Slimfast Recall
Stormin Mormon
All Slimfast premixed beverages recalled. Oops! And I was
counting on them for no-cook food.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
Ginny
> http://www.examiner.com/x-32213-Memphis-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m12d4-Slim-Fast-recall-Any-Slim-Fast-diet-drinks-and-shakes-recalled-by-Unilever
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y9phthx
>
> All Slimfast premixed beverages recalled. Oops! And I was
> counting on them for no-cook food.
>
Why use them for your backup, unless you need to lose weight?
Convenience would be a benefit for just a day or two but in many medium
to long term survival situations you will be burning more calories than
normal but ingesting a heap less. A sure way to starve. Mind, I could do
with some weight loss :)
--
Ginny - In West Australia
Stormin Mormon
in order to eat something, to keep me from being hungry when
I didn't have time for proper meal. Ideally, I'd have
emergency food that needed no cooking, and had plenty of
calories, vitamins, and nutrition.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ginny" <glv...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hfcmre$ein$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
robert bowman
> Ideally, I'd have
> emergency food that needed no cooking, and had plenty of
> calories, vitamins, and nutrition.
Pemmican.
Karsten Kruse
>> Ideally, I'd have
>> emergency food that needed no cooking, and had plenty of
>> calories, vitamins, and nutrition.
> Pemmican.
Rolled oats, dried fruit and nuts. Pemmican sucks unless it's below 5�C.
Karsten
--
() My homepage is http://www.tecneeq.de/ and your homepage sucks�!
<\/>
_/\_ �) Unless it has animated gifs from 1996, then it rocks!
robert bowman
> Rolled oats, dried fruit and nuts. Pemmican sucks unless it's below 5°C.
Break out the pemmican, momma. It's -11 C and sunny, but the forecast is -20
C tonight... The wind is a little brisk, though.
None4U
"robert bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:7o2bncF...@mid.individual.net...
>weight los comes from cutting normal food calories down . If you arent
>doing that . it could work.
Stormin Mormon
sleeve shirt?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"robert bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:7o2bncF...@mid.individual.net...
Break out the pemmican, momma. It's -11 C and sunny, but the
Stormin Mormon
marrieds. For example, I've just got back from a nice family
dinner with my parents. At Burger King. I'm eating from a
box of ice cream, which sits on my mouse pad as I type.
Can't stand beans. I do have some pasta. I don't often eat
cans, though sometimes I eat the food contained within.
Remind me in 30 days; I won't remember.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:pndoh55n68a09kfdc...@4ax.com...
Ideally ????
You do or you don't.
If you believe in survivalism stop buying dead batteries and
cheap
flashlights and put some beans and pasta and cans in the
pantry.
If you don't believe in survivalism, what the heck are you
doing here?
We will expect a report on your food progress in thirty
days.
Dismissed. <grin>
Stormin Mormon
Promptly developed diabetes. I read the label one time, it's
milk solids, sugar, and corn syrup. Not healthy, regardless
of the added synthetic vitamin substitutes.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"None4U" <nos...@nospam.none> wrote in message
news:TPednVn2Vuhwv4HW...@centurytel.net...
robert bowman
> -20 C. isn't that the temp when Candaians put on a long
> sleeve shirt?
They would be quick frozen Canadians around here. I'm hoping the wind dies
down before I have to stick my nose out tomorrow, but I don't think it's
going to happen.
robert bowman
> Bachelors don't often keep the same nutritional standards as
> marrieds. For example, I've just got back from a nice family
> dinner with my parents. At Burger King. I'm eating from a
> box of ice cream, which sits on my mouse pad as I type.
Lame excuse. I got rid of my first and last wife a long time ago and I
haven't starved yet. I just finished a nice supper of roast sirloin and
half a baked potato. Perhaps it's my technical background, but throwing a
chunk of meat and some potatoes into a 350 degree oven for a while doesn't
tax my skills. Of course, if Mom's idea of home cooking is a Whopper, you
may have missed Food Preparation 101.
I had my yearly dose of ice cream back in July; I don't need iced anything
at the moment.
Stormin Mormon
it hits 0F here, it's seriously bitter cold. I met Army
recruiter from Alaska, one time. Those poor guys get -40
or -50. I asked how can he stand it. His reply was that
since we're near the great lakes, it's a humid cold. Our 0F
feels lower than their -40F. I didn't know that, until that
moment.
Tomorrow, I've got a bunch more Slimfast to return.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"robert bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:7o39a5F...@mid.individual.net...
Karsten Kruse
> If you don't believe in survivalism, what the heck are you doing here?
Since when is survivalism a religion that you have to believe in? Since
when is alt.survival about survivalism instead of survival (mind the gap)?
> We will expect a report on your food progress in thirty days.
> Dismissed. <grin>
You first. I want pics. If you show me yours, i show you mine.
robert bowman
> You first. I want pics. If you show me yours, i show you mine.
Sounds like something off the latest Rammstein CD: "You got a pussy..."
Stormin Mormon
I was in middle school, I was the only boy in the child care
class. I've cooked for families, burped and fed and changed
babies, and a variety of other tasks. I do some of my own
sewing and mending, also. It's all part of being a
survivalist. Do what got to be done.
Just returned my last two cases of Slimfast, tonight.
Walmart. The PYT at service counter hadn't heard of the
Slimfast recall.
"Was there something wrong with these?"
"Yes, most certainly. There is a national recall due to
bacteria found in the manufacture of wet Slimfast products.
It was on the radio about two days ago. We were instructed
to bring them back for refund, immediately."
(she turns to another worker) "Was there a recall?"
Actually, I didn't have it totally correct, the instruction
was to destroy the stuff, and call the number for
instructions how to get full refund. I was following the
instructions for the Peter Pan recall. I probably could have
sent my reciept, and kept the product. Hadn't been any
gastric upset, yet.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:6g0uh5hvlcr91v4ki...@4ax.com...
I suppose I went to a fairly progressive school in the
middle 50s.
Around about 7th or 8th grade the guys had to take home ec
and the
girls had to take shop for a month or two. The theory was
that we
would get apartments and live as singles for some time
before marriage
and they guys had to know how to cook and do a simple sewing
repair
and the girls had to know how to hang a picture and fix a
loose chair
leg.
Much complaining and joking but I think everybody liked it.
It took
the "mystery" out of "girl stuff" and "guy stuff". I have
to smile
remembering some of our rough tough jocks being so damned
happy they
had made spaghetti in pressure cooker and it was actually
eatable.
My ex couldn't boil water when I married her. Quite
literally she
didn't know how to grill a burger. She turned into a damn
fine cook
but we would have starved that first year or two if I
couldn't cook.
