Cobol - OT Science versus religion: Is compromise impossible?

Author

OT Science versus religion: Is compromise impossible?

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-08, 8:55 am

It is hard to believe there are still places like Dover, Pennsylvania.

The following link was sent to me by a friend in Canada.

You could either laugh or cry at it...

http://www.thebentinel.com/041201-a...lue-for-pi.html

Those of you with children might take it as a "heads up"...

Pete.

JerryMouse

2004-12-08, 3:55 pm

steve.t wrote:
>
> It would seem that going from Hebrew to Latin (Vulgate) to English
> doesn't produce any translation errors ;-) (I'm going to go now. I
> will only start a serious flame war if I continue with kicking the
> "holy" Latin...).

Actually, German was one of the intermediaries in getting to English.

The Martin Luther translation is responsible for the word "Jehovah,"
consisting of consonats from one Hebrew word (YHWH) and the vowels from
another Hebrew word (ADONAI).

This yields the Germanic word "Yahowah" which, when automatically
transcribed into English becomes (Y=J, W=V) "Jehovah." Moses didn't use the
word; Jesus didn't know what it meant either.

The important thing to remember when dealing with the Bible (or the
Constitution) is this: It doesn't matter what the text says - what IS
important is what the text means. Often God (or the "Founding Fathers")
didn't say what they meant or mean what they said.

Donald Tees

2004-12-08, 3:55 pm

JerryMouse wrote:
> steve.t wrote:
>
>
>
> Actually, German was one of the intermediaries in getting to English.
>
> The Martin Luther translation is responsible for the word "Jehovah,"
> consisting of consonats from one Hebrew word (YHWH) and the vowels from
> another Hebrew word (ADONAI).
>
> This yields the Germanic word "Yahowah" which, when automatically
> transcribed into English becomes (Y=J, W=V) "Jehovah." Moses didn't use the
> word; Jesus didn't know what it meant either.
>
> The important thing to remember when dealing with the Bible (or the
> Constitution) is this: It doesn't matter what the text says - what IS
> important is what the text means. Often God (or the "Founding Fathers")
> didn't say what they meant or mean what they said.
>
>

Interestingly enough, the origin of the word "ain't" which ain't in the
dictionary, is from the same source ... roughly translated as "that
which is not".

Donald

Peter Lacey

2004-12-08, 3:55 pm

JerryMouse wrote:
>
>
> The important thing to remember when dealing with the Bible (or the
> Constitution) is this: It doesn't matter what the text says - what IS
> important is what the text means. Often God (or the "Founding Fathers")
> didn't say what they meant or mean what they said.

Sorry, can't agree. The ONLY objective thing that exists is in fact the
text. We may well disagree as to its meaning but we must not dismiss it
on the grounds that it doesn't say what was meant, or doesn't mean what
it says.

A couple of homely examples: our railway association is sometimes a
fractious bunch. Once the president insisted that although the bylaws
said that there are "Nine" members of the executive, it actually meant
"seven" since only seven titles were given. Another time another
president said that the "three-quarters" of the vote needed to approve a
given expenditure was wrong since an amendment had been passed but not
published to change it to a simple majority.

The point is, of course, that in human intercourse and the devices that
control it, we must go by what they say; not by what somebody says they
mean. People being what they are, there is no possible way of letting
unwritten alternatives rule. (And don't bother assailing me with
"ambiguity" and "alternative interpretations". I know! People are
imperfect). We can thrash out interpretations and make things
increasingly clear. But we must agree. That's why majority rule was
invented: to stop demagogues implementing what they want on the grounds
that the Constitution, or the Bible, doesn't actually mean what it says
or says what it means.

Think about what the US Constitution actually says about the right to
bear arms, as opposed to what it's usually taken to mean, and you'll get
my drift.

PL

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-08, 3:55 pm

In article <10re7uu9kotq24b@news.supernews.com>,
JerryMouse <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote:

[snip]

>The important thing to remember when dealing with the Bible (or the
>Constitution) is this: It doesn't matter what the text says - what IS
>important is what the text means. Often God (or the "Founding Fathers")
>didn't say what they meant or mean what they said.

Meaning is the result of interpretation; such a thing as an omnipotent,
omnipresent and omniscient divinity would, I expect, take great care in
communicating its desires to finite, frail, fickle and fractious human
beings capable of interpreting words to suit their own ends.

DD

James J. Gavan

2004-12-08, 3:55 pm

Donald Tees wrote:

> JerryMouse wrote:
>
>
> Interestingly enough, the origin of the word "ain't" which ain't in
> the dictionary, is from the same source ... roughly translated as
> "that which is not".
>
> Donald
>
Which dictionary are you looking at Donald, one printed in Toronto :-)
It appears in my Concise Oxford - cross referring you to 'Be'. You don't
watch this TV stuff, but when PBS showed the BBC (?) TV series 'The
Pallisers" about mid-century Victorians, it was "Qhuite proper' to use
the word ain't.

Gershwin "It ain't necessarily so......" - It isn't necessarily so....."
"I ain't going there......." - "I'm not going
there......"

Jimmy

Donald Tees

2004-12-08, 8:55 pm

James J. Gavan wrote:
> Donald Tees wrote:
>
> Which dictionary are you looking at Donald, one printed in Toronto :-)
> It appears in my Concise Oxford - cross referring you to 'Be'. You don't
> watch this TV stuff, but when PBS showed the BBC (?) TV series 'The
> Pallisers" about mid-century Victorians, it was "Qhuite proper' to use
> the word ain't.
>
> Gershwin "It ain't necessarily so......" - It isn't necessarily so....."
> "I ain't going there......." - "I'm not going
> there......"
>

You have me there Jimmy. I was refering to the one we used in
high-school 40 years ago. Long out of print, and probably a trivial
distionary even then. Hell, aren't we suppose to use *compilers* to
check dictionaries?

Donald

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-09, 8:55 am

In article <31cge3F38hd7vU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>It is hard to believe there are still places like Dover, Pennsylvania.
>
>The following link was sent to me by a friend in Canada.
>
>You could either laugh or cry at it...
>
>http://www.thebentinel.com/041201-a...lue-for-pi.html
>
>Those of you with children might take it as a "heads up"...

Ummmmm... Mr Dashwood, you *did* notice the heading which read '-- Clean,
family-friendly news satire and parody -- ', didn't you? Did you notice
headlines like 'E-Books Blamed for Global Warming Increase' and 'Everybody
Resigns From Everything' (datelined 'Everywhere')?

DD

Frank Swarbrick

2004-12-09, 8:55 am

I think they "got" you. Check out the site's home page:
"Rock-solid reporting -- with a twist!
-- Clean, family-friendly news satire and parody -- "

It seems to be something like The Onion, where the articles are made up.

[color=darkred]
It is hard to believe there are still places like Dover, Pennsylvania.

The following link was sent to me by a friend in Canada.

You could either laugh or cry at it...

http://www.thebentinel.com/041201-a...lue-for-pi.html

Those of you with children might take it as a "heads up"...

Pete.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-12-09, 3:55 pm

With great pleasure and thoughts of my grammer school grammer teacher I
offer the following from Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com):

One entry found for ain't.

