Vista beta vs. OSX
Mojo
Note: he's comparing the Vista beta (read vaporware) to Tiger (OSX.4)
that is here today and being in the real world by millions of Mac
users.:-)
Enjoy:
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp
Snit
bil_gates_fudge_packer...@news.videotron.net on 11/28/05
6:42 PM:
From the article:
-----
Microsoft claims that Windows XP and, by extension, Windows Vista, were
architected for security, thanks to their NT roots. That claim is, however,
bogus. Windows NT was designed in the pre-Internet days, and though the
system's architecture is extensible, modern Windows versions are further
hobbled by the inclusion of the buggy and insecure IE Web browser and other
design mistakes. In short, Windows is a house of cards that seems
increasingly incapable of handling today's demands.
Mac OS X, meanwhile, was truly designed for excellent security, thanks to
its wonderful UNIX roots and clean architecture.
-----
How important is it for OS X that it is based, in part, on a Unix-like
platform (FreeBSD)?
--
"everyone that regularly posts here is a moron and an asshole in some
respect, myself included. That's why we come here, to seek our own kind."
-- Steve Carroll
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Mr. T
excellent read. more proof MS is about to release a still born product.
Windows Vista Beta 1 vs. Mac OS X "Tiger" (Part 2)
In part one of my comparison of Windows Vista Beta 1 and Mac OS X 10.4
"Tiger," I looked at three key aspects of each system: Look and feel,
desktop search, and data visualization and organization. For the most
part, OS X came out well ahead of Windows Vista, as you'd expect, since
it's a polished finished product. Vista, meanwhile, is all knees and
elbows, an awkward teenager on its way to maturity. Microsoft will iron
out the details, I'm sure, but the end result will likely not change
much. Specifically, OS X will always be elegant, and Windows will almost
certainly lag behind in the fit and finish department. The only
questions are how much Vista will improve when compared to previous
Windows versions, and whether it will be enough to keep customers from
moving to OS X.
In this second part of the comparison, we'll look a little deeper, and
examine security, networking, and power management. Whereas the features
in the first part of the comparison where largely related to user
interface issues, this time we're dealing more with the nitty-gritty of
safety, connectivity, and productivity. Let's jump right in.
Security
Microsoft claims that Windows XP and, by extension, Windows Vista, were
architected for security, thanks to their NT roots. That claim is,
however, bogus. Windows NT was designed in the pre-Internet days, and
though the system's architecture is extensible, modern Windows versions
are further hobbled by the inclusion of the buggy and insecure IE Web
browser and other design mistakes. In short, Windows is a house of cards
that seems increasingly incapable of handling today's demands.
Mac OS X, meanwhile, was truly designed for excellent security, thanks
to its wonderful UNIX roots and clean architecture. And OS X, for
whatever its worth, benefits from its relatively small market share,
compared to Windows: Because the OS X user base is so small, few hackers
ever bother to try and attack the system. Windows, meanwhile, is a
minefield of constant hacks and attacks.
Therefore, OS X is, in many ways, more secure than Windows is today. But
Microsoft has spent the last several years re-engineering its operating
systems and applications to be more secure, and that ongoing work will
ultimately result in a system that is quite secure and more easily
securable than any of the competition. Put succinctly, Apple can't rest
on its laurels. Though some of OS X's security prowess can be chalked up
to design decisions, much of it is because it is simply based on others'
work. If hackers do turn their attentions to OS X, it's unclear whether
Apple can respond as quickly as can, say, Microsoft. The evidence thus
far is pretty damning.
So how does the security of OS X Tiger really compare with that of
Windows Vista Beta 1 and the subsequent Community Technical Previews
(CTPs)? It's a tough call. The Vista beta adds some security features
that OS X has had for years, and it does have a few niceties that OS X
lacks. But it's hard to vote against OS X here. The Vista beta, after
all, is still Windows. And though it's unlikely that pre-Beta 2 versions
of Windows Vista will be targeted by a wide range of hackers, future
releases most certainly will be. So in some ways, any discussion of
security now is somewhat academic. We'll have to see how Windows Vista
fares in the real world when it's released.