Stormin Mormon
on Dr. Demento. Did we have Slimfast back then?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:ha3uh5t6nrsdkh4ir...@4ax.com...
Or perhaps Ruth Brown's immortal "If I can't sell it, I'm
just going
to sit on it". Sadly it turns out she is talking about an
antique
chair.
robert bowman
> "I want to play with your poodle" by Marsha Ball if you like Cajun
> tunes.
I never heard that version, but I've got Lightnin' Hopkins.
> Or perhaps Ruth Brown's immortal "If I can't sell it, I'm just going
> to sit on it". Sadly it turns out she is talking about an antique
> chair.
Some of the stuff from the '30s by Tampa Red, Memphis Minnie, Bo Carter and
others is pretty good too.
"Now, I got the washboard, my baby got the tub,
We gonna put 'em together, gonna rub, rub, rub
And I'm tellin' you baby, I sure ain't gonna deny,
Let me put my banana in your fruit basket, then I'll be satisfied"
Bo Carter
"You can squeeze my lemon till the juice run down my leg"
Travelling Riverside Blues, Robert Johnson.
Or if the lemon squeezer is AWOL,
"I sent for my baby and, man, if she don't come
All them doctors in Hot Springs ain't gonna help her none."
Stormin Mormon
could read what you all are doing to their thread.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"robert bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:7o8pmkF...@mid.individual.net...
robert bowman
> The Slimfast people.... it would curdle thier milk if they
> could read what you all are doing to their thread.
No problem. If the milk curdles, Unilever will ship it to the Ben & Jerry's
plant for Hubby Hubby ice cream.
Karsten Kruse
>> Since
>> when is alt.survival about survivalism instead of survival (mind the gap)?
> I'm inclined to answer that survivalism is the art of survival - with
> an eye to making it something more than just dumb luck.
Then Heavy Metal would be the art of playing guitar. Prison tatoos would
be the art of body painting. There is no art in surviving. It's about
pragmatism, making the right choices and a lot of luck. You make sure
you have to eat/drink/heat even if the normal chain of supply is
interrupted. This is not survivalism.
> Survivalism is the technique; survival is the goal.
I don't think we have the same understanding of survivalism. In my eyes
it's a ridicilous mindset, sometimes even dangerous.
Stormin Mormon
pigs? Just set the oven to 375, and insert capitalist until
done. That's all we are good for. Stick a fork in and see if
I'm done.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:81t5i5lajvb7170dt...@4ax.com...
Karsten Kruse <tec...@tecneeq.de> wrote:
>Winston_Smith schrieb:
>> Survivalism is the technique; survival is the goal.
>
>I don't think we have the same understanding of
>survivalism. In my eyes
>it's a ridicilous mindset, sometimes even dangerous.
Why, pray tell, are you here?
robert bowman
> Demonstrating German superiority, and mocking us capitalist
> pigs? Just set the oven to 375, and insert capitalist until
> done. That's all we are good for. Stick a fork in and see if
> I'm done.
Plenty of Schweinerei to go around...
Karsten Kruse
>>> Survivalism is the technique; survival is the goal.
>> I don't think we have the same understanding of survivalism. In my eyes
>> it's a ridicilous mindset, sometimes even dangerous.
> Why, pray tell, are you here?
Why are you?
If you need to call yourself a survivalist, have fun. I don't.
Survivalism isn't the art of survival nor is anyone posting in
alt.survival required to ,,believe in'' survivalism. Survivalism isn't a
technique. It's a childish reaction towards things you have no control over.
- have buckets with 10 year old beans
- have plenty of assault rifles
- have a bible to rationalize whatever
- don't believe science
- be paranoid the UN might send it's troops after you
- have shelves full of overaged batteries
- repeat FOX news
That's survivalism. Not my cup of tea.
Stormin Mormon
survivalist? I'm sure different posters will think of
different things. I'm curious as to your "serious
reservations". Partly to see into your view of the world,
and partly to maybe recognize some of the areas which need
work.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:fek7i5lr1fjb3pheg...@4ax.com...
>- have shelves full of overaged batteries
Nope. That's Stormin' and I have serious reservations about
calling
him a survivalist. I prefer low tech that doesn't need
power sources
except the simple human labor and sunlight that has supplied
mans
needs for tens of millenniums.
Karsten Kruse
> It's not looking good right now for your assertion. Unless you can
> find something to the contrary, it looks like the ng was created to
> discuss exactly what you say it wasn't created for.
I think you got me wrong. This subthread is about survivalism, if it's a
technique, a mindset, bollocks or something you have to believe in. I
don't think it's off topic. I just don't buy it. If you believe i should
stop posting, say so, i will if you can deliver a rational reason.
> Perhaps you would be happier if you learned to live with it, or found
> yourself a nice moderated newsgroup. One that you would probably have
> to moderate yourself because I don't think I know anyone else who
> would agree with your narrow view of survival related topics
> (especially where the two overlap).
Wich view would that be? And is that view really mine or do you only
think it is?
robert bowman
> - have buckets with 10 year old beans
I do have a sack of pinto beans out in the shed. I do like beans and it's
cheaper to buy them by the sack. I also have a bag of Basmati rice. From
what I've read of the Asian harvest, that may become scarce and it's a lot
better than the California version.
> - have plenty of assault rifles
I don't have one. I'm slipping. I've got one rifle older than I am and is a
type favored by Vasily Zaytsev and Simo Häyhä. Does that count?
> - have a bible to rationalize whatever
I've got one I generally use to look up juicy bits to fling at Christians
when I'm grouchy.
> - don't believe science
I don't recall having to recite a Credo when I received my degree, but then
I am an engineer by training. Engineers sort through the mountains of
debris generated by scientists looking for something that works, like
Mexico City dump scavengers. Some of it is good stuff, but we are aware
scientists tend to live in academic castles in the sky, periodically
farting in each others general direction.
> - be paranoid the UN might send it's troops after you
The UN has been very hesitant about engaging heavily armed populations in
difficult, mountainous terrain.
> - have shelves full of overaged batteries
I've got a lot of AA and D batteries. Shit happens when you shop at CostCo.
The prices are too good to pass up, but you do tend to wind up with
lifetime supplies of batteries, toilet paper, and so forth. I don't think
they like to deal in anything smaller that $20 increments, so they pile
stuff up until there's $20 worth.
> - repeat FOX news
I don't have cable TV, or watch much TV at all, so most of the FOX
personalities are merely rumors to me. I think if I did watch it, I would
repeat it in the same sense as I sometimes repeat a meal of cucumbers,
onions, and sour cream.
Guess I'll have to find another newsgroup. I don't think I qualify.
Karsten Kruse
> Read the name of the newsgroup. There are literally a 100,000
> newsgroups. Anything at all that you are interested in has a group.