Main Entry: ain't
Pronunciation: 'Ant
Etymology: contraction of are not
1 : am not : are not : is not
2 : have not : has not
3 : do not : does not : did not -- used in some varieties of Black
English
usage Although widely disapproved as nonstandard and more common in the
habitual speech of the less educated, ain't in senses 1 and 2 is
flourishing in American English. It is used in both speech and writing
to catch attention and to gain emphasis <the wackiness of movies, once
so deliciously amusing, ain't funny anymore -- Richard Schickel> <I am
telling you--there ain't going to be any blackmail -- R. M. Nixon>. It
is used especially in journalistic prose as part of a consistently
informal style <the creative process ain't easy -- Mike Royko>. This
informal ain't is commonly distinguished from habitual ain't by its
frequent occurrence in fixed constructions and phrases <well--class it
ain't -- Cleveland Amory> <for money? say it ain't so, Jimmy! -- Andy
Rooney> <you ain't seen nothing yet> <that ain't hay> <two out of three
ain't bad> <if it ain't broke, don't fix it>. In fiction ain't is used
for purposes of characterization; in familiar correspondence it tends to
be the mark of a warm personal friendship. It is also used for metrical
reasons in popular songs <Ain't She Sweet> <It Ain't Necessarily So>.
Our evidence shows British use to be much the same as American.
--

In article <bjFtd.26936$l%5.1180814@news20.bellglobal.com>,
Donald Tees <donald_tees@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> JerryMouse wrote:
>
> Interestingly enough, the origin of the word "ain't" which ain't in the
> dictionary, is from the same source ... roughly translated as "that
> which is not".
>
> Donald
>

JerryMouse

2004-12-09, 3:55 pm

Peter Lacey wrote:
> JerryMouse wrote:
>
> Sorry, can't agree. The ONLY objective thing that exists is in fact
> the text. We may well disagree as to its meaning but we must not
> dismiss it on the grounds that it doesn't say what was meant, or
> doesn't mean what it says.

Agreed, if you stumble upon graven tablets in the woods outstide Elmyra, New
York.

And I didn't mean the text was irrelevant.

In the case of the Bible and the Constitution, there is ample material
outside the written text to explain its meaning. In the case of the Old
Testament, there is a HUGE oral tradition, SOME of which was codified in the
Talmud. In the case of the New Testament, scholarship agrees the Gospels
were written long after Jesus' life. There is not a single shred of NT
writing prior to the 4th century. This implies much of the NT is a redaction
of an oral tradition.

There is a school of thought that an oral tradition is much superior to a
written document. In the oral transmission methodology, the teacher, mentor,
rabbi, priest, whoever, imparting the knowledge can quiz the student to make
sure the student understands the concepts completely. Not so in a written
text.

Likewise with the Constitution. We have the debates of the Constitutional
Convention, the Federalist Papers, the Common Law, various state
constitutions, and other writings to help us understand the "legislative
intent" behind the basic document.

> The point is, of course, that in human intercourse and the devices
> that control it, we must go by what they say; not by what somebody
> says they mean.

The King James Bible quotes Jesus as saying: "Suffer the little children to
come unto Me." By your argument, each child should be thoroughly whipped
before entering the Sunday School class! In the 16th century, the word
"suffer" meant "allow, permit, encourage." Should one go with "original
intent" or "objective definition?"

And as far as your reliance on "Black-letter Law," how do you handle
exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis ("Solomon had treasures without
end") or a quoted speaker lying or being mistaken ("Peter denied the
Lord..."). Then there's the whole mishmash of "Confilct of Laws" (mandating
that which is prohibited).

No, unqestioning reliance by a lay person on a written rule is no substitute
for the reasoned opinion of those who've made their life work studying
religion or law.

>
> Think about what the US Constitution actually says about the right to
> bear arms, as opposed to what it's usually taken to mean, and you'll
> get my drift.

Good point. There are those who read the 2nd Amendment with differing
definitions ("regulated" in the 18th Century meant a "finely-adjusted
mechanical device - as a weapon;" today it means "conforming to a uniform
rule set- an army") and the debate rages. But this debate is not open,
directly, to majority rule. The Courts will decide what the Constitution
means - and the decision won't be based on what the 2nd Amendment actually
says - at least according to the losing side.

Robert Wagner

2004-12-09, 3:55 pm

On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:29:25 -0600, "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com>
wrote:

>Peter Lacey wrote:

>
>Good point. There are those who read the 2nd Amendment with differing
>definitions ("regulated" in the 18th Century meant a "finely-adjusted
>mechanical device - as a weapon;" today it means "conforming to a uniform
>rule set- an army") and the debate rages. But this debate is not open,
>directly, to majority rule.

Why isn't it? Why not put issues on a Web site and let The People vote
directly?

I don't advoicate the idea. I see lots of flaws in it. Just asking the
obvious question, one that's sure to come up in the future.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-09, 3:55 pm

In article <v73hr0lp1abat8cogbo429akoa4mboju1j@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 9 Dec 2004 09:29:25 -0600, "JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>Why isn't it? Why not put issues on a Web site and let The People vote
>directly?

Because the franchise of voting is Constitutionally extended to more
people than the subset consisting of those who have web access, Mr
Wagner... that's one reason.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-09, 8:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-280D54.09161909122004@knology.usenetserver.com...
> With great pleasure and thoughts of my grammer school grammer teacher I
> offer the following from Merriam-Webster Online (www.m-w.com):
>
Hell, Joe, does Merriam-Webster provide definitions for the familiar form of
address to your Grandmother, as opposed to the structure and syntax of
language?

<snip>

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-09, 8:55 pm

"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:10rgrqmge3d40b4@news.supernews.com...
> Peter Lacey wrote:
>
> Agreed, if you stumble upon graven tablets in the woods outstide Elmyra,
New
> York.
>
> And I didn't mean the text was irrelevant.
>
> In the case of the Bible and the Constitution, there is ample material
> outside the written text to explain its meaning. In the case of the Old
> Testament, there is a HUGE oral tradition, SOME of which was codified in
the
> Talmud. In the case of the New Testament, scholarship agrees the Gospels
> were written long after Jesus' life. There is not a single shred of NT
> writing prior to the 4th century. This implies much of the NT is a
redaction
> of an oral tradition.
>
Sorry Jerry, the evidence is against you here. Much of the "Christian"
church is based on the work of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) who got things
"organised" after the death of Jesus. His Epistle to the Romans (for
example) was written around 60 AD. We know this by events he describes in it
as contemporary. It is probably true that none of the Gospels were written
earlier than 50 years after the death of Christ, but several hundred years
is stretching it a bit...

> There is a school of thought that an oral tradition is much superior to a
> written document. In the oral transmission methodology, the teacher,
mentor,
> rabbi, priest, whoever, imparting the knowledge can quiz the student to
make
> sure the student understands the concepts completely. Not so in a written
> text.