All that said, we can at least compare some of the more important
security features from each release.
Logon
Windows Vista, like XP before it, offers a Welcome screen for logging on
to user accounts, by default, in non-managed environments. Optionally,
you can switch this to the old fashioned Logon window style of signing
in, which is the standard for managed environments. This is the screen
where you need to hit CTRL+ALT+DEL to enter your logon credentials.
It's hard to see where Microsoft is heading with the logon procedure in
Vista. In XP, you can set up four user accounts during initial machine
set up, all of which are administrative accounts without any passwords.
In Vista Beta 1, however, you don't yet have the chance to create user
accounts during setup, because this feature hasn't been implemented yet.
So you have to logon initially with the Administrator account, for which
you cannot specify a password during interactive setup. Lovely.
Tiger, meanwhile, is secure out of the box with regards to user
accounts. That's because OS X supports a better native security model
than does Windows. In OS X, the root account (which is the equivalent of
the Administrator account on a Windows system) is disabled by default.
And even those user accounts with administrator-level privileges are
safer thanks to a graphical version of the UNIX "sudo" command, which
provides an authentication dialog box any time you try to do something
that could harm the system (Figure). You provide an admin-level user
name and password (which in most cases will be identical to the account
you used to logon to the system in the first place) and the
authentication is granted for just that single act. For all other
actions, the system reverts to your standard user-level access.
Not surprisingly, Microsoft is copying this system for use in Windows
Vista. So Windows users will soon see the same kinds of authentication
dialogs (Figure) in Windows as we see now in OS X. There are just a few
problems with doing so this late in the Windows life cycle. First,
Windows was never designed to accommodate this type of authentication
process, so the entire system has to be retrofitted to work with user
lowered permission levels and pop-up the dialogs when needed. Second,
and perhaps most damagingly, the millions of available Windows
applications out there today all assume that the user has total control
of the system. So Vista will have to be kludged in an unprecedented way
to accommodate backwards compatibility. The way it will do so is messy,
and involves virtual folder structures that fool legacy applications
into believing that they are accessing an older Windows version.
Comparing that system with the cleanly designed OS X is almost comical.
If Microsoft can pull it off--and this is an uncertainty at this
writing--Windows will finally pick up security functionality that the
Mac has enjoyed for years. My educated guess is that Vista won't be as
secure as OS X, however, because cobbled together systems are rarely as
foolproof as those that were designed correctly from the start.
Parental controls
One area in which Apple has done a commendable job is parental controls,
which let parents set up and manage user accounts for their children. In
Tiger, you can turn on and configure parental controls for a variety of
system components, including Mail, Finder & System, iChat, Safari, and
Dictionary (Figure). For example, if you turn on parental controls for
Mail, you can configure exactly which people (email addresses) your
children can correspond with and optionally send you permission emails
when the child attempts to contact someone else (Figure). If you
configure the Finder & System parental controls, you'll see a wide
variety of options including a Simple Finder, and a list of acceptable
applications (Figure).
Windows XP has nothing like this, but Microsoft is jumping on board the
parental controls bandwagon with Windows Vista. Now, when you create a
new account, you can choose from Computer administrator and Limited user
as before, but you can also choose to enforce parental controls and
collect computer usage information about that user (Figure). Right now,
there isn't a lot to configure, per se. Microsoft has built in a
facility for controlling video game accessibility based on industry
standard content ratings, but that's about it (Figure).
Because it's not yet clear how pervasive Vista's support of parental
controls will be, I can't really compare it accurately to OS X yet. But
give Apple credit for delivering on parental controls well ahead of
Microsoft.