> Why go to a survival group and then say your interests are elsewhere?
I didn't do that. I very much believe that survival is important. I even
have taken steps to ensure i do just that.
But i'm not a survivalist. I don't believe like you. If you think non
believers should not post, give me a sound reason and i stop.
>> - have buckets with 10 year old beans
> Nope, strictly rotated. And much more than beans. I'm actually a
> pretty good cook and I use mostly fresh, basic materials.
What i wanted to paint was a picture of a cliche survivalist. Pre Y2k
bean buckets. Half rotten MREs and such. I didn't mean your preparations
in particular.
>> - have plenty of assault rifles
>
> Nope, I'm not planning to take on the Marine Corps. They are personal
> defense and game getting tools. A couple of them are actually German
> design and manufacture but those are more for the historical value
> than working guns.
Interesting that you mention the word ,,german'', because even tho i am
actually german, i really don't care where your guns are manufactured ;).
At least you didn't play the nazi card. Chris allready did. Shame on him
BTW.
>> - have a bible to rationalize whatever
> I do. And the "good book" of literally dozens of faiths. That's
> basic educational material to understand others. How did you know you
> wanted to reject religion(s) until you understood them?
The logic behind this is simple. Until you understand a religion you
can't dismiss it. If you understand a religion, you have to believe in
it, so you don't REALLY understand the religion until you believe in it.
My rationale behind rejecting religion is simple. Since there is no
proof that there is god, there is no god. And yes, if there is no proof
for X, X does not exist.
>> - don't believe science
> Hell, yes, I believe in science. Have all my life. It's put beans on
> the table for almost 50 years now. People still use some of the stuff
> I worked on 50 years ago. Others damn sure use stuff I help produce
> today.
> I suppose you want to connect those two and say religion and science
> are locked in some sort of death struggle and only one - at most - can
> be right. That is the statement of someone that understands neither.
That is the statement of someone applying one to the other.
> I've had the pleasure of working with some world class scientists and
> a huge portion of them hold deep religious convictions.
Did they have scientific proof their religion is true? If so, i would
like to hear it so i can start believing too. If not they are as wrong
as everyone else.
>> - be paranoid the UN might send it's troops after you
>
> Yet there are people that want one world government.
The risk to die in a knitting accident is higher :).
>> - have shelves full of overaged batteries
>
> Nope. That's Stormin' and I have serious reservations about calling
> him a survivalist.
Because he doesn't believe what you believe? Don't get me wrong, i think
he sucks and is in great need of a morale compass, but he seems to be
the perfect survivalist. I don't think he survives if there is a real
situation tho. Unless he really thrives on overaged slimfast and
mealworm infested ramen that is ;).
> I prefer low tech that doesn't need power sources
> except the simple human labor and sunlight that has supplied mans
> needs for tens of millenniums.
Wich makes sense and is rational, if you are to survive. Somehow i get
the impression you aren't a survivalist, but a possible survivor.
>> - repeat FOX news
>
> They are absolutely an awful news source. You are 1) stereotyping
> people and 2) taking a non-applying test - that you just made up - to
> smear anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Yes, i'm guilty of stereotyping people. Deal with it. At least i'm not
telling you to not post, because you don't believe what i believe.
>> That's survivalism.
>> Not my cup of tea.
> I repeat. Then why are you hanging out here?
Because i'm interested in surviving.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <ajbcv6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Winston_Smith schrieb:
>
>>>> Survivalism is the technique; survival is the goal.
>
>>> I don't think we have the same understanding of survivalism. In my eyes
>>> it's a ridicilous mindset, sometimes even dangerous.
>
>> Why, pray tell, are you here?
>
>Why are you?
>
>If you need to call yourself a survivalist, have fun. I don't.
Survival is an instinct. If you're not a survivalist to some degree
then you're either totally apathetic or suicidal.
>Survivalism isn't the art of survival nor is anyone posting in
>alt.survival required to ,,believe in'' survivalism. Survivalism isn't a
>technique. It's a childish reaction towards things you have no control over.
So I should throw away my generator, firewood, lamps and candles? And
the next time we have a blackout I should just accept the fact, sit in
the dark, cold house and wait (sometimes several days) for the power
company to fix the lines -- just so I don't act "childish"?
>- have buckets with 10 year old beans
Thanks to granny. But considering she was born in a sod house in North
Dakota I'll cut her some slack.
>- have plenty of assault rifles
None. All my firearms are designed for hunting or defense. None of
them are practical for an assault combat scenario.
>- have a bible to rationalize whatever
I'm an atheist.
>- don't believe science
Science is based on fact, not faith; you can "believe" whatever
version of "science" you want but facts don't change.
>- be paranoid the UN might send it's troops after you
Paranoid? Mildly. A better term would be 'highly skeptical'.
UN troops? Only when someone slips some magic mushrooms into my turkey
dressing.
>- have shelves full of overaged batteries
Stormy is an anomaly even from a hard-core survivalist standpoint. It
should be obvious that he really needs to get laid.
>- repeat FOX news
The last time I did that was when BORe unilaterally proclaimed (at the
bequest of the Bushies, I'm sure) that anyone who criticizes the US
government is un-American. And like all Farce News hypocrites, he sure
seems to be singing a different tune these days.
>That's survivalism. Not my cup of tea.
That's -your- perception of survivalism. And I'm kind of surprised how
you can't see that not everyone drinks from the same cup.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <ih08i553h4m0vaq3j...@4ax.com>:
>To say flatly that there is no god is also an act of faith. It is
>believed but it can not be proven.
Not conclusively. But circumstantial evidence against the existence of
gods is overwhelming.
Karsten Kruse
> You can stay or you can go. That's up to you.
Was there ever a question about me going somewhere, except in your mind?
> However, if a person
> is posting something that they think is survival related, I do wish
> that you would try to refrain from trying to tell them that it's not
> appropriate for the ng with the exception of political posts
> referencing the gentleman's agreement to try to keep this one clean of
> such things.
Your wish is noted.
> When you tell someone that a post about guns, or beans and rice, or
> batteries and flashlights that such posts are not on topic for a
> survival newsgroup, it's not hard to tell at all what your viewpoint
> is.
You must confuse me with another poster. With the exception of
gun/religion/politics related posts, when did i ever say something is
off topic? In this thread i wanted to discuss the ism in survivalism,
not on/off topic.
Karsten Kruse
>> To say flatly that there is no god is also an act of faith. It is
>> believed but it can not be proven.
> Not conclusively. But circumstantial evidence against the existence of
> gods is overwhelming.
Doesn't matter, the burden of proof isn't on your side anyways. It's as
easy as saying this: until there is conclusive proof for gods existence,
god does not exist.