Good point.
>
> Likewise with the Constitution. We have the debates of the Constitutional
> Convention, the Federalist Papers, the Common Law, various state
> constitutions, and other writings to help us understand the "legislative
> intent" behind the basic document.
>
>
> The King James Bible quotes Jesus as saying: "Suffer the little children
to
> come unto Me." By your argument, each child should be thoroughly whipped
> before entering the Sunday School class! In the 16th century, the word
> "suffer" meant "allow, permit, encourage." Should one go with "original
> intent" or "objective definition?"
>
> And as far as your reliance on "Black-letter Law," how do you handle
> exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis ("Solomon had treasures without
> end") or a quoted speaker lying or being mistaken ("Peter denied the
> Lord..."). Then there's the whole mishmash of "Confilct of Laws"
(mandating
> that which is prohibited).
>
> No, unqestioning reliance by a lay person on a written rule is no
substitute
> for the reasoned opinion of those who've made their life work studying
> religion or law.
>
Disagree strongly. The responsibility is on the people who made it their
life's work to ensure that the rules are clear and unambiguous. The Law has
to work that way. Updates as language and meaning change may be required,
but nevertheless, the responsibility for understanding is with each of us,
not the teachers and priests. You may be required to argue your
interpretation of the rules (your case) in a court of Law or before God's
Great Judgement Seat, but you will be tried, not on what someone told you or
interpreted for you, but on what is written and how YOU consider it.
>
> Good point. There are those who read the 2nd Amendment with differing
> definitions ("regulated" in the 18th Century meant a "finely-adjusted
> mechanical device - as a weapon;" today it means "conforming to a uniform
> rule set- an army") and the debate rages. But this debate is not open,
> directly, to majority rule. The Courts will decide what the Constitution
> means - and the decision won't be based on what the 2nd Amendment actually
> says - at least according to the losing side.
>
>
Anything that is Authoritative is open to interpretation and argument.
(Including that statement... <G> )

"Thou shalt not kill." Simple, unambiguous, and direct. (You would
think...). But what about when someone is trying to kill you? Or your wife
and children? What if the ONLY way to remove the threat is by irrevocably
stopping the perpetrator? If you don't want to argue that, what about the
fact that every time you breathe you kill thousands (possibly millions) of
bacteria? And you can't NOT do it, because you are designed that
way...presumably by the same entity that requires you not to kill
anything...<G>

Maybe God has a sense of humour. (actually, having seen a platypus, I'm sure
of it.)

Pete.
>

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-09, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpa76t$7b3$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <v73hr0lp1abat8cogbo429akoa4mboju1j@4ax.com>,
> Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
uniform[color=darkred]
>
> Because the franchise of voting is Constitutionally extended to more
> people than the subset consisting of those who have web access, Mr
> Wagner... that's one reason.
>
Absolutely.

Another reason is that the best hacker will rig the election to his
particular point of view... If they can hack LOTTO they can hack elections.

At least with the currently rigged elections around the world they have to
leave an audit trail of bits of paper...

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

In article <31s5rpF3fnmhkU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>Anything that is Authoritative is open to interpretation and argument.
>(Including that statement... <G> )
>
>"Thou shalt not kill." Simple, unambiguous, and direct.

Ummmmmm... I have been told that the Hebrew word is closer to 'murder'
than 'kill'; that would make 'Thou shalt not kill' simple, unambiguous,
direct... and wrong.

(after all... if it is against Divine Will that killing be done then how
come so many transgressions carry a death penalty? doesn't seem to make
much sense to break the law in order to carry out the law)

DD

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpat0e$n7$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <31s5rpF3fnmhkU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Ummmmmm... I have been told that the Hebrew word is closer to 'murder'
> than 'kill'; that would make 'Thou shalt not kill' simple, unambiguous,
> direct... and wrong.
>
> (after all... if it is against Divine Will that killing be done then how
> come so many transgressions carry a death penalty? doesn't seem to make
> much sense to break the law in order to carry out the law)
>
> DD
>

I've never heard the "murder" argument. But it sounds fair. So you would
then contend that the Death penalty is NOT State approved murder?
(Otherwise you hit the same contradiction you outlined abbove).

Hmmmm.....

Pete.
>

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

In article <31scqsF3fjvp6U1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpat0e$n7$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
>I've never heard the "murder" argument. But it sounds fair. So you would
>then contend that the Death penalty is NOT State approved murder?
>(Otherwise you hit the same contradiction you outlined abbove).

Well, now... if 'murder' is, by simple definition, 'an unlawful killing'
then a killing which has legal sanction ('sanction' in the sense of
'permission') is not, by definition, a 'murder' as the sanctioned killing
is in accord with the law.

>
>Hmmmm.....

Hey, if it were easy then it would already have been decided, no?

DD

Rick Smith

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

"JerryMouse" <nospam@bisusa.com> wrote in message
news:10re7uu9kotq24b@news.supernews.com...
[snip]
> The important thing to remember when dealing with the Bible (or the
> Constitution) is this: It doesn't matter what the text says - what IS
> important is what the text means. Often God (or the "Founding Fathers")
> didn't say what they meant or mean what they said.

With respect to the Constitution and Founding Fathers,
Federalist 33 < http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa33.htm >
Paragraph 6 "... If there ever should be a doubt on this head, the
credit of it will be entirely due to those reasoners who, in the
imprudent zeal of their animosity to the plan of the convention,
have labored to envelop it in a cloud calculated to obscure the
plainest and simplest truths."

As I understand these words, attributed to Alexander Hamilton,
one of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution says what it means,
plainly and simply.

While the letter, published January 2, 1788, was intended to
address anti-federalist sentiments (as explained in paragraphs
one and two), I find no clearer example of "animosity to the plan
of the convention" than President Franklin Roosevelt (in 1935?)
threatening to "pack" the Supreme Court for not passing on
(approving) the constitutionality of his social agenda.

Paragraph 6 also mentions tyrannical use of power and forced
construction, both of which may be seen to have occurred by
regarding the Constitution as consisting of "the plainest and
simplest truths."

All of the Federalist Papers are available through
< http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa00.htm >.

Peter Lacey

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

JerryMouse wrote:
>
> Peter Lacey wrote:
>
> Agreed, if you stumble upon graven tablets in the woods outstide Elmyra, New
> York.

I only regret I'm not con-man enough to try that for myself.

>
> No, unqestioning reliance by a lay person on a written rule is no substitute
> for the reasoned opinion of those who've made their life work studying
> religion or law.
>

I have other things to say about your response (which I may or may not
get around to). But, going back to your point that the writers didn't
mean what they wrote or didn't write what they meant - then why the heck
should we expect that the commentators, expounders, interpreters,
exegesists (one who does exegesis: is that the word?) will not do
likewise? Why should anyone be more reliable than the original writer?

PL

Robert Wagner

2004-12-10, 3:55 am

On 9 Dec 2004 13:57:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <v73hr0lp1abat8cogbo429akoa4mboju1j@4ax.com>,
>Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:

>
>Because the franchise of voting is Constitutionally extended to more
>people than the subset consisting of those who have web access, Mr
>Wagner... that's one reason.

If they have neither a computer nor a cordless phone, they're too dumb
to vote. Let them eat cake.

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 8:55 am

In article <ifgir0lopd4avsju9ueo5jc6bns1dqd79v@4ax.com>,
Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2004 13:57:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
>If they have neither a computer nor a cordless phone, they're too dumb
>to vote. Let them eat cake.

Oh, I see... the owning of certain possessions is an indication of the
intelligence requisite for voting. Mr Wagner, you once made an accusation
of 'classism via education'; here it seems you advocate worse.

But... it will not, I hope, come to such a sorry state in *my* United
States of America, Mr Wagner... if you wish to see it otherwise then work
within the law to change it or find yourself a nation which limits
enfranchisement as you see to be better.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 8:55 am

In article <41B91B71.A8C19BF@mb.sympatico.ca>,
Peter Lacey <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:

[snip]

Pardon my midsentence interruption, Mr Lacey, but it is in order to supply
a datum, nothing more:

>exegesists (one who does exegesis: is that the word?)

