)*(1.0-exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))) x(m,j)=(0.10*sy(i,m) * +0.90*back)*exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))+ * bnu(m)*(1.0-exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))) else x(m,j)=x(m-1,j)*exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))+ * bnu(m)*(1.0-exp(-tau(i,m)/xi(j))) end if 40 continue 50 continue do 70 m=1,34 do 60 j=1,8 sx(i,m)=sx(i,m)+2.0*x(m,j)*wi(j)*xi(j) 60 continue 70 continue do 80 m=1,34 tsx(m+1)=tsx(m+1)+sx(i,m)*delw*f(i) tsy(m)=tsy(m)+sy(i,m)*delw*f(i) 80 continue tb=tb+back*delw*f(i) tsx(1)=tb 90 continue tb=0.10*tsy(1)+0.90*tb tsx(1)=tb tsy(35)=tsy(34) do 95 m=1,35 write(6,100)m-1,tsx(m),tb-tsx(m),tsy(m) 95 continue 100 format(i3,3f15.7) stop end c ********************************************************************* subroutine flux(bnu,omega,t) bnu=0.0 and the grasshopper is a constant - 6:50:24 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

h2o:That is the *grasshopper* - he takes the lead in summer luxury in karl's lyceum. - 6:56:06 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Thanks rOB - 10:48:53 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:PETER- I don't think their god is open for discussion. To doubt their belief is as bad as breaking the bloody first commandment. IMO, the only reason theists post here is either to convert we atheists or to fight us in their delusionary holy war. GRANT- That's a really good analogy! A big wrapped box containing zilch. - 14:20:48 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:rOB- Just because some of we atheists reject your belief in druidism doesn't mean you have to get all cranky on us. What did you expect? It's an atheist site. - 14:23:30 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: If RTL would simply set aside his pontifical writing and simply say where he last saw or spoke to his godthing so I could go ask it a few things and I'd know for sure two things. I'd know the godthing and I'd also know RTL was not merely tryin'to control matters. But, since none yet provide evidence outside themselves for a godthing anywheres, there is no godthing{s}. RTL choses to be a caveman, scared o'thunder and the flash o'lightnin. RTL appears to mean that if we don't pay homage and share his fears o'such stuff then we must, well we just gotta be goin'to a bad place. - 14:49:32 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:GRANT: Theism as an anthropological discipline would be very appropriate, as it is a link to the times when humanity misunderstood many things about itself. My reference to RTL as fearful of thunder and liten is a reference I made against theism when I first appeared on this site. Theist type humans are contemporary savages. They speak of the most frightful things they can come up with and don't stop to 'think' about when and by who those tales and things were composed. It was done when, as P'SAM points out, controling people scared others by tales of a godthing that could stop the sun or however they imagined that story. - 16:11:54 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- Contemporary savages! LOL! - 16:33:00 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

rOB - from the anthropo-crankshaft:Marlene.. I might display corny-colored crankiness but it is the realm of the esoterically fluid. For the fidget is not a fiendish written commandment of ten laws. We are liable to capsize in my unsearchable anthropology with the dictionary. "There is unrest in the forest- So the maples formed a union- And demanded equal rights-These oaks are just too greedy- We will make them gives us light- Now there's no more oak oppression- For they passed a noble law- And the tree's are all kept eQUAL by the keyboard-hatchet, ax, and saw."***shh! Quiet now, oh there is unrest in the forest as the grasshopper turns the anthropo-crankshaft. - 17:43:43 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: You can make out what I mean, right? While this site is for discussion, it serves the participants a good, like anything else, when it pertains or concerns something common to all- is best, or most others- the learned, and the individual. On this latter point reside theistic minds because as GRANT writes it- their mind, is their party wrapped box, what is it? They- theist, don't want to open it and find. They just prefer ignorance,e.g. RTL. - 17:49:04 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Halloween of h2o:"Territorial pissings- never met a wise man, if so it's a women"*** For just awhile now, the time has come at last to crush the motiff on the rose. Corny is Magh Idathach! For the rehashing of the progenitor: Laurie: "What's the boogey-man?"------- Dr.lOOMIS: "As a matter of FACT, that was." - 17:52:28 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB...I think you've been chewing on a few too many acorns, because you've been pretty nutty lately. - 21:27:23 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Some of us wonder about simple minds or soft minds, here is an interesting URL that concerns either or any other such weakness or malleable kind of mind, - 22:22:36 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