Data encryption
Both Windows Vista and OS X offer a way for users to encrypt data on the
hard disk, preventing data theft in the event that a system is
physically stolen, and the hard disk is removed and placed in another
system. The encryption facilities in OS X are bare bones, while Windows
Vista (like XP before it) offers a much more well-rounded solution.
In Windows Vista betas, you have a variety of encryption options. In the
past, Windows supported the Encrypting File System (EFS), a feature of
NTFS, which allows users to arbitrarily encrypt the contents of any
folders on the disk. To do so, you must select a folder in Windows
Explorer, right-click it, choose Properties from the pop-up menu, and
then click the Advanced button in the Properties dialog that appears.
Then, you click the choice labeled "Encrypt contents to secure data"
(Figure). When you apply this change, Windows will ask you whether you
want to apply that change to just the current folder, or to all of the
subfolders and files it contains as well. Any files and folders you copy
into that folder, or create within that folder, will be encrypted as
well. And if you copy encrypted data out of that folder to another
location on your hard drive or the network, it will be unencrypted.
EFS is a great solution, but Windows Vista goes it one better with full
volume encryption, which is part of Microsoft's Secure Startup
technology. Available in the Enterprise and Ultimate editions of Windows
Vista (see my Windows Vista Product Editions showcase for more
information), Secure Startup requires a Trusted Platform Module
(TPM)-based chipset on the PC motherboard and protects the entire hard
disk. As you might expect, the feature is aimed largely at enterprises
whose employees work on critical corporate data.
On the OS X side, Apple offers a feature called File Vault that secures
your entire home directory with encryption (Figure). The theory here is
the same: If the computer gets stolen, thieves can't access your private
data. However, File Vault isn't exactly granular. It's either on or off,
and you can't specify which folders to protect; it just protects the
entire home folder. The reason this can be a problem is that encrypted
files need to be decrypted on the fly, which can be a time consuming
process. Microsoft's EFS, though somewhat hidden in the Windows UI,
offers more options.
Firewall and system services
While both Windows Vista and OS X Tiger include personal firewalls, only
the firewall in Windows is turned on by default. This is somewhat
curious, given the high profile problems Windows XP users faced before
Microsoft turned on its firewall with the release of XP Service Pack 2
(SP2) in 2004. The OS X Tiger firewall is easily enabled, but you have
to find it first, and it's not clear at first glance where you'll find
it in System Preferences. It turns out it's hiding in Sharing, and not
the more obvious Security or Network options.
In any event, Apple does a good job of disabling unnecessary or
potentially dangerous system services when an OS X system starts up. All
network services, for example, are disabled by default. Too, Apple uses
a Keychain feature to protect different credentials in a single,
encrypted location. The system Microsoft uses for storing credentials is
bizarre because it's dependent in part on which edition of Windows you
are using (XP Home and the other editions handle this differently) and
whether you're using Active Directory. Looking forward, it's clear that
users will need to store more, not fewer, passwords and other
credentials. A system like Keychain would be a huge boon for Windows
users, but I don't see anything like that happening (at least not yet)
in the Vista betas.
Anti-malware, or stuff Windows needs that OS X does not
Part of me wants to laud Microsoft for adding anti-malware, antivirus,
and antispyware features to Windows Vista. I've always argued that this
sort of technology, unlike say, Windows Movie Maker, should be included
in the base OS. But you have to kind of wonder why Windows users need so
much help. Why is it that Windows Vista has to have all these
facilities, plus Internet Explorer 7's Protected Mode, the new user
security system, and all the other neat security features that Microsoft
is adding? Is Microsoft really charging users for better security?
Yeah, actually, they are. But before anyone gets all excited about that
fact, remember that security companies like Symantec and McAfee have
been making millions of dollars off Windows users for decades. It was
only a matter of time before Microsoft added this functionality to the
OS. Those companies knew this day was coming.