Exegetes.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...nary&va=exegete

DD

JerryMouse

2004-12-10, 3:55 pm

Peter Lacey

2004-12-10, 3:55 pm

LX-i

2004-12-10, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <v73hr0lp1abat8cogbo429akoa4mboju1j@4ax.com>,
> Robert Wagner <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Because the franchise of voting is Constitutionally extended to more
> people than the subset consisting of those who have web access, Mr
> Wagner... that's one reason.

Those who can drive to a polling place can also certainly drive to their
local public library, no? Laziness is the biggest disenfranchiser around...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-10, 8:55 pm

In article <Ibmud.1082$ZP5.12@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>Those who can drive to a polling place can also certainly drive to their
>local public library, no?

Owning a car or being convenient to a public library with internet access
are not Constitutional requirements for enfranchisement, either.

>Laziness is the biggest disenfranchiser around...

Laziness of thought can be seen as a greater threat to the Republic; the
Founders debated similar requirements - white, land-owning males,
remember? - and rejected them. If you're a citizen, of appropriate age,
of sound mind ('sound mind' being determined by the lack of a judicial
decision to the contrary) and without a felony conviction then you can
vote; it is my experience that those who advocate greater restrictions are
looking to see a ballot-box filled with the votes of their own brand of
'right-thinking individuals'... have you ever seen someone advocate that
enfranchisement be based on a qualification that the advocate does not
possess, or could not possess with a trifling effort?

'In order to vote you should have to have/do (x)... and the fact that I
already have/can do (x) and everyone who agrees with me has/can do (x)
didn't effect me at all!'

DD

Peter Lacey

2004-12-10, 8:55 pm

"steve.t" wrote:
>
> Actually the mistake was made by the translators. As best I can tell
> the measurement was given as a DIAMETER not CIRCUMFERENCE. The KJV
> translators appear to have, well, decided to translate in their own
> stilted fashion and so get things screwed up.
>

There is a most interesting book about the creation of the KJV, called
"Secretaries of God" or something similar; it makes very clear that the
work was done by many people who couldn't be described as devout, let
alone scholarly.

PL

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-10, 8:55 pm

Lol!

Just remember what happened to the last person reputed to have had that
attitude, Robert <G>

Pete.

"Robert Wagner" <spamblocker-robert@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:ifgir0lopd4avsju9ueo5jc6bns1dqd79v@
4ax.com...
> On 9 Dec 2004 13:57:33 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>
>
> If they have neither a computer nor a cordless phone, they're too dumb
> to vote. Let them eat cake.
>

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-10, 8:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpb0qm$bus$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <31scqsF3fjvp6U1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
news:cpat0e$n7$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
how[color=darkred]
>
> Well, now... if 'murder' is, by simple definition, 'an unlawful killing'
> then a killing which has legal sanction ('sanction' in the sense of
> 'permission') is not, by definition, a 'murder' as the sanctioned killing
> is in accord with the law.
>
So we can "Translate" the Holy Writ as "Thou shalt not commit unlawful
killing."

That's pretty wishy washy coming from a God of Hosts...

As far as I know, there were no further tablets with an appendix describing
under exactly what circumstances and conditions a killing could be assumed
to be lawful, and who would decide that interpretation.

It's no wonder there was trouble when Moses got down off the mountain...

It's no wonder this Religion stuff gets everybody overheated.
>
> Hey, if it were easy then it would already have been decided, no?

Yes I think so Doc.

Being a bear of very little brain I can cope with something simple and
direct. (Like the oscillations of energy, in space, through time...)

Perhaps only the terribly bright are meant to be saved. I think Darwin had
some thoughts along those lines and would've been burned at the stake for
them if he'd said them a bit earlier.

Pete.

>
> DD
>
>

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 3:55 am

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:41B91B71.A8C19BF@mb.sympatico.ca...
> JerryMouse wrote:
New[color=darkred]
>
> I only regret I'm not con-man enough to try that for myself.
>
I read the book. It staggered me that a man had the ability to pull this
off. Either he was severely deluded and honestly believed what he said, or
the events he described really transpired.

There are millions of people around the world who believe the Latter...<G>

Out of respect for all beliefs I shan't take this any further.
>
substitute[color=darkred]
>
>
> I have other things to say about your response (which I may or may not
> get around to). But, going back to your point that the writers didn't
> mean what they wrote or didn't write what they meant - then why the heck
> should we expect that the commentators, expounders, interpreters,
> exegesists (one who does exegesis: is that the word?) will not do
> likewise? Why should anyone be more reliable than the original writer?
>

I found your comments here interesting, Peter.

It sems quite valid to me. There is certainly no reason to believe that
anyone else will not take liberties with what was said or written, and
whether they do so consciously or not, it is inevitable that their
interpretation will be coloured by their own life experience and
personality, if nothing else.

After some thought about this, I have decided that I ascribe to the school
that says each of us should arrive at our OWN personal belief. At least that
way we have some responsibility for what we take on board, and if we get it
"wrong" or miss the point that the writer intended, then hopefully as time
goes by, we will be moved to re-evaluate and correct what we believe,
because we will find it wanting.

In a modern society where there are not masses of uneducated illiterate
people who are incapable of evaluating things for themselves, you can
seriously ask, why should people be reliant on the words of priests and
scribes. Maybe the whole edifice of organized religion needs review (but
then, I WOULD say that... <G> ).

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 3:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpbtqc$df7$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <41B91B71.A8C19BF@mb.sympatico.ca>,
> Peter Lacey <lacey@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Pardon my midsentence interruption, Mr Lacey, but it is in order to supply
> a datum, nothing more:
>
>
> Exegetes.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...nary&va=exegete
>
> DD
>
Thanks Doc. I found the link useful. It was not a word I was sure about.

Pete.
>

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-11, 3:55 am

In article <31usn2F39796fU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpb0qm$bus$1@panix5.panix.com...
>news:cpat0e$n7$1@panix5.panix.com...
>So we can "Translate" the Holy Writ as "Thou shalt not commit unlawful
>killing."

I believe it is closer to 'Not (you will murder)'.

>
>That's pretty wishy washy coming from a God of Hosts...

The Hebrew is two words, one being 'no'... I'd imagine it would be
difficult to be more succinct than that.

>
>As far as I know, there were no further tablets with an appendix describing
>under exactly what circumstances and conditions a killing could be assumed
>to be lawful, and who would decide that interpretation.

Mr Dashwood, your knowledge appears to be rather limited... you might wish
to look into Exodus XXI, which contains such verses as:

12. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.

15. And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to
death.

16. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his
hand, he shall surely be put to death.

17. And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to
death.

23. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

29. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it
hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he
hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also
shall be put to death.

.... and that's just in one chapter.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 3:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpdh7g$55u$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <31usn2F39796fU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
news:cpb0qm$bus$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
argument.[color=darkred]
'murder'[color=darkred]
unambiguous,[color=darkred]
how[color=darkred]
make[color=darkred]
would[color=darkred]
killing'[color=darkred]
killing[color=darkred]
>
> I believe it is closer to 'Not (you will murder)'.
>
>
> The Hebrew is two words, one being 'no'... I'd imagine it would be
> difficult to be more succinct than that.
>
describing[color=darkred]
assumed[color=darkred]
>
> Mr Dashwood, your knowledge appears to be rather limited... you might wish
> to look into Exodus XXI, which contains such verses as:
>
> 12. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death.
>
> 15. And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to
> death.
>
> 16. And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his
> hand, he shall surely be put to death.
>
> 17. And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to
> death.
>
> 23. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
> 24. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
>
> 29. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it
> hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he
> hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also
> shall be put to death.
>
> ... and that's just in one chapter.
>
> DD
>
Thanks Doc.