ADAM Root for the Jays and pay, pay, pay!!!:�� Hey, Jobette: Whattaya say about a $20-ish (U.S....no falling looneys) prize to the winner of the Mets-Jays series, and $35-ish for the sweep? PAYABLE WITHIN SIX MONTHS, PLEASE. - 22:37:18 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...a gambling debt is an honourable debt, even if it takes a lifetime to pay....:-->ADAM..you nasty man! Why don't I just keep what I've been meaning to send. 'cause the Jays are going to kick shum sherioush New Yawk assch! - 23:28:44 on 29 Jun 98 GMT

Adam WAGER? I don't even KNOW her!:TINKERS to EVERS to NO CHANCE I LOSE THIS ONE��Job: Was that an acceptance, or are you just obfuscating? Speak up! As for paying your wayoverdues, you're lucky I'm granting you Clemensy on the accrued interest. BLUE JAYS: Tonight you die! To kill a laughingstockingbird. Hey Jowe, say it ain't snow! Speaking of no snow, where the fuck is my superbowl prize? Regarding this three game series, should I give you a list of stores at which I'm registered? - 0:42:04 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Joette...:-->ADAM...REGISTERED? What are ya, some kind of homo??? ;) Thanks for telling the world than I am a bit tardy with your Superbowl winnings...you weren't any speedy gonzalez yourself. And I wish it would snow. It is so !@#$%^&* hot here that I can't stand it nomo! - 0:48:40 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

-->OBFUSCATING seems to be the buzz word these days. I heard it on Geraldo Live last night and at least 4 times today. - 0:51:00 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM..me again...I rather bet on "the footie" than baseball. That way you can have your stupid Superbowl prize before the end of the World Cup (I take Holland). - 0:53:15 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: Nomo the x-dodger where n'what is nomo now? - 14:21:16 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->good morning CARL...he doens't play for the Dodgers nomo, but he is with the Mets now, who, incidentally, will lose to the Jays tonight. You heard it first here, folks. - 14:24:31 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Steven:JOETTE<<>>try coming to Texas for some "real" heat, we had heat index of 118 yesterday. Also, GO RANGERS, hehe! - 15:23:46 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: On that soccer stuff, they sure run a lot. I have seen some personal play that was interesting some said it was the mark of a good soccer player I can't, however, handle that futebol term. Does one say it as if saying "cuteball" the "F" sound of course replacing the 'c'. It does, it looks like, have a certain delicate quality, I mean with that long hair and dandish gesture and air of conduct. Are they real men? I don't see any chaw no dirt, and whats with that stretcher! They sit up on it while gettin carried off, I'm confused, I think. - 16:03:33 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