Karsten Kruse
>>> Nope, I'm not planning to take on the Marine Corps. They are personal
>>> defense and game getting tools. A couple of them are actually German
>>> design and manufacture but those are more for the historical value
>>> than working guns.
>> Interesting that you mention the word ,,german'', because even tho i am
>> actually german, i really don't care where your guns are manufactured ;).
> I mentioned it BECAUSE you are German. I though you might like to
> know I respect some of your designs.
Hmm, i never designed a gun (however, i designed a crossbow in my office
with paperclips, rubberband and other office supplies). I suggest we
drop it, because i really don't know where this is going ;).
> To say flatly that there is no god is also an act of faith. It is
> believed but it can not be proven.
The burden of proof is on your side. If A claims people have psychic
powers, then A has the burden of proof. It's not up to B to deliver
proof that people have no psychic powers.
This btw is true for everything. Unless you have proven the existence of
something, it's not existing.
Now feel free to search for things that exist without proof of
existence, but don't waste too much time on it ;).
>>>> - be paranoid the UN might send it's troops after you
>>> Yet there are people that want one world government.
>> The risk to die in a knitting accident is higher :).
> It's happened before. Granted "the whole world" was a smaller place
> then but that didn't matter to the folks that got taken over.
A UN isn't there to govern single people (wich rarely have global impact
anyways), but global players, like countrys and corporations. If we deny
the UN the powers to govern people then it will not do it. Imagine the
UN could have stepped in when Stalin started starving his people, Hitler
started building KZs, the Hutu started killing Tutsi and so on.
Karsten Kruse
>> - have buckets with 10 year old beans
> I do have a sack of pinto beans out in the shed.
AHA!
>> - have plenty of assault rifles
> I don't have one. I'm slipping. I've got one rifle older than I am and is a
> type favored by Vasily Zaytsev and Simo Häyhä. Does that count?
Yes you are slipping. I'm not an expert, but i guess you could assault
someone with that rifle, if you use it like a club. There, i saved your
ist in survivalist :).
>> - have a bible to rationalize whatever
> I've got one I generally use to look up juicy bits to fling at Christians
> when I'm grouchy.
Obviously you don't REALLY understand the good book, otherwise you would
believe and see the light and whatnot. Try harder ;).
>> - be paranoid the UN might send it's troops after you
>
> The UN has been very hesitant about engaging heavily armed populations in
> difficult, mountainous terrain.
;)
>> - repeat FOX news
>
> I don't have cable TV, or watch much TV at all, so most of the FOX
> personalities are merely rumors to me. I think if I did watch it, I would
> repeat it in the same sense as I sometimes repeat a meal of cucumbers,
> onions, and sour cream.
>
> Guess I'll have to find another newsgroup. I don't think I qualify.
You don't try hard enough. This should get you started on FOX:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTPsFIsxM3w
Cracks me up every time i see it ;).
Karsten Kruse
>>> They are absolutely an awful news source. You are 1) stereotyping
>>> people and 2) taking a non-applying test - that you just made up - to
>>> smear anyone that doesn't agree with you.
>> Yes, i'm guilty of stereotyping people. Deal with it. At least i'm not
>> telling you to not post, because you don't believe what i believe.
> I've certainly never told anyone not to post.
Indirectly you did in pndoh55n68a09kfdc...@4ax.com:
,,If you believe in survivalism stop buying dead batteries and cheap
flashlights and put some beans and pasta and cans in the pantry. If you
don't believe in survivalism, what the heck are you doing here?''
Karsten Kruse
>> Survivalism isn't the art of survival nor is anyone posting in
>> alt.survival required to ,,believe in'' survivalism. Survivalism isn't a
>> technique. It's a childish reaction towards things you have no control over.
> So I should throw away my generator, firewood, lamps and candles? And
> the next time we have a blackout I should just accept the fact, sit in
> the dark, cold house and wait (sometimes several days) for the power
> company to fix the lines -- just so I don't act "childish"?
Not at all. All those things are about survival, not survivalism. There
is no ism in having a generator. It's a pragmatic thing to prepare for
interruption of electric energy.
>> - have plenty of assault rifles
> None. All my firearms are designed for hunting or defense. None of
> them are practical for an assault combat scenario.
Why is everyone denying the ownership of assault rifles, all of a
sudden? We have 5 threads about them each month.
>> - have a bible to rationalize whatever
> I'm an atheist.
Good for you, mate :).
>> - don't believe science
> Science is based on fact, not faith; you can "believe" whatever
> version of "science" you want but facts don't change.
Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
has won the argument ;).
>> That's survivalism. Not my cup of tea.
> That's -your- perception of survivalism. And I'm kind of surprised how
> you can't see that not everyone drinks from the same cup.
What's your perception of survivalism then?
Let's go back a few posts to the question Winston raised when replying
to Chris in pndoh55n68a09kfdc...@4ax.com:
,,If you believe in survivalism stop buying dead batteries and cheap
flashlights and put some beans and pasta and cans in the pantry. If you
don't believe in survivalism, what the heck are you doing here?''
I'm interested in what the ism means, not the survival. Why do people
have no busines posting in alt.survival when they don't believe in the
ism? What is the ism anyways?
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <2klev6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Frank Gilliland schrieb:
>
>>> To say flatly that there is no god is also an act of faith. It is
>>> believed but it can not be proven.
>
>> Not conclusively. But circumstantial evidence against the existence of
>> gods is overwhelming.
>
>Doesn't matter, the burden of proof isn't on your side anyways. It's as
>easy as saying this: until there is conclusive proof for gods existence,
>god does not exist.
If it were a legal decision then you might have a point. But it isn't
and you don't.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <e3qev6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Frank Gilliland schrieb:
>
>>> Survivalism isn't the art of survival nor is anyone posting in
>>> alt.survival required to ,,believe in'' survivalism. Survivalism isn't a
>>> technique. It's a childish reaction towards things you have no control over.
>
>> So I should throw away my generator, firewood, lamps and candles? And
>> the next time we have a blackout I should just accept the fact, sit in
>> the dark, cold house and wait (sometimes several days) for the power
>> company to fix the lines -- just so I don't act "childish"?
>
>Not at all. All those things are about survival, not survivalism. There
>is no ism in having a generator. It's a pragmatic thing to prepare for
>interruption of electric energy.
Probability is relative.
>>> - have plenty of assault rifles
>
>> None. All my firearms are designed for hunting or defense. None of
>> them are practical for an assault combat scenario.
>
>Why is everyone denying the ownership of assault rifles, all of a
>sudden? We have 5 threads about them each month.
I glanced through the threads for the past three months and only found
one. Regardless, discussing a thing is not the same as owning a thing.