I don't keep any oxen and that eye for an eye bit sounds kind of extreme to
me. It leads to a world where everyone is blind and toothless (except that
they wouldn't be of course, because they would have lost their hands as well
and would therefore have no means of putting out eyes or teeth (especially
eye teeth))

I'm starting to understand why a young friend of mine was overhead saying
his prayers as "Dear God, you frighten me..."

Pete.
>

Richard

2004-12-11, 3:55 am

> why should people be reliant on the words of priests and scribes.

Science teaches you _how_ to think, religion teaches you _what_ to
think.

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 3:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:4Yjsd.634$Yq6.23@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> And next w

, they're going to say that, due to readings in the
> recently discovered Book of Hezekiah, Einstein had it wrong too. It's
> not e=mc**2, it's e=cm**2. Einstein was a tool of the devil, sent to
> mislead the world into eternal damnation...
>
> ;)
>
Fair call, Daniel. I deserve your derision. <G>

Pete.
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
> ~ / \/ o ~ ~
> ~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
> ~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
> ~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 8:55 am

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1102736799.121247.17750@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Science teaches you _how_ to think, religion teaches you _what_ to
> think.
>
> .
Very succinct, Richard.

You would think that once people learned HOW to think, they would apply this
skill to wahtever they were required to think about and there would
therefore be no necessity to tell them WHAT to think.

Besides, the people who THINK about their beliefs are not the dangerous
ones.

It is the ones who KNOW that theirs is the only true faith who are dangerous
to the rest of us.

Pete

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-11, 3:55 pm

In article <31v3ivF3eqj5aU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpdh7g$55u$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>Thanks Doc.
>
>I don't keep any oxen and that eye for an eye bit sounds kind of extreme to
>me.

I included the ox bit because I found it interesting; it indicates that
people are not only responsible for their own actions but for the actions
of their property.

>It leads to a world where everyone is blind and toothless (except that
>they wouldn't be of course, because they would have lost their hands as well
>and would therefore have no means of putting out eyes or teeth (especially
>eye teeth))

Only if everyone were responsible for the loss of said items in others...
but that particular rule was re-interpreted sometime around the turn of
the millennium - not the previous one, the one before that - by some Great
Sage or another.

>
>I'm starting to understand why a young friend of mine was overhead saying
>his prayers as "Dear God, you frighten me..."

Perfectly understandable, although the Olde-Tymers used to exapnd this
fear to awe. Consider the logic:

The deity in which many place their faith is often described as
'infinite'.

Human beings are, quite obviously, finite.

There is no ratio between finite and infinite, just as there is no ratio
between 'is' and 'is not'.

If there is no ratio then the relationship which exists is irrational.

One of the responses humans have been seen to have, when confronted with
the irrational, is fear.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-11, 3:55 pm

In article <3204u3F3enroiU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>It is the ones who KNOW that theirs is the only true faith who are dangerous
>to the rest of us.

Oh, my Goedel is killing me... and this is KNOWN to be a tenet of the only
true faith, right?

(for those who have less English: Goedel ('oe' being a variant spelling of
'o-umlaut') refers to Kurt Gödel's (I tried to cut-n-paste there)
Incompleteness Theorem and has a pronounciation similar to the English
word 'girdle', a word which, among other things, describes an undergarment
sometimes worn by women who wish to appear thinner than they are; a few
years ago a manufacturer of women's undergarments in the United States of
America was touting the superiority of their product in a series of
advertisements beginning with the catch-phrase, said by a woman whose face
showed obvious pain, annoyance and discomfort, of 'My girdle is killing
me'... hence, when confronted with a statement which seems to fall under
the purview of the Incompleteness Theorem in a humorous way, e.g.
'Everything is relative!' 'Oh... is that absolutely true?' my response
often begins with 'Oh, my Goedel is killing me...')

(for those who have more English: a joke explained is a joke lost; see
what happens when one tries to clarify a few words?)

DD

LX-i

2004-12-11, 3:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> I've never heard the "murder" argument. But it sounds fair. So you would
> then contend that the Death penalty is NOT State approved murder?
> (Otherwise you hit the same contradiction you outlined abbove).

Do you realize how hard you folks are making it for me to stay out of
debates in here? ;)

But, a short answer - yes, that would be my contention. Forgiveness is
up to God, but the law demands accountability.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-12-11, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <Ibmud.1082$ZP5.12@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Owning a car or being convenient to a public library with internet access
> are not Constitutional requirements for enfranchisement, either.

You've got to get the polls somehow. If voting were done on a web site,
there could be vans that pick folks up and take them to the library,
just as there are on election day.

>
>
> Laziness of thought can be seen as a greater threat to the Republic; the
> Founders debated similar requirements - white, land-owning males,
> remember? - and rejected them. If you're a citizen, of appropriate age,
> of sound mind ('sound mind' being determined by the lack of a judicial
> decision to the contrary) and without a felony conviction then you can
> vote; it is my experience that those who advocate greater restrictions are
> looking to see a ballot-box filled with the votes of their own brand of
> 'right-thinking individuals'... have you ever seen someone advocate that
> enfranchisement be based on a qualification that the advocate does not
> possess, or could not possess with a trifling effort?
>
> 'In order to vote you should have to have/do (x)... and the fact that I
> already have/can do (x) and everyone who agrees with me has/can do (x)
> didn't effect me at all!'

Our current system requires either physically showing up at a polling
place and filling out a ballot, or requesting (in writing and with
enough time to return it) an absentee ballot, and returning said ballot
by the previously established deadline. If folks don't put forth the
effort to do one of those things, they have disenfranchised themselves.

Am I saying I want the ballot box stuffed with my type of vote? No -
but on the other hand, I'm not going to anguish myself over the lack of
voting by those who just can't be troubled to take the small steps
necessary to make their voices heard.

I think this is going to be the topic of my next blog entry - along with
debunking this silly notion of "every vote will be counted"...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 8:55 pm

A nice syllogism, Doc.

Enjoyed it.

Pete.
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpet47$oqi$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <31v3ivF3eqj5aU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
news:cpdh7g$55u$1@panix5.panix.com...[color=darkred]
>
> [snip]
>
describing[color=darkred]
assumed[color=darkred]
wish[color=darkred]
death.[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
his[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
he[color=darkred]
also[color=darkred]
to[color=darkred]
>
> I included the ox bit because I found it interesting; it indicates that
> people are not only responsible for their own actions but for the actions
> of their property.
>
well[color=darkred]
(especially[color=darkred]
>
> Only if everyone were responsible for the loss of said items in others...
> but that particular rule was re-interpreted sometime around the turn of
> the millennium - not the previous one, the one before that - by some Great
> Sage or another.
>
>
> Perfectly understandable, although the Olde-Tymers used to exapnd this
> fear to awe. Consider the logic:
>
> The deity in which many place their faith is often described as
> 'infinite'.
>
> Human beings are, quite obviously, finite.
>
> There is no ratio between finite and infinite, just as there is no ratio
> between 'is' and 'is not'.
>
> If there is no ratio then the relationship which exists is irrational.
>
> One of the responses humans have been seen to have, when confronted with
> the irrational, is fear.
>
> DD
>
>

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 8:55 pm

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:R6Hud.6314$ZP5.1939@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
> Do you realize how hard you folks are making it for me to stay out of
> debates in here? ;)
>
> But, a short answer - yes, that would be my contention. Forgiveness is
> up to God, but the law demands accountability.
>
>
Daniel, your opinions here are as valuable as anyone else's, whatever your
stated predilection. Don't be afraid to post. Just respond as you have done
and avoid tub thumping (not that you do... but you know what I mean).