rOB---> sHE is not any common earth, water or wood or air, but Merlin's Isle fo Gramarye, where you and I will fare-Kipling:Samonios - Summers end (Oct/Nov) Dumannios - Dark time (Nov/Dec) Riuros - Frost time (Dec/Jan) Anagantios - Indoor time (Jan/Feb) Ogronios - Time of Ice (Feb/Mar) Cutios - Time of Winds (Mar/Apr) Giamonios - Winters end (Apr/May) Simiuisonos - Time of Brightness (May/June) Equos - Horse time (June/July) Elembiuios - Claim time (July/Aug) Edrinios - Arbitration time (Aug/Sept) Cantlos - Song time (Sept/Oct) Much is hinted in this regard but not much is "Know". Joette, you know around Halloween the bigots and the Christian fundamentalists say we the Druids sacrifice babies etc. despite the total lack of evidence support. I guess the need for archeological evidence makes one less ignorant of the savage human mind. This need is Carl's center or "gorm a cli" or now his "Nomo"***Fein (The Self) Bith (Cosmos) Directions Magical Tools Cnaimh (Bones) Cloch (Stone) Thuaidh (North) Lia Fail (Destiny) Colaind (Flesh) Talamh (Earth) Faoi (Under, About) The Nemeton Gruaigh (Hair) Uaine (Plant Life) Amach (Outwards) Ogham and Herbs *** These elements of the self can be eQUATED with the visible and the invisible planets, the senses and the colors (corny-you questioned?), along with 3 cauldrons of warming, vocation, and knowledge. I think Max Muellar said that myth is a disease of language and on the polar JRR Tolkien said that language is a disease of myth. Writing down is to weaken the power of edidic memory and to dishonour the thing written down. Druids in training had to learn all the Bardic poetry. I guess you can call it sensory deprivation here on the written page Fuil (Blood) Muir (Sea) Ior, Siar (West) Undry (Cauldron) Anal "Breath" Gaeth (Wind) Air, Oithear (East) The Sword of Nuada Imradud (Mind) Gealach (Moon) Isteach (Inwards) The Well of Segais Drech (Face) Grian (Sun) Deas, Deis (South) The Spear of Lugh Menma (Brain) Nel (Cloud) Thrid (Through) Imbas (Inspiration) Ceann (Head) Neamh (Heaven) Os Cionn (Above) The Torque/Halo *** (as Carl logically deduced, but unfairly restricted in binding written terms). FOR ME, POETIC INSPIRATION IS AN IMPORTANT SPIRITUAL PRACTICE. I know it is hard for you Carl, because for you Mr Kurz, he's dead already and for the Druid reads "Lord of the Flies " in balance. As for cracked acorns, I am a veteran of millions of psychic wars through training and beyond; there is only free association not brainwashing here. Wisdom becomes a kind of knowledge above ordinary knowledge-like archeological facts, a form of total-awareness or even a state of mind. Three candles that illuminate every darkness-truth, nature, and knowledge! A human mind-Oh Dubhlach, the Dubhlach- ever so binded in its own individual-possibilty box; open or closed -they are the balance of free association not favoritism. But I am sure all here believe in the interconnectedness of all life; our little mind -boxes open like a damm breaks even without the need for objective evidence. Carl-> read it twice "Lord of The Flies" etc., embark on your own personal digital immran. That is after all, the point being on a path in the first place, isn't it? - 16:53:09 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:MR.KURZ WAS NOT ONLY IN Conrad's Heart of Darkness! - 16:58:55 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: I'd bet rOB like I'd bet of those soccer guys I'd bet none o'them own a gun and for sure they don't have a gun-rack. - 17:04:51 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:For instance, ever, notice, how cranky and crabby YOU get around the 'dog days of summer", now-July thru August. True, you could put it down to the intense heat, but sometimes June is incredidibly hot., and people just don't act quite the same then as they do in the latter months of the summer. In the Beth-Luis system, holly falls around July and brings with it intense energies of hatred, suspicion, and general "bitchiness". A remedy is a holly tree. A branch of holly hung in the house can help us feel calmer. Try it it works_> coincidence to magic. - 17:07:37 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Rob (the Lord helpeth them that help themselves):All: It seems my prayers were answered, and by hook and crook me has got me a modem. Of course I wont be posting as much now that I am paying, but I will be with you in "spirit" ;) - 17:09:58 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl.. Thank you for the savage routine and your own little brainwashing technique in your closed lyceum . No, the grasshopper won't be your own personal written experiment. - 17:17:36 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:h2o. If you're trying to prove your brain is waterlogged you've succeeded. - 17:23:49 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