That OS X needs none of the security refinements that Microsoft has been
forced to add to Windows Vista is somewhat telling. As I noted earlier,
OS X is more secure than Windows for two basic reasons: It has an
excellent and proven security model, and because it's less-used than
Windows, it's a much smaller attack target. But the fact remains that no
one has ever written a successful virus for OS X. I wish the same could
be true of Windows Vista. But it won't be, now will it?
It would be irresponsible of Microsoft to not add extensive new security
features to Windows Vista. I just think it's a shame that the system
needs these features in the first place.
Security updates
Both Microsoft and Apple provide regular security updates via an
automated or semi-automated OS-level service. Curiously, Microsoft has a
much better record than Apple in this category, and has actually
pioneered OS self-updating with Windows Update, Automatic Update,
Software Update Services (SUS), and, most recently, with Microsoft
Update. In the Windows space, Windows Update and Microsoft Update are
essentially the manual software updating tools, providing users with
access to critical security updates as well as less critical updates
such as new versions of Windows Media Player. Automatic Updates (AU), of
course, is the service that will automatically download and (optionally)
install critical security updates as they become available. Windows
Update and Microsoft Update are actually ActiveX-based Web sites, which
is most bizarre. This type of critical service should be native to the
system, and not be based on exploitable Web code, in my opinion. That
said, I'm unaware of any successful Windows Update spoofing attacks.
On the OS X side, all of this work is handled through the Software
Update application. While you can check Software Update for new updates
manually, you can also configure it to check for updates on a regular
basis (say, daily) and download important updates in the background
while your working, just like AU. However, Software Update cannot be
configured to automatically install security updates, which I find
somewhat confusing.
Configured correctly, Software Update will alert you when new updates
are ready to be installed, whether they are security updates or minor
changes to iTunes.
Final security thoughts
In short, Mac OS X is more secure than Windows today, and will likely
remain so even after Windows Vista is released. That said, Microsoft is
making some valuable and concrete changes to Windows Vista with regards
to security, and while it remains to be seen how this system will fare
in the real world, I have little doubt that Vista will be far more
secure than its predecessors.
Networking
Both OS X and Windows include powerful networking features that make the
systems equally valuable for home and corporate networks. And both Apple
and Microsoft offer competing technologies that seek to make it easier
to discover and access devices that are connected to a network. For
example, Microsoft has pushed an ill-fated technology called Universal
Plug-n-Play (UPnP), while Apple has touted a similar technology called
Bonjour (previously called Rendezvous). I'm not so much concerned here
about the low-level networking features that both OSes offer--I think we
can all agree that both Windows and OS X support TCP/IP reasonably well,
for example. No, I'm more concerned with home each system exposes
networking functionality to the user.
Let's take an obvious example. I have a wireless network at home and I'd
like to get both a Windows Vista-based notebook and an Apple PowerBook
connected to it. Which is "easier" will depend largely on your
definition of ease-of-use. Windows Vista, like it's predecessor, is
notification-heavy, providing you with constant updates on the state of
the wireless network, which often makes me think that it's going on and
offline all the time. Meanwhile, OS X is quiet about wireless
networking. If the system spies a network to which it can connect, it
will do so, and quietly. The only indication you'll get that anything
happened is that the wireless networking menu item will change to
indicate the connection.
As with everything Windows, the wireless networking tray icon in Windows
Vista is a front-end to a wide range of functionality. If you click it
or double-click it, you'll get the Status dialog box for that connection
(Figure). From here, you can also link to the Wireless Network
Connection applet that debuted in XP SP2 (Figure). If you right-click on
it, you can access various options (enable, disable, repair, status),
launch the Wireless Network Connection applet, change Windows Firewall
settings, or open Network Connections, through which you manage all of
the wired and wireless connections on your system (Figure). Whew.
OS X, by comparison, is much simpler. If you click the wireless
networking menu item, you'll get a drop-down menu to enable and disable
the wireless networking adapter (called Airport), choose which wireless
network to which to connect, create a new wireless network, and so on
(Figure). Simple. Plus, there's one thing OS X can do that Windows
can't: Share a wired Internet connection via wireless. Why that's
impossible on Windows, I'll never understand.