Having said that, I also believe the state has the right to kill (or it
should do). But then, I don't accept the commandment in the first place.

For a long time (based on my innate liberal tendencies) I was persuaded that
the death penalty is wrong. I accepted some of the old arguments:

1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
executed.
2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
extreme anti-social behaviour.
3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).

I changed my mind when I lived in London and saw innocent people being blown
to pieces, lives destroyed, young people who had no idea what Cromwell did
or didn't do to the Irish, having a beer and then finding their legs gone,
maimed in the pursuit of a political agenda. These "men" claimed to be
"soldiers". But my recollection of soldiering is not about cowardly murder.

It made me very

(especially after a couple of near misses myself). I
don't know how many of you have ever been shot at, but in my case (it
happened in Bangladesh, and again in Beirut, although that was less
personal, I just happened to be in the wrong place...), my reaction was
not what I would have expected. I would expect to be very afraid; that isn't
what happened. All I felt was anger. "Those people are trying to kill me and
they don't even KNOW me! Bastards!" If I had had a gun I would certainly
have returned fire with the intention of killing someone. (It is easy to see
how wars start...). The London bombings had a similar effect on me, and made
me re-think my whole consideration about capital punishment. If these guys
are such "soldiers", let's use a firing squad...

Examining the above arguments again...

1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
executed.

Yes. I still believe that. There must be NO doubt that someone is guilty
before the law sanctions termination. I also believe the execution should be
painless and quick. A needle in the back of the hand saves the taxpayer a
lot of money and rids the world of someone who was totally unsuited to live
in it. (And, yes, I would take the same position if it was my nearest and
dearest or even myself.)

2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
extreme anti-social behaviour.

Maybe, for some people. Not proven. Certainly, in the old days when
punishments were harsher, crime did not stop, and people will always do
irrational things in the heat of the moment. However, there is some evidence
(based on accounts from prisoners who did not kill their victims) that the
death penalty is a deterrent to premeditated crime.

3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).

I don't accept that all killing is wrong. Some factions on the planet are
like a cancer. We have no cure for it, other than to cut it out.

So, there are the explained views of someone who loves his fellow man, is
far from being a redneck, but who is heartily sick of the outrageous crimes
we see perpetrated by sick people and fanatics. I believe the death penalty
can be justifed for crimes of terrorism (yes, I know one man's "terrorist"
is another's "freedom fighter", but if your cause is just, pursue it
justly...) and crimes against children.

It has been interesting to me to see the attempt to reconcile a Commandment
from God with the need for punishment in a modern society.

Doc says it hinges around the word "murder". King James' translators didn't
see it that way.

If, as Doc says, the original is two words, with one of them conveying the
idea of "no", then it would be necessary to understand the original language
and the customs of the people who used it (just as it is when learning any
"foreign" language) before reaching a conclusion. There are wide differences
in meaning between "murder" and "kill".

What works for me, is to reach a conclusion based only on what I observe
going on around me and not based on any religious imperative.

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-11, 8:55 pm

Lol!

Loved the Goedel joke, then watched it die... <g>

Pete.

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpetrv$21v$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <3204u3F3enroiU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
dangerous[color=darkred]
>
> Oh, my Goedel is killing me... and this is KNOWN to be a tenet of the only
> true faith, right?
>
> (for those who have less English: Goedel ('oe' being a variant spelling of
> 'o-umlaut') refers to Kurt Gödel's (I tried to cut-n-paste there)
> Incompleteness Theorem and has a pronounciation similar to the English
> word 'girdle', a word which, among other things, describes an undergarment
> sometimes worn by women who wish to appear thinner than they are; a few
> years ago a manufacturer of women's undergarments in the United States of
> America was touting the superiority of their product in a series of
> advertisements beginning with the catch-phrase, said by a woman whose face
> showed obvious pain, annoyance and discomfort, of 'My girdle is killing
> me'... hence, when confronted with a statement which seems to fall under
> the purview of the Incompleteness Theorem in a humorous way, e.g.
> 'Everything is relative!' 'Oh... is that absolutely true?' my response
> often begins with 'Oh, my Goedel is killing me...')
>
> (for those who have more English: a joke explained is a joke lost; see
> what happens when one tries to clarify a few words?)
>
> DD
>
>

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-12, 3:55 am

In article <aAHud.6321$ZP5.1638@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>You've got to get the polls somehow.

Is that where everyone obtains their absentee ballots, then?

>If voting were done on a web site,
>there could be vans that pick folks up and take them to the library,
>just as there are on election day.

So what you're saying is that those who already have computers are spared
going to a voting-place... what a difference that would be, sure.

>
>
>Our current system requires either physically showing up at a polling
>place and filling out a ballot, or requesting (in writing and with
>enough time to return it) an absentee ballot, and returning said ballot
>by the previously established deadline. If folks don't put forth the
>effort to do one of those things, they have disenfranchised themselves.

That was never argued, what was argued was the franchise being limited to
those with ability to use computers and access to them.

>
>Am I saying I want the ballot box stuffed with my type of vote? No -
>but on the other hand, I'm not going to anguish myself over the lack of
>voting by those who just can't be troubled to take the small steps
>necessary to make their voices heard.

That was never argued, at least by me.

>
>I think this is going to be the topic of my next blog entry - along with
>debunking this silly notion of "every vote will be counted"...

Such a silly notion, certainly... it just makes you want to stop casting
yours, doesn't it?

DD

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-12, 3:55 am

In article <321fe2F3fp75rU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>A nice syllogism, Doc.

A syllogism, Mr Dashwood - or so I was taught lo, those many years ago -
consists of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion; since what
I presented was a bit more I'd call it a logical chain, not a syllogism.

>
>Enjoyed it.

Shucks, you'se jes' easily amused. Glad that you did.
[color=darkred]
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpet47$oqi$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]
[color=darkred]

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-12, 3:55 am

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:cpg8a6$94c$1@panix5.panix.com...
> In article <321fe2F3fp75rU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> A syllogism, Mr Dashwood - or so I was taught lo, those many years ago -
> consists of a major premise, a minor premise and a conclusion; since what
> I presented was a bit more I'd call it a logical chain, not a syllogism.
>
Oh, Hegel! Of course you are correct... I was confusing synthesis...or maybe
I am just ...

.

OK, logical chain.

Pete.

<snip>

Richard

2004-12-12, 3:55 am

> But then, I don't accept the commandment in the first place.

The covenant is a vital part of the Jewish peoples, it is the
foundation of their religion and their nation. The commandments are
part of the deal that gave them dominion over the land they claim as
theirs.

Of course I believe that the convenant was with the local warlord named
or titled Jehovah (or similar), and thus was only applicable as long as
that regime existed.

Joe Zitzelberger

2004-12-12, 3:55 pm

Robert Wagner

2004-12-12, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-12, 3:55 pm

LX-i

2004-12-12, 3:55 pm

JerryMouse wrote:
>
> The King James Bible quotes Jesus as saying: "Suffer the little children to
> come unto Me." By your argument, each child should be thoroughly whipped
> before entering the Sunday School class! In the 16th century, the word
> "suffer" meant "allow, permit, encourage." Should one go with "original
> intent" or "objective definition?"