David:As you may or may not know, I am a atheist! However recently a question was asked of me which I thought was worth addressing. The question simply put was do I believe that Satan was the root of all evil. Being an atheist I had to go the Bible to find out just what God�s and Satan�s plans and rules were. This is what I found. In the old testament God wants sacrifices of people animals children babies and crops. None of which is asked for by Satan. God demands you live your life for God and if not you are severely punished. If you do follow God�s way your are supposedly given a euphoric feeling ; this is the same technique that is used in brain washing. Satin only asked that you seize the day, live for today, enjoy your life. No were dose it say that if you want to kill people that it would be O.K. in fact you should not kill because the person that you kill could not be following Satan�s plans of enjoying life if he or she is dead. On the other hand if your life is full of pain and sorrow it would not be against Satan�s rules to commit suicide because in his plans, you, not God, are in charge of your own life. Satan dose not care if your worship a false god, he would think that you are just wasting your time and life in so doing. But people who worship false gods makes God very mad and he orders them all murdered no matter if they are babies or what ever. This can go on and on but the quintessence of this is that Satan dose not asked people to be evil. But rather to be in charge of their own lives. And in the end, it once again is God and not Satan who condemns man to everlasting hell fire for not obeying him, not the act of a loving god. The bible says the one third of all the angels went with Satan, too bad that 100% did not follow him. To answer the original question. I think that God is the root of all evil. There is nothing wrong with living your life to it�s fullest without hurting others. But remember that I am an atheist and so this is just a response out of your own bible. Try reading it sometime !!!As you may or may not know, I am a atheist! However recently a question was asked of me which I thought was worth addressing. The question simply put was do I believe that Satan was the root of all evil. Being an atheist I had to go the Bible to find out just what God�s and Satan�s plans and rules were. This is what I found. In the old testament God wants sacrifices of people animals children babies and crops. None of which is asked for by Satan. God demands you live your life for God and if not you are severely punished. If you do follow God�s way your are supposedly given a euphoric feeling ; this is the same technique that is used in brain washing. Satin only asked that you seize the day, live for today, enjoy your life. No were dose it say that if you want to kill people that it would be O.K. in fact you should not kill because the person that you kill could not be following Satan�s plans of enjoying life if he or she is dead. On the other hand if your life is full of pain and sorrow it would not be against Satan�s rules to commit suicide because in his plans, you, not God, are in charge of your own life. Satan dose not care if your worship a false god, he would think that you are just wasting your time and life in so doing. But people who worship false gods makes God very mad and he orders them all murdered no matter if they are babies or what ever. This can go on and on but the quintessence of this is that Satan dose not asked people to be evil. But rather to be in charge of their own lives. And in the end, it once again is God and not Satan who condemns man to everlasting hell fire for not obeying him, not the act of a loving god. The bible says the one third of all the angels went with Satan, too bad that 100% did not follow him. To answer the original question. I think that God is the root of all evil. There is nothing wrong with living your life to it�s fullest without hurting others. But remember that I am an atheist and so this is just a response out of your own bible. Try reading it sometime !!! - 17:24:32 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

PapaSam:rOB. Why don't you and RTL get together and teach a course in comparative idiocies? You both seem to get ot off wallowing in your inanities. - 17:26:52 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

k ---------ARL:In the balance of things, the moon and sun are in exact synchronization of Metonic cycles every so 235 lunations. The sun's positions and lunations could be tracked using the henge's solar alignments and Aubery holes and moving a rock ever so <g>. Those who are being drawn back to their ancient paths are being called to search within themselves the answers of the "LORD OF THE Flies". Or we can be someone's lab experiment. Words were spoken that of which I shall not write save only to say they affirmed me in the service of the wood. Also, and there I LEARNED much that I had not understood before, for all my savage wisdom. - 17:29:07 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:rOB: Lord o'the flies, must be sumthin' mystery like therein that feeds or sparks to on, 'your' imagination, I red that as a grade schooler but if time permits I could pick it up again. I still like 'Flight'-Steinbeck, I thought it a different view of an awakening. - 17:37:58 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