I was in the USMC and am familiar with many types of assault rifles so
I can discuss them at length. Yet I don't own any, for reasons that I
have already discussed at length.
>>> - have a bible to rationalize whatever
>
>> I'm an atheist.
>
>Good for you, mate :).
It's not something to be proud of.
>>> - don't believe science
>
>> Science is based on fact, not faith; you can "believe" whatever
>> version of "science" you want but facts don't change.
>
>Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
>trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
>answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
>for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
>has won the argument ;).
Your numbers have no labels. Without knowing what each number
represents then the equation has no meaning.
>>> That's survivalism. Not my cup of tea.
>
>> That's -your- perception of survivalism. And I'm kind of surprised how
>> you can't see that not everyone drinks from the same cup.
>
>What's your perception of survivalism then?
>
>Let's go back a few posts to the question Winston raised when replying
>to Chris in pndoh55n68a09kfdc...@4ax.com:
>
>,,If you believe in survivalism stop buying dead batteries and cheap
>flashlights and put some beans and pasta and cans in the pantry. If you
>don't believe in survivalism, what the heck are you doing here?''
>
>I'm interested in what the ism means, not the survival. Why do people
>have no busines posting in alt.survival when they don't believe in the
>ism? What is the ism anyways?
You have a dictionary. Look up "-ism". It's there.
Karsten Kruse
> Probability is relative.
Bla, bla. If you haven't got anything to say, don't say anything.
>>>> - have a bible to rationalize whatever
>>> I'm an atheist.
>> Good for you, mate :).
> It's not something to be proud of.
Again, you write something without meaning. Bla, Bla.
>> Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
>> trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
>> answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
>> for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
>> has won the argument ;).
> Your numbers have no labels. Without knowing what each number
> represents then the equation has no meaning.
It's not about meaning, it's about true or false.
>> I'm interested in what the ism means, not the survival. Why do people
>> have no busines posting in alt.survival when they don't believe in the
>> ism? What is the ism anyways?
> You have a dictionary. Look up "-ism". It's there.
Bla, bla.
nob...@nowhere.org
wrote:
>Karsten Kruse wrote:
>
>> - have buckets with 10 year old beans
>
>I do have a sack of pinto beans out in the shed. I do like beans and it's
>cheaper to buy them by the sack. I also have a bag of Basmati rice. From
>what I've read of the Asian harvest, that may become scarce and it's a lot
>better than the California version.
>
>> - have plenty of assault rifles
>
>I don't have one. I'm slipping. I've got one rifle older than I am and is a
>type favored by Vasily Zaytsev and Simo H�yh�. Does that count?
A Finnish remoded Mosin Nagant is a sweet rifle. Accurate as hell.
H�yh� was a one man army too. Nice choice. Which model, 91/30
sniper?
Newb
robert bowman
> Doesn't matter, the burden of proof isn't on your side anyways. It's as
> easy as saying this: until there is conclusive proof for gods existence,
> god does not exist.
"form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form ;
emptiness does not differ from form, form does not differ from emptiness,
whatever is emptiness, that is form.
the same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses, and consciousness."
Prajna Paramita Hrydaya
robert bowman
> Yes you are slipping. I'm not an expert, but i guess you could assault
> someone with that rifle, if you use it like a club. There, i saved your
> ist in survivalist :).
It has a bayonet and I received some training in the art of the vertical
slash and horizontal butt stroke in my youth. It would work better than the
M4, since the barrel is long enough that you don't have to endure your
enemy's bad breath while skewering him.
robert bowman
> Why is everyone denying the ownership of assault rifles, all of a
> sudden? We have 5 threads about them each month.
Perhaps because possession of a selective fire weapon in the US requires a
lot of red tape and not many people own one? Or did you mean semi-automatic
rifles with a vaguely military appearance? I don't have one of those
either.
robert bowman
> Which model, 91/30
> sniper?
91/30, with a LER scope on an S&K mount. Too many of the 'sniper' rifles are
fakes thrown together from random parts. The scout configuration works
well.
nob...@nowhere.org
wrote:
>nob...@nowhere.org wrote:
>
>> Which model, 91/30
>> sniper?
>
>91/30, with a LER scope on an S&K mount.
Does that situate the scope high enough to allow leaving the stock
front sight on?
>Too many of the 'sniper' rifles are
>fakes thrown together from random parts. The scout configuration works
>well.
Yes, and yes it does. Affordable too. The M-44's are a little
lighter, if that's a consideration.
Newb
Karsten Kruse
> Prajna Paramita Hrydaya
That unpronounceable dude is wrong. Form is not synonym for emptiness.
In fact, it's total rubbish.
Karsten Kruse
> Can you prove that reality is real?
Would it prove that god exists if i couldn't?
Karsten Kruse
> BTW, that reminds me. I have promised you another firearms related
> post haven't I? I'll start working on it when I get to work today.
Then i shall prepare a post that claims your post to be offtopic! ;)
>> Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
>> trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
>> answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
>> for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
>> has won the argument ;).
> I can see why you wouldn't understand.
Because it's bollocks. 2 is always 2, there are no large values of 2.
And 2+2=4 is true, always.
Karsten Kruse
>>> To say flatly that there is no god is also an act of faith. It is
>>> believed but it can not be proven.
>> The burden of proof is on your side. If A claims people have psychic
>> powers, then A has the burden of proof. It's not up to B to deliver
>> proof that people have no psychic powers.
>>
>> This btw is true for everything. Unless you have proven the existence of
>> something, it's not existing.
>
> What kind of logic is that???
The one that leads to true statements. Unlike Frank suggests, it's not a
matter of law alone, but used as a scientific method. If you have a
claim or theory, you must provide evidence, it's not enough to say it
can't be disproven.
>> Now feel free to search for things that exist without proof of
>> existence, but don't waste too much time on it ;).
> Everything that existed before proof of it's existence was discovered.
I didn't ask for things that exist with proof. I asked for things that
exist without proof. Just name one thing.
> I don't think that we have proven the existence of all of the forms of
> matter just yet.
Probably not. But we have no proof for that asumption.
> They wasted a lot of money building a new
> supercollider if we have. Did the newly discovered particles not
> exist before we proved it? Only by your logic.
Of course they always existed. Does that mean God exists, even tho there
is no evidence?
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <jt3gv6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Deucalion schrieb:
>
>>>> To say flatly that there is no god is also an act of faith. It is
>>>> believed but it can not be proven.
>
>>> The burden of proof is on your side. If A claims people have psychic
>>> powers, then A has the burden of proof. It's not up to B to deliver
>>> proof that people have no psychic powers.
>>>
>>> This btw is true for everything. Unless you have proven the existence of
>>> something, it's not existing.
>>
>> What kind of logic is that???