That's *still* a valid definition of the word "suffer".

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-12-12, 3:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:R6Hud.6314$ZP5.1939@fe40.usenetserver.com...
>
>
> Daniel, your opinions here are as valuable as anyone else's, whatever your
> stated predilection. Don't be afraid to post. Just respond as you have done
> and avoid tub thumping (not that you do... but you know what I mean).

Oh, it's not that I'm afraid - it's the time I end up feeling compelled
to spend. It's not really fair of me to reply to others' posts with my
opinions, but then not reply to their subsequent replies. :)

> Having said that, I also believe the state has the right to kill (or it
> should do). But then, I don't accept the commandment in the first place.
>
> For a long time (based on my innate liberal tendencies) I was persuaded that
> the death penalty is wrong. I accepted some of the old arguments:
>
> 1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
> executed.
> 2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
> extreme anti-social behaviour.
> 3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).

Which you discuss below... as will I... ;)

> I changed my mind when I lived in London and saw innocent people being blown
> to pieces, lives destroyed, young people who had no idea what Cromwell did
> or didn't do to the Irish, having a beer and then finding their legs gone,
> maimed in the pursuit of a political agenda. These "men" claimed to be
> "soldiers". But my recollection of soldiering is not about cowardly murder.
>
> It made me very

(especially after a couple of near misses myself). I
> don't know how many of you have ever been shot at, but in my case (it
> happened in Bangladesh, and again in Beirut, although that was less
> personal, I just happened to be in the wrong place...), my reaction was
> not what I would have expected. I would expect to be very afraid; that isn't
> what happened. All I felt was anger. "Those people are trying to kill me and
> they don't even KNOW me! Bastards!" If I had had a gun I would certainly
> have returned fire with the intention of killing someone. (It is easy to see
> how wars start...). The London bombings had a similar effect on me, and made
> me re-think my whole consideration about capital punishment. If these guys
> are such "soldiers", let's use a firing squad...

I've never been shot at (thankfully), but I did have a gun pulled on me
once. I've heard that the response is something as you've described
above. One of our instructors at Airman Leadership School (the military
eduction the USAF puts you through before you become an NCO) told us
about the time he and his other Airmen had been running while they were
deployed in Kuwait during Operation Desert Shield/Storm. People from
off base started shooting at them through the fence of the base. He
said that it's like time slowed down to about 1/10 the speed, and that
they high-tailed it away from the fence behind some cover.

No one was shot during that incident, but he did have friends that died
when the lone SCUD missile hit the barracks a few days later.

> Examining the above arguments again...
>
> 1. Better for a dozen guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be
> executed.
>
> Yes. I still believe that. There must be NO doubt that someone is guilty
> before the law sanctions termination. I also believe the execution should be
> painless and quick. A needle in the back of the hand saves the taxpayer a
> lot of money and rids the world of someone who was totally unsuited to live
> in it. (And, yes, I would take the same position if it was my nearest and
> dearest or even myself.)

I'm with you there. However, I'm a bit skeptical of this "recent DNA
evidence" stuff that anti-death-penalty folks are harping on. I'm not
familiar enough with the processes to know how easily it is tainted, and
"many years later" is many years someone with an agenda would have to
plant false evidence.

I agree with the "quick" sentiment as well. Once the case (and all the
appeals) is decided, let's get on with it.

> 2. There is no deterrent effect in knowing you may lose your life for
> extreme anti-social behaviour.
>
> Maybe, for some people. Not proven. Certainly, in the old days when
> punishments were harsher, crime did not stop, and people will always do
> irrational things in the heat of the moment. However, there is some evidence
> (based on accounts from prisoners who did not kill their victims) that the
> death penalty is a deterrent to premeditated crime.

In my opinion, whether it's a deterrent or not isn't an issue. It's a
defined punishment for wrong actions. That's what most of the law is -
if one coded it, it would look something like...

if law-was-broken
and guilt-proven
perform mete-out-punishment
end-if

If it happens to have a deterrent effect, that's even better - but where
capital punishment gives you bang for your buck is that your repeat
offender rate is 0%! :)

> 3. Two wrongs don't make a right. (If you accept that all killing is wrong).
>
> I don't accept that all killing is wrong. Some factions on the planet are
> like a cancer. We have no cure for it, other than to cut it out.

Ah - another ally in the war on terror! :) I would also say that
government is well within its rights, and is executing its duty (no pun
intended), by executing those who have unjustly taken the life of
another man.

> So, there are the explained views of someone who loves his fellow man, is
> far from being a redneck, but who is heartily sick of the outrageous crimes
> we see perpetrated by sick people and fanatics. I believe the death penalty
> can be justifed for crimes of terrorism (yes, I know one man's "terrorist"
> is another's "freedom fighter", but if your cause is just, pursue it
> justly...) and crimes against children.

This is what I find really interesting. My worldview is based in the
Bible, yours is based outside. Yet logical, rational, thinking people
both arrive at the same conclusions.

> It has been interesting to me to see the attempt to reconcile a Commandment
> from God with the need for punishment in a modern society.
>
> Doc says it hinges around the word "murder". King James' translators didn't
> see it that way.

Strangely enough, the KJV does use the word "murder" 9 times, but Exodus
20:13 isn't one of them. Other translations did use that term there.

King James Version - "Thou shalt not kill."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...20:13&version=9

New International Version - "You shall not murder."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=31;

New King James Version - "You shall not murder."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=50;

Holman Christian Standard Bible - "Do not murder."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...13;&version=77;

> If, as Doc says, the original is two words, with one of them conveying the
> idea of "no", then it would be necessary to understand the original language
> and the customs of the people who used it (just as it is when learning any
> "foreign" language) before reaching a conclusion. There are wide differences
> in meaning between "murder" and "kill".

Context could be of some assistance. Exodus 20 is the Ten Commandments,
which Moses received on the mountain. When he came down, the people had
created a golden calf and were worshipping it. The Lord commanded that
the calf be ground down, mixed in water, and those who had been
worshipping it made to drink the water. Many got sick, and many died.
This happened just after He gave the order that the folks back in 1611
translated as "Thou shalt not kill."

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-12-12, 3:55 pm

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <aAHud.6321$ZP5.1638@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> Is that where everyone obtains their absentee ballots, then?

I covered that below... :)

>
> So what you're saying is that those who already have computers are spared
> going to a voting-place... what a difference that would be, sure.

But it doesn't disenfranchise the folks who still have to go.
Motor-Voter lets you register to vote when you get or renew your
driver's license - does that disenfranchise those who do not drive?

>
> That was never argued, what was argued was the franchise being limited to
> those with ability to use computers and access to them.

It could be made to work. Personally, I think using "the web" for a
government vote is terrible. How do you establish identity? How do you
prevent ballot-box stuffing? Heck, we can't even have web log awards
without folks being unfair about it. ;) I'm not saying I believe the
government should hold a "for real" vote like a website poll.

>
> That was never argued, at least by me.

Just above, you had said that you found my argument to be that which
folks use when they want votes of a particular type excluded from the
ballot box. I was defending against that.