Mac OS X can also easily access network shares on Windows PCs and
servers, though I don't quite get why the system can't supply simple
shortcuts to the actual shares. Instead, you can navigate Windows
networks and machines directly from the Finder. But when you want to
access individual shares, you do so from a weird Connect dialog. It
would be handy if this were more integrated into the system, as is the
handy Network special shell folder in Windows Vista (called My Network
Places in XP), which lists all of your locally available shares by
default.
The fact that OS X can access Windows shares at all is, of course,
excellent. So I'm nitpicking here. Overall, I'd say that both Vista and
OS X offer excellent networking capabilities, as you would expect of any
modern OS.
Power management
Both Windows and Mac OS X also offer a wide range of power management
options. However, OS X has always had an advantage in one key area: When
a Mac system goes to sleep, say when a user closes the lid on his
PowerBook, the system goes to sleep instantly. And when that system is
woken up, again, the change, again, is instant. This is most decidedly
not the case with Windows. That said, Windows does offer a Hibernation
mode that is quite handy, especially for notebook users: When configured
to enter Hibernation mode, a Windows system writes the contents of RAM
to the disk and then restores that RAM image when the system is
"restarted." The end result is a system that boots more quickly than it
would from a cold start, and one that is still running all of the
applications that were running when it went into Hibernation. Another
advantage of Hibernation is that, unlike Sleep mode, it doesn't trickle
down the battery. Your system is literally off when it goes into
Hibernation.
In Windows Vista, Microsoft is attempting to get the best of both
worlds. In addition to all of the power management features it offered
in previous Windows versions, Microsoft is adding two key features to
Vista that will make it particularly appealing to road warriors. First,
Vista will include an instant-on function that will return Sleeping
system to a usable state in about 2 seconds, or roughly on par with Mac
OS X systems. Second, Microsoft is bundling a new Mobility Center
control panel (Figure) in Vista that seeks to combine all of the
functionality PC makers had been providing in those bizarre third-party
mobility management applications. In its current form, Mobility Center
is rough-edged, but we'll see how it develops over time.
Microsoft has also changed the way a mobile PC notifies users of power
management functionality in Vista. The new Power Management notification
icon in the system tray, confusingly, provides access to four different
interfaces (seriously). If you mouse-over it, you'll see a pop-up window
describing power consumption (Figure). If you single click it, a
different pop-up will appear, letting you select a power plan (Figure).
If you double-click it, the confusing new Power Options dialog appears
(Figure). And if you right-click it, you'll get a contextual menu
providing access to options confusingly named Power Options and
Properties. Sigh.
Power management in OS X is much more straightforward. Mac portable
systems typically display a battery status meter in the menu bar, which
provides you with the amount of charge left or, when plugged in, the
amount of time left until the system is fully charged (Figure). Power
management options are configured in the Energy Saver preferences panel,
which lets you choose between plain English modes like Better
Performance and Better Energy Savings, or fine-tune power management for
both battery-based and plugged-in systems (Figure).
Overall, I find Mac OS X to be easier to use with regards to power
management, and I give Apple the nod for its instant-on/instant-off
functionality. That said, I use Hibernation exclusively on my PC laptops
and love it. If Microsoft can pull off instant-on in Windows Vista, then
that system will be at least as functional as OS X, if not as good
looking.
So what have we learned here? Once again, the maturity and refinement in
OS X has won out over the still-in-development Windows Vista. This
shouldn't surprise anyone really, and of course Vista can only improve
over time. At some point, however, features will be frozen and we'll
know where the two systems stand. At that point, it might be fun to
update this comparison. But we're not done yet, of course: In part 3,
I'll examine the different printing architectures employed by each OS,
the unique features found only in Windows Vista, and the unique OS X
Tiger features that Windows lacks. And then we can declare a winner, of
sorts, at least until we have a more feature-complete version of Windows
Vista to evaluate.
galloping.moron
"Mr. T" <tee...@arm-lt.com> wrote in message
news:FBQif.46$yR5....@news.uswest.net...