>
>The one that leads to true statements. Unlike Frank suggests, it's not a
>matter of law alone, but used as a scientific method.
I said it -wasn't- a matter of law. Your argument presumes that god
doesn't exist in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary,
which happens to be a fallacy (a fallacy that favors the civil rights
of the accused).
Learn to read.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <hiifv6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Frank Gilliland schrieb:
>
>> Probability is relative.
>
>Bla, bla. If you haven't got anything to say, don't say anything.
I did say something. If you don't understand what I said then ask for
clarification.
>>>>> - have a bible to rationalize whatever
>
>>>> I'm an atheist.
>
>>> Good for you, mate :).
>
>> It's not something to be proud of.
>
>Again, you write something without meaning. Bla, Bla.
Again, if you don't understand what was said.....
>>> Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
>>> trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
>>> answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
>>> for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
>>> has won the argument ;).
>
>> Your numbers have no labels. Without knowing what each number
>> represents then the equation has no meaning.
>
>It's not about meaning, it's about true or false.
A number doesn't exist for the sake of itself; it's an abstract device
used to represent a quantity of something. If you don't specify that
"something" then the reader is either forced to make assumptions (bad
science) or dismiss the equation as invalid.
>>> I'm interested in what the ism means, not the survival. Why do people
>>> have no busines posting in alt.survival when they don't believe in the
>>> ism? What is the ism anyways?
>
>> You have a dictionary. Look up "-ism". It's there.
>
>Bla, bla.
What's the matter? Wasn't there a definition that is consistent with
your own interpretation?
robert bowman
>> Prajna Paramita Hrydaya
>
> That unpronounceable dude is wrong.
Not a dude... 'Heart of the perfection of wisdom', aka Heart Sutra.
> Form is not synonym for emptiness.
> In fact, it's total rubbish.
'Emptiness' in this case is a somewhat technical term meaning 'empty of
inherent existence' or 'empty of a permanent, unchanging existence.'
Consider the implications of a world where your computer keyboard always
was and always will be. Or yourself, for that matter.
robert bowman
> Does that situate the scope high enough to allow leaving the stock
> front sight on?
Yes, no problem. The S&K mount fits in the rear sight rail. The downside is
that you no longer have the rear iron sight, although it's only a five
minute job to replace the original. The axis of the scope is a little high
to get a good cheek weld, though. I replaced the original wood with an ATI
stock, which works better. It also has studs for conventional sling
swivels, and seems to absorb recoil a little better. I'm not too delicate,
but the steel buttplate isn't all that much fun when you're wearing a
t-shirt. It's OK when you're dressed like a Finn in the winter.
> Yes, and yes it does. Affordable too. The M-44's are a little
> lighter, if that's a consideration.
My wife came equipped with a M-44. It kept family arguments civil. If I ever
see one I'll pick it up if nothing more than for old times sake, but I
haven't seen one locally in a while, just 91/30s.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <n3hbi5t5nj210p6ip...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 22:54:06 +0100, Karsten Kruse <tec...@tecneeq.de>
>wrote:
>
>>Deucalion schrieb:
>>
>>> BTW, that reminds me. I have promised you another firearms related
>>> post haven't I? I'll start working on it when I get to work today.
>>
>>Then i shall prepare a post that claims your post to be offtopic! ;)
>>
>>>> Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
>>>> trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
>>>> answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
>>>> for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
>>>> has won the argument ;).
>>
>>> I can see why you wouldn't understand.
>>
>>Because it's bollocks. 2 is always 2, there are no large values of 2.
>>And 2+2=4 is true, always.
>>
>>Karsten
>
>Really? Can you prove it? Fell free to post the mathematical proof.
>I can wait.
Given: a = b
Multiply both sides by a: a^2 = ab
Subtract b^2 from both sides: a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
Factor: (a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
Divide both sides by (a - b): -------------- -------
(a - b) (a - b)
Result: (a + b) = b
Since a = b, substitute: (a + a) = a
Simplify: 2a = a
2a = a
Divide both sides by a: -- -
a a
Result: 2 = 1
Karsten Kruse
> Can you prove that reality is real?
No, but as a critical realist i have to add that, even tho i can't prove
all of reality, it still exists. Reality isn't what we see. Reality is
that wich is still there, even if we don't look.
Karsten Kruse
>>> Prajna Paramita Hrydaya
That would be quite boring. No imbalance, no consequences, no entropy,
no drama, nothing. Just static existence. Yawn ;).
Karsten Kruse
> I said it -wasn't- a matter of law. Your argument presumes that god
> doesn't exist in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary,
> which happens to be a fallacy (a fallacy that favors the civil rights
> of the accused).
The positive claim ,,God exists'' has the burden of proof. There is no
need for me to asume Gods existence and then disprove it. All i have to
do is to peer review the evidence delivered by those making the claim.
So, since it's not about law, what does civil rights and accused mean in
this context?
Karsten Kruse
>>> I don't think that we have proven the existence of all of the forms of
>>> matter just yet.
>> Probably not. But we have no proof for that asumption.
> So historically speaking, those particles that we have found did not
> exist before they were found? I think not.
Of course not, what are you thinking? We have proven their existence!
It's a fair asumption to say that they always existed.
But what about things we don't know anything about? Do strange new
particles exist even tho we have no evidence? Do they matter? No, they
do not, because we can't even say they exist. For all we know they
don't, and for all we know they have no consequences. If they had
consequences, we had proof of their existence.
Unless something is proven to be real, it isn't. If something is proven,
it get's real.
>>> They wasted a lot of money building a new
>>> supercollider if we have. Did the newly discovered particles not
>>> exist before we proved it? Only by your logic.
>> Of course they always existed. Does that mean God exists, even tho there
>> is no evidence?
> I'm not discussing the existence of God. I'm discussing your faulty
> logic.
It's not my logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof_in_epistemology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
Karsten Kruse
>>> Probability is relative.
>> Bla, bla. If you haven't got anything to say, don't say anything.
> I did say something. If you don't understand what I said then ask for
> clarification.
Please explain what ,,Probability is relative'' means in the context of
our discussion.
>>>> Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
>>>> trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
>>>> answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
>>>> for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
>>>> has won the argument ;).
>>> Your numbers have no labels. Without knowing what each number
>>> represents then the equation has no meaning.
>> It's not about meaning, it's about true or false.
> A number doesn't exist for the sake of itself; it's an abstract device
> used to represent a quantity of something. If you don't specify that
> "something" then the reader is either forced to make assumptions (bad
> science) or dismiss the equation as invalid.
Maybe you have never heard of set theory. You don't have to work with
apples or oranges, sets are enough in math ;).
But for your sake, let's say we talk about apples. 2 apples + 2 apples =
4 apples, and that's true, always.