This brings up another concept which I find insane - "voter intent".
"Oh, I voted for Buchannan, but I *meant* to vote for Gore." Well, if
they meant to vote for Gore, then that's what they should have done.
What's to stop Kerry from saying, "Oh, about 70,000 of those folks up
there in Ohio voted for Bush, but they meant to vote for me - let's just
go ahead and switch those votes"?

>
> Such a silly notion, certainly... it just makes you want to stop casting
> yours, doesn't it?

No - I cast it just in case it's needed. If the margin of victory on
all measures of a ballot is such that absentee ballots, by their volume,
could not change the outcome, they are not "counted". It saves
taxpayers money, and it's fine with me. Judging from the results from
Hamilton County, TN (where I voted), I'm pretty sure that my vote wasn't
counted this year.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

docdwarf@panix.com

2004-12-12, 8:55 pm

In article <us0vd.6810$ZP5.6332@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
>I covered that below... :)
>
>
>But it doesn't disenfranchise the folks who still have to go.

I'm not sure what direction you are attempting to take this to... are you
saying, then, that current polling-places and the controls associated
therewith should be replaced by web-access voting and busses for those who
do not have said access?

>Motor-Voter lets you register to vote when you get or renew your
>driver's license - does that disenfranchise those who do not drive?

That depends on the kind of access available to such a place.

>
>
>It could be made to work.

That has been said about a variety of systems.

>Personally, I think using "the web" for a
>government vote is terrible. How do you establish identity? How do you
>prevent ballot-box stuffing? Heck, we can't even have web log awards
>without folks being unfair about it. ;) I'm not saying I believe the
>government should hold a "for real" vote like a website poll.

Good of you to come to that conclusion, aye.

>
>
>Just above, you had said that you found my argument to be that which
>folks use when they want votes of a particular type excluded from the
>ballot box. I was defending against that.

My error and apologies; when I hear the phrase 'ballot-box stuffing' I
associate it with an illicit activity.

>
>This brings up another concept which I find insane - "voter intent".

Good... you might address that in another thread.

DD

James J. Gavan

2004-12-12, 8:55 pm

Richard wrote:

>
>Science teaches you _how_ to think, religion teaches you _what_ to
>think.
>
>
>
But you may also possibly come up with the wrong conclusion from either.

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-12, 8:55 pm

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1102828232.784394.5820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> The covenant is a vital part of the Jewish peoples, it is the
> foundation of their religion and their nation. The commandments are
> part of the deal that gave them dominion over the land they claim as
> theirs.
>
> Of course I believe that the convenant was with the local warlord named
> or titled Jehovah (or similar), and thus was only applicable as long as
> that regime existed.
>
>
I read your previous post when we were all giving summaries of our views,
Richard. It was interesting. It is hard to confirm one way or the other but
it has the FEEL that it COULD be so. I like your idea of a local warlord.
Certainly, SOMETHING pretty powerful must have been required to motivate an
obscure hill tribe into becoming the Jewish nation.

Not sure if it is fair to say the covenant had a "limited lifetime".
Agreements have been made before in history that were intended to be in
perpetuity, long after the people who made them were dust... It becomes an
oral tradition, then a custom, then part of the religion or the Law,
depending on the people.

Pete.

James J. Gavan

2004-12-12, 8:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:

>"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:1102828232.784394.5820@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>I read your previous post when we were all giving summaries of our views,
>Richard. It was interesting. It is hard to confirm one way or the other but
>it has the FEEL that it COULD be so. I like your idea of a local warlord.
>Certainly, SOMETHING pretty powerful must have been required to motivate an
>obscure hill tribe into becoming the Jewish nation.
>
>Not sure if it is fair to say the covenant had a "limited lifetime".
>Agreements have been made before in history that were intended to be in
>perpetuity, long after the people who made them were dust... It becomes an
>oral tradition, then a custom, then part of the religion or the Law,
>depending on the people.
>
>Pete.
>
>
>
>
>
Now here's an interesting bit of 'trivia' relating to the Jewish people
- I wonder how many others like me weren't aware of this.

I was channel surfing looking for something actually decent to watch,
and came across our Inter-Faith channel, Christians, Jews, Muslims,
Sikhs, Hindus etc..... Four rabbis were interviewed individually and
each separately explained consistently how Jewishness exists.

You can be a Jew and an Aetheist. Uhhh ?

Jewishness, unlike the predominance in the Western world of male
inheritance, flows from the mother. If you have a Jewish mother and grow
up and become an Aetheist, then you are still a Jew. (Not explained -
but what happens if dad is a Jew and mum is an aetheist ? Guess the
answer to that one has to be, that you are a goy who is an aetheist ).

Perhaps Dan Brown was on the right track about Mary Magdalene in 'The da
Vinci Code' :-)

Jimmy

LX-i

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

Richard wrote:
>
>
> By 'outside', I presume that you really wanted to avoid saying that his
> worldview is based 'on the _world_'.

His worldview, as mine, is based on the learning and experience of his
life up until this point. His life, from what he's said here, was not
greatly shaped by the Bible.

Defining a world view by looking at the world seems to me to be like
defining a word by itself, which I was taught was something that should
be avoided.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

LX-i

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> In article <us0vd.6810$ZP5.6332@fe40.usenetserver.com>,
> LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> I'm not sure what direction you are attempting to take this to... are you
> saying, then, that current polling-places and the controls associated
> therewith should be replaced by web-access voting and busses for those who
> do not have said access?

HECK NO! :) I covered that later in my previous post. What I'm saying
is that IF it were set up that way, it would be no tougher than having a
public polling place.

>
> That depends on the kind of access available to such a place.

My point was that making it easier for a segment of the population to
vote is not the same as disenfranchising the rest of them.

>
> Good of you to come to that conclusion, aye.

Reminds me of the seminar with a bunch of CEOs. The speaker said "Okay,
we're all on an airplane. Just before the doors close, the pilot comes
on the speaker and says that the software for the plane was programmed
by your firm. How many of you would get off the plane?" Every hand in
the place went up, save one. The speaker asked him "You're that
confident of your programmers?" The man replied, "No - if it were
programmed by my firm, it'll never get off the ground."

As a programmer of computers, I'm quite distrustful of them. :)

>
> Good... you might address that in another thread.

heh...

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ LXi0007@Netscape.net ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.knology.net/~mopsmom/daniel ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ I do not read e-mail at the above address ~
~ Please see website if you wish to contact me privately ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pete Dashwood

2004-12-13, 3:55 am

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cg0vd.6726$ZP5.5891@fe40.usenetserver.com...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
would[color=darkred]
your[color=darkred]
done[color=darkred]
>
> Oh, it's not that I'm afraid - it's the time I end up feeling compelled
> to spend. It's not really fair of me to reply to others' posts with my
> opinions, but then not reply to their subsequent replies. :)
>
that[color=darkred]
be[color=darkred]
wrong).[color=darkred]
>
> Which you discuss below... as will I... ;)
>
blown[color=darkred]
did[color=darkred]
gone,[color=darkred]
murder.[color=darkred]
I[color=darkred]
was[color=darkred]
isn't[color=darkred]
and[color=darkred]
certainly[color=darkred]
see[color=darkred]
made[color=darkred]
guys[color=darkred]
>
> I've never been shot at (thankfully), but I did have a gun pulled on me
> once. I've heard that the response is something as you've described
> above. One of our instructors at Airman Leadership School (the military
> eduction the USAF puts you through before you become an NCO) told us
> about the time he and his other Airmen had been running while they were
> deployed i