George Graves
"Mr. T" <tee...@arm-lt.com> wrote:
> Mojo <bil_gates_f...@microshit.com> wrote:
>
> > Check out this comparision from Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windoze
> > Note: he's comparing the Vista beta (read vaporware) to Tiger (OSX.4)
> > that is here today and being in the real world by millions of Mac
> > users.:-)
> >
> > Enjoy:
> >
> > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp
>
> excellent read. more proof MS is about to release a still born product.
>
> Windows Vista Beta 1 vs. Mac OS X "Tiger" (Part 2)
Yep. Same Windows crap, different day. But we expected no less. The
delta between what M$ promised would be in "Longhorn" and what actually
made it to Vista is the like the difference between a new BMW 7 series
sedan and a 1904 Oldsmobile.
Move along, folks. There's nothing to see here.
Super Spinner
Snit wrote:
> "Mojo" <bil_gates_f...@microshit.com> stated in post
> bil_gates_fudge_packer...@news.videotron.net on 11/28/05
> 6:42 PM:
>
> > Check out this comparision from Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windoze
> > Note: he's comparing the Vista beta (read vaporware) to Tiger (OSX.4)
> > that is here today and being in the real world by millions of Mac
> > users.:-)
> >
> > Enjoy:
> >
> > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp
>
> From the article:
>
> -----
> Microsoft claims that Windows XP and, by extension, Windows Vista, were
> architected for security, thanks to their NT roots. That claim is, however,
> bogus. Windows NT was designed in the pre-Internet days, and though the
> system's architecture is extensible, modern Windows versions are further
> hobbled by the inclusion of the buggy and insecure IE Web browser and other
> design mistakes. In short, Windows is a house of cards that seems
> increasingly incapable of handling today's demands.
>
> Mac OS X, meanwhile, was truly designed for excellent security, thanks to
> its wonderful UNIX roots and clean architecture.
> -----
>
> How important is it for OS X that it is based, in part, on a Unix-like
> platform (FreeBSD)?
>
Unix, too, was developed in the pre-internet days. It was also an
insecure mess for years. It does have an advantage in being 30 year
old tech, so its had time to get the bugs out. And yet, I still get OS
X Security Updates monthly. ;-)
Snit
1133239407....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 11/28/05 9:43 PM:
Yeah - but have you ever heard of someone being hurt by not updating OS X?
Granted, I am happy Apple keeps on top of such things...
Classic Mac, unlike OS X, was not based at all on FreeBSD or any other Unix
or Unix-like OS... and yet it, too, was quite secure. Linux seems quite
secure. Seems Windows is, again, the odd man out when it comes to security.
--
"So just killfile me and no one else. It'll cut down on the noise factor"
Marti...@gmail.com
ZnU
<bil_gates_fudge_packer...@news.videotron.net>,
Mojo <bil_gates_f...@microshit.com> wrote:
This is my favorite:
"Microsoft has also changed the way a mobile PC notifies users of power
management functionality in Vista. The new Power Management notification
icon in the system tray, confusingly, provides access to four different
interfaces (seriously). If you mouse-over it, you'll see a pop-up window
describing power consumption (Figure). If you single click it, a
different pop-up will appear, letting you select a power plan (Figure).
If you double-click it, the confusing new Power Options dialog appears
(Figure). And if you right-click it, you'll get a contextual menu
providing access to options confusingly named Power Options and
Properties. Sigh."
This, folks, is why it is *not* just a matter of time before Windows
catches up with OS X on usability. The problem is not that Microsoft
hasn't had enough time to polish things up. The problem is that
Microsoft just doesn't get this stuff at all.