Karsten Kruse
>>>>> I don't think that we have proven the existence of all of the forms of
>>>>> matter just yet.
>>>> Probably not. But we have no proof for that asumption.
>>> So historically speaking, those particles that we have found did not
>>> exist before they were found? I think not.
>> Of course not, what are you thinking? We have proven their existence!
>> It's a fair asumption to say that they always existed.
> So, you admit that there are things that have always existed that we
> only discovered recently.
Admit? What is there to admit? Are you saying it's somehow a leap of
faith to say that particles exist when we have evidence for their existence?
The leap of faith starts when you say new, unknown particles exist but
you don't have evidence. It's likely, but i wouldn't bet anything on it
unless evidence turns up. In fact, unless there is evidence, i can
safely deny that such particles exist.
>> But what about things we don't know anything about? Do strange new
>> particles exist even tho we have no evidence? Do they matter? No, they
>> do not, because we can't even say they exist. For all we know they
>> don't, and for all we know they have no consequences. If they had
>> consequences, we had proof of their existence.
>> Unless something is proven to be real, it isn't. If something is proven,
>> it get's real.
> Now, you have shifted (and so quickly). If it existed before it was
> "discovered" it was always "real."
Nope, i have hold that statement for years. What you want is for me to
say something exists without evidence of it's existence, like new
particles. Wich is wrong. If you have no evidence for them, they don't
exist. They might, but that doesn't equal to they do.
>>> I'm not discussing the existence of God. I'm discussing your faulty
>>> logic.
>> It's not my logic:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof#Burden_of_proof_in_epistemology
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
> Quoting the prophets of your Bible is not evidence of anything. You
> have already admitted that you can't prove that reality is real.
Luckily i didn't say that reality can't be proven, just that _I_ can't
do it.
Anyways, i have no bible and no prophets. Wikipedia is a secondary
source of knowledge, nothing more, nothing less. The articles i
mentioned don't talk about prophets.
Neither did i say the articles are evident of anything like you
insinuate. You stated my logic is faulty. I told you it's not my logic,
end of story.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <gp4iv6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Frank Gilliland schrieb:
>
>> I said it -wasn't- a matter of law. Your argument presumes that god
>> doesn't exist in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary,
>> which happens to be a fallacy (a fallacy that favors the civil rights
>> of the accused).
>
>The positive claim ,,God exists'' has the burden of proof. There is no
>need for me to asume Gods existence and then disprove it. All i have to
>do is to peer review the evidence delivered by those making the claim.
Yet your conclusion is a presumption of non-existence when there is
still a possibility of existence. It doesn't work that way.
>So, since it's not about law, what does civil rights and accused mean in
>this context?
Presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <i65iv6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Frank Gilliland schrieb:
>
>>>> Probability is relative.
>
>>> Bla, bla. If you haven't got anything to say, don't say anything.
>
>> I did say something. If you don't understand what I said then ask for
>> clarification.
>
>Please explain what ,,Probability is relative'' means in the context of
>our discussion.
Earlier you said, "It's a pragmatic thing to prepare for interruption
of electric energy." But pragmatism..... er, the practice of being
pragmatic (better?)..... is based on a person's perception of the
probability of the power going out. If you've never experinced a power
outage and live in an area where the grid is solid then you likely
think that the probability is low. In my corner of the planet it's
more likely to happen because it does happen on occasion. So it
depends on your perception and experience. It's relative.
The probability of all-out urban warfare? It has happened in the US
before, and in the not-so-distant history. The hostility across ethnic
lines and between wing-tard idealists is growing, as is the economic
disparity between the classes. While most in the US (and elsewhere)
see these as serious social problems, I see them as a prelude to a
violent civil upheaval.
My perception is different than most because of my experience in
Beirut; I got there after ignition but all the same problems that
caused the war continued to exist well into the conflict. And they are
the same as what I see in the US right now, and with the same amount
of intensity.
The only difference between the US and Lebanon is the unprecedented
amount of pacifism.... er, number of pacified people.... due to all
the government handouts and free food for the poor, the heavy use of
alcohol and drugs, the epidemic of video games, and (of course) too
much television. Also, there is plenty of what I call "activism by
proxy" (hired guns like Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow and
other blow-hards who take sides and covertly mislead people into
thinking that someone is taking action on their behalf, yet never
encouraging public to get involved and change their government through
their own actions -- but that's another topic).
Because of my perceptions and experinces, I consider the likelyhood of
urban warfare in the US just as probable as a power outage (and if the
power outage is big enough, it might just be the trigger for that
violence). So I prepare.
>>>>> Well said. One of my friends is a russian psychologist, and he always
>>>>> trys to tell me that there is no truth, no fact, no reality. My default
>>>>> answer is this: Is 2+2=4 true or not? His default reply: It is, except
>>>>> for great values of 2. I have no clue what that means, but he thinks he
>>>>> has won the argument ;).
>
>>>> Your numbers have no labels. Without knowing what each number
>>>> represents then the equation has no meaning.
>
>>> It's not about meaning, it's about true or false.
>
>> A number doesn't exist for the sake of itself; it's an abstract device
>> used to represent a quantity of something. If you don't specify that
>> "something" then the reader is either forced to make assumptions (bad
>> science) or dismiss the equation as invalid.
>
>Maybe you have never heard of set theory. You don't have to work with
>apples or oranges, sets are enough in math ;).
Dude, I have a Master's degree.
>But for your sake, let's say we talk about apples. 2 apples + 2 apples =
>4 apples, and that's true, always.
There you go.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <8geiv6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>The leap of faith starts when you say new, unknown particles exist but
>you don't have evidence. It's likely, but i wouldn't bet anything on it
>unless evidence turns up. In fact, unless there is evidence, i can
>safely deny that such particles exist.
The problem with dielectics is that it seeks absolution by dismissing
any other possibilities. It's really kind of a lazy-man's philosophy
if you ask me.
Karsten Kruse
>> The positive claim ,,God exists'' has the burden of proof. There is no
>> need for me to asume Gods existence and then disprove it. All i have to
>> do is to peer review the evidence delivered by those making the claim.
> Yet your conclusion is a presumption of non-existence when there is
> still a possibility of existence. It doesn't work that way.
A mere possibility for existence is not proof for existence. Only proof
for existence is sufficient. Unless proof is delivered, ,,it'' doesn't
exist.
Tell me again why i have to disprove god, why the burden of proof is on
my side.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <eakiv6-...@nntp.tecneeq.de>:
>Frank Gilliland schrieb:
>
>>> The positive claim ,,God exists'' has the burden of proof. There is no
>>> need for me to asume Gods existence and then disprove it. All i have to
>>> do is to peer review the evidence delivered by those making the claim.