rOB:David. My ancestors were oppressed for the same very brainwashing techniques and judgemental ethics; it continues unfortunately! - 17:39:00 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:WOODSMAN: of your savage wisdom, perhaps it is time for a new concept of man and humanity in general. If not, savages would still not know how to do, but there are no savages, ergo, savage wisdom is a nil. try again. - 17:46:03 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND P0EOPLE THAT THIS PLACE IS NOT A PLACE TO TALK ABOUT FOOTBALL AND OTHER JUNK... PLEASE DO NOT RUIN A GOOD THING. - 17:53:45 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

the semantic grasshopper:Yes, Carl he will always be there for your translatlatable transgression THE EXPERIMENT is over! - 17:56:44 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Joette..serenity now...:-->rOB...thank you for the tip about holly...it is not at all native to where I live, but I will go to a greenhouse to seek some out. I may not know or believe in the "magical qualities" of said holly, but if anything is able to make me feel calmer (that doesn't come in a prescription bottle) I will try it. - 18:02:35 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:DAVID- If I were asked that question, I would likely answer that "satan" is also a mythological creature and therefor has no influence on human vices and virtues. It is good that you've pointed out that the xtian's own bible doesn't paint satan as such a bad character though. Their god sounds much crueler than ole Stan. - 18:03:53 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->rOB..you have made a plethora of statements that by their own merit have little subtance such as "As for cracked acorns, I am a veteran of millions of psychic wars through training and beyond;" Would you explain this so those of us less informed can understand what you are saying? - 18:06:04 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:ROB- Congrats on the modem! - 18:06:08 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

TO WHOMEVER IS TAKING EXCEPTION TO THE FACT THAT SOME OF US ARE TALKING ABOUT FOOTBALL, WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO CENSOR THE DISCUSSION? THERE IS MORE TO LIFE THAN TALKING ABOUT THE NON-EXISTENCE OF A GOD YOU KNOW! - 18:09:08 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..a weed is a weed :rOB- Actually I plant lots of mosquito plants around my house and it really does make me a little calmer. Mind you, I bet Steven can recommend other plants that do wonders for the nerves, lol! - 18:10:14 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene..ya rOB!:JOETTE- I have to agree with you, sometimes rOB's posts are hard to make out. - 18:13:28 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:ANY: As the satan thing is being kicked about, any see the movie, "The Devils Advocate" - 18:30:39 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Marlene:CARL- No I haven't, what's it about? - 19:16:30 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:MARLENE: Its'a Pacino flick, he is Milton the devil lookin'after his son a lawyer, to the xtian type or someone easily spooked it may be eerie, but to me it was a fun movie. try it. - 19:54:33 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Carl:OPEN: so who is the new expert of what is or is not a closed system? But then who is not arguably either? As for me, just show me something, I'll figger it out and ask of it what I can, what do you want to or mean to or what are you trying to say there grasshopper? - 20:00:06 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

ADAM Blue Jay, or Chicken?��:Jowe-bet: If the Jays are going to win tonight (you turd it hear worst), then why are you so scared to bet? Flashbacks to last year's trammeling at Shea? The Sky Dome is falling, Chicken Shittle! Didn't realize that Jays could be so fowl! If you reply by 19:05 (game time), my offer still stands. Unless you have new terms. Otherwise, let the denizens of the page be advised that the province of Ontario is populated with yaller weasels! Roger Rocket, meet Rick Reed, you dickweed! Didja' check out the fancy-shmancy 2.31 ERA, oh Jo-knows-when-not-to-throw-dough? - 22:26:43 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

ADAM I 2d Base That Emotion...:�� Ditto on the Go Rangers sentiment. Problem is, their pitching SUX! - 23:06:20 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

Joette:-->ADAM...sorry, but $20 is too rich, what with the exchange and all. It costs more than that just to mail it to you. - 23:28:25 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

0-0 going into the 2nd. - 23:29:13 on 30 Jun 98 GMT

1-0 Mets (thanks to a former Blue Jay) - 23:38:11 on 30 Jun 98 GMT