--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
John C. Randolph From:
it and realizes that it just more of the same, with a little bit of UI tweaking
and a couple of half-assed attempts at copying Quartz Extreme and Spotlight,
the sooner Apple stock will go above $100/share.
Windows Vista will be a tipping point in favor of the Mac.
-jcr
C Lund
<bil_gates_fudge_packer...@news.videotron.net>,
Mojo <bil_gates_f...@microshit.com> wrote:
A quick skim got me this and many similar comparisons:
"Specifically, OS X will always be elegant, and Windows will almost
certainly lag behind in the fit and finish department."
I thought Thurrott was a mac-bashing Windows shill?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Mojo
Marti...@gmail.com wrote:
> Mojo, do you know the definition of vaporware?
Yes, I do. In Microsoft's case it's called FUD. It's software that is
only available in beta form and not ready for prime time. In the rest of
the industry it's a product that isn't even in beta form. More alpha.
Microsoft has proven track record of deception. They announce products
years before they are ready for market so that corporate IT depts never
consider alternatives even if they are more cost effective.
Once again many of the features you are going to get in Vista (whenever
it ships) we are enjoying right now with the current version Mac OSX. By
the time Vista comes out Apple will have released its next major OS. And
once again your bud Billy will be playing catch up.
Mojo
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
Just goes to show...even the windoze pundits realize that OSX is the
best OS.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <PPQif.1713$4v.126@fed1read03>):
> If security is all that just leave the computer turned off.
It takes a true galloping moron to spend money on a computer so
that it can be left turned off. You seem to also be incapable
of snipping 400 line posts so you can top-post (ugh) on top.
--
_ __ _
| | ___ / _| |_ _ _
| | / _ \ |_| __| | | |
| |__| __/ _| |_| |_| |
|_____\___|_| \__|\__, |
|___/
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <1133262995.568184@smirk>):
> As an Apple shareholder, I can't wait for Vista.
Even the Apple insiders are selling now. Profit taking, anyone?
Good luck holding it long-term, but you can probably make more
taking it now and buying back in on the dips.
TravelinMan
I doubt it. Windows users never even realized that Win3.1 was a crappy
copy of Mac OS. They never realized that Win95 was a crappy copy of Mac
OS 7. They never realized that WinXP was a crappy copy of OS X. So I
sure don't expect that they'll suddenly get smarter.
The fact is that too many people refuse to even consider Macs for one of
three reasons:
1. They're locked in by network effects - such as apps that only run on
Windows.
2. They don't know enough about computers to make up their own minds, so
they ask their friends - who are mostly Windows users and therefore
recommend what they're familiar with.
3. They refuse to consider Macs because of the prevailing 'Macs suck'
attitude spread by the more vile Wintrolls.
While I expect Apple's market share to continue to grow, I really don't
see it hitting double digits any time soon.
Mojo
<bil_gates_fudge_packer...@news.videotron.net>,
Mojo <bil_gates_f...@microshit.com> wrote:
Notice how zara (our lovable little zit faced wintroll) stayed out of
this one. As soon as you present fact, he's gone.
Flint
Comparing a beta product to a finished product - *pointless*.
-Rick
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<Nowhere-647D6E...@news1.west.earthlink.net>):
> The fact is that too many people refuse to even consider Macs for one of
> three reasons:
> 1. They're locked in by network effects - such as apps that only run on
> Windows.
That is the fault of application vendors (in response to market
penetration) not Microsoft itself.
> 2. They don't know enough about computers to make up their own minds, so
> they ask their friends - who are mostly Windows users and therefore
> recommend what they're familiar with.
Yes, but this is also due (along with all of these) to "we use
windows at work" syndrome. Much as Apple once (decades ago)
capitalized on "my kids use an Apple at school so we are buying
an apple" in the dawn of time.
> 3. They refuse to consider Macs because of the prevailing 'Macs suck'
> attitude spread by the more vile Wintrolls.