>
>> Yet your conclusion is a presumption of non-existence when there is
>> still a possibility of existence. It doesn't work that way.
>
>A mere possibility for existence is not proof for existence. Only proof
>for existence is sufficient. Unless proof is delivered, ,,it'' doesn't
>exist.
Then you have chosen a belief system based on philosophy and not on
logic. Sounds an awful lot like religion to me.
>Tell me again why i have to disprove god, why the burden of proof is on
>my side.
If you refute a claim then you must prove its condtradictory. If you
can't then you are guilty of ignoratio elenchi.
robert bowman
> That would be quite boring. No imbalance, no consequences, no entropy,
> no drama, nothing. Just static existence. Yawn ;).
But then contemplate the case where nothing has permanent, independent
existence, including 2 + 2 = 4. If you really want to stretch your mind, If
that doesn't induce vertigo, take two quadrilemmas and call me in the
morning.
robert bowman
> But for your sake, let's say we talk about apples. 2 apples + 2 apples =
> 4 apples, and that's true, always.
Ah, you assume some sort of ideal 'apple' and that there is some sort of
identity between them. The thing you can 'apple' in everyday speech is not
the same as that other thing you call 'apple' Whatever abstraction that you
are making to call them the same is as imaginary as saying there are two of
them.
robert bowman
> Admit? What is there to admit? Are you saying it's somehow a leap of
> faith to say that particles exist when we have evidence for their
> existence?
Who is this 'we'?
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <7oocq5F...@mid.individual.net>:
True. But I think that extended beyond the scope of the discussion.
Then again, number theory has little relevance with Slimfast so I
probably shouldn't criticize... :-@
robert bowman
> True. But I think that extended beyond the scope of the discussion.
> Then again, number theory has little relevance with Slimfast so I
> probably shouldn't criticize...
Just trying to broaden Herr Kruse' horizons. His faith in rationalism is as
touching as a Christian's faith in Jesus.
robert bowman
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:24:42 -0700, in alt.survival you wrote:
> Thanks, I'll put that on my wish list. Removing the front sight is a
> bitch! I've heard of guys resorting to a dremel and cutting them off.
> Oh yeah, does it hold zero for long?
I haven't had a problem with the zero so far, and the scope has been
holding up well. The S&K set is a little more than some of the others, but
it's well made and fits without any mods. I did go with the S&K rings,
though they do offer a conventional Weaver too. In retrospect, the Weaver
would have been better if I wanted to experiment with some of the red dots
that come with an integral Weaver mount. The S&K system is plenty sturdy
though. There is a set screw in the base for gross elevation adjustments
and I haven't had a problem removing the scope from the rings, adjusting
it, and putting it back.
> www.sportsmanguide.com has them every once in awhile. Other than that
> the local gun show sellers here occasionally have a few. 'Here' is
> the PNW. I wonder if Craigslist would allow one to advertise wanting
> a gun in your local wanted section?
I haven't checked Craigslist, but a friend told me you sort of have to
hint around the subject rather than going at it directly. There is one
store in town that has an odd selection that I haven't checked with. He
keeps odd hours to go with the merchandise and it's hard to catch up with
him. I'm afraid if I go in, he'll have a PSL and I'll come down with
temporary insanity.
Frank Gilliland
wrote in <fd5ei5tgvtpif5prv...@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:31:29 -0700, robert bowman <bow...@montana.com>
>wrote:
>There is the point that I'm trying to make and I think that he knows
>it. Have you noticed that physics is encroaching on the metaphysical?
>But, lest we diverge once again, I'll stick with showing him that his
>faith in philosophy is no different than other's faith in whatever
>they decide to put it in.
>
>I find his logic that particles don't exist until they are physically
>found to be fascinating since he can't explain how they were not real
>until the experiment that proved their existence. It's kind of like
>the whole world depends on us to discover it before it can exist.
>
>If that were true, what are all of the parts of the universe that we
>haven't found yet. Where does that leave other dimensions and the
>multi-verse which exist in theory, but have not been proven? Are
>entire universes out there waiting on mere man to find them so that
>they can exist?
>
>What he seems to propose far surpasses a mere belief in God.
He seems to be in more of a "Lathe of Heaven" state of mind. Science
fiction is cool. But it's still fiction.
Stormin Mormon
maybe they will refund it?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"robert bowman" <bow...@montana.com> wrote in message
news:7ooebjF...@mid.individual.net...
nob...@nowhere.org
wrote:
>>nob...@nowhere.org wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:24:42 -0700, in alt.survival you wrote:
>> Thanks, I'll put that on my wish list. Removing the front sight is a
>> bitch! I've heard of guys resorting to a dremel and cutting them off.
>> Oh yeah, does it hold zero for long?
>
>I haven't had a problem with the zero so far, and the scope has been
>holding up well. The S&K set is a little more than some of the others, but
>it's well made and fits without any mods. I did go with the S&K rings,
>though they do offer a conventional Weaver too. In retrospect, the Weaver
>would have been better if I wanted to experiment with some of the red dots
>that come with an integral Weaver mount. The S&K system is plenty sturdy
>though. There is a set screw in the base for gross elevation adjustments
>and I haven't had a problem removing the scope from the rings, adjusting
>it, and putting it back.
That works for me. I've heard a few instances of problems with
holding zero for an acceptable amount of time, but there are so many
variables at play with such a malfunction. Operator error is highly
likely. I know I've messed up retrofitting things onto other things
that never came with the retrofitted things in the first place, heh.
>> www.sportsmanguide.com has them every once in awhile. Other than that
>> the local gun show sellers here occasionally have a few. 'Here' is
>> the PNW. I wonder if Craigslist would allow one to advertise wanting
>> a gun in your local wanted section?
>
>I haven't checked Craigslist, but a friend told me you sort of have to
>hint around the subject rather than going at it directly.
Guns are listed on craigslist 'prohibited items'. That said, I have
seen guns in the 'Barter" section before. We live in a very rural
area so there probably aren't many people inclined to flag ads with
guns, but they sure can. I wouldn't be afraid to try it though...
I've been kicked out of better places than there.
>There is one
>store in town that has an odd selection that I haven't checked with. He
>keeps odd hours to go with the merchandise and it's hard to catch up with
>him. I'm afraid if I go in, he'll have a PSL and I'll come down with
>temporary insanity.
Heh, heh, as long as it's temporary, it's Ok. One of those yin/yang
deals I'm told. I've got a good friend who always tempts me with
goodies he knows I want. Fortunately, I live far enough away to save
up money between visits. Last time I saw him I came home with a brand
new 12"x36" lathe. Those are kind of difficult to hide from your
wife.
Thanks again,
Newb