Outside of this newsgroup, I never hear this from anyone. I
hardly think that the actions of a dozen or so trolls on a
relatively lightly subscribed newsgroup has much of an impact on
the world market. Certainly not enough to make the top 3 list.
:-)
> While I expect Apple's market share to continue to grow, I really don't
> see it hitting double digits any time soon.
I expect Apple's sales figures to grow, but I doubt their market
share (in computers, forget about portable media, they own that)
to grow substantially, despite the superiority of OS X. The
best technical products often, perhaps even usually, do not win
in the market.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <RfKcnSWwBbU...@ptd.net>):
Perhaps he didn't feel like waiting several more years to
compare against something that isn't vapor. Hell, by that time,
there won't be anything left in Vista except maybe jumbo icons,
at which time you might as well compare it to OS 9.
Donald
Nowhere-647D6E...@news1.west.earthlink.net, "TravelinMan"
<Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
Yeh, I guess the "vile Wintrolls" are much like the "vile Mac Fanatics" like
you.
Idiot! Don't you even realize that you left yourself wide open to
accusations like "hypocrite"? Cause that's exactly what you are. You are
just as vile toward those you perceive to be "Wintrolls".
>
>
> While I expect Apple's market share to continue to grow, I really don't
> see it hitting double digits any time soon.
And you, like all other children, fail to see the cost factor in anything,
do you? You just can't seem to accept the fact that people buy a Windows
machine because it is cheaper and more expandable that a similarly-equipped
Mac, as well as being more powerful.
As we've told you a thousand times before, most people just can't afford to
buy Macs. And why would they want to buy the little toy called the
"MacMini", when it is not expandable? Maybe Stevie mistakenly somehow got
the impression that we just wanted a "smaller, cheaper, dumber" machine from
idiots like you. Wintel users know why they purchase Wintels. But Mac users
refuse to hear their reasons, even when it's coming from the "horse's
mouth".
But it is just not true. Windows users also want quality and expandability.
Mac Fanatics simply fail to see just why people buy Wintels in the first
place. You simply refuse to hear Windows users give their reasons for
purchasing Wintels rather than Macs. You simply refuse to hear it, like a
little child covering his ears and saying over and over to himself "I didn't
really hear that, I really didn't hear that. This is what he REALLY
said..."
--
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the
original newsgroup and thread.
================================
Donald
windoze_sucks-E40...@news.isp.giganews.com, "Mojo"
<windoz...@microshaft.com> wrote:
Paul Thurrott is just ONE commentator out of hundreds of thousands. No
thoughtful Windows (or Mac) user would ever make his purchasing decisions on
his word alone. Many other Wintel commentators rave about Vista, and
certainly don't call it "vaporware".
This just shows how desperate Mac Fanatics are, to compare a Beta (Vista
Beta 1) product to a RTM product like OS X 10.4.3.
Don't worry, Mac Fanatics: you will have plenty of opportunities to
disrespect Wintel users Christmas season of 2006 (maybe even sooner).
Edwin
Donald
0001HW.BFB2003E...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
<nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
Judging an OS to be "superior" is kind of in the eye of the beholder, isn't
it? Many users think that OS X is an inferior OS, not a better one.
Actually, the truth is more like "OS X is superior for some reasons, but
Windows is superior for other reasons."
Good God, people: We're arguing about OPERATING SYSTEMS, not Ultimate
Reality or the Meaning of Life. When we die, we won't be taking our
computers with us to the Next Life (though I think that Mac Fanatics
probably will try). Let's try to keep things in their proper perspectives,
and be a little original, and stop calling the "kettle" black, when we are
nothing but "pots over the fire" ourselves.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <BFB1EA6F.47C7%ortho...@mac.com>):
>> I expect Apple's sales figures to grow, but I doubt their market
>> share (in computers, forget about portable media, they own that)
>> to grow substantially, despite the superiority of OS X. The
>> best technical products often, perhaps even usually, do not win
>> in the market.
>>
> Judging an OS to be "superior" is kind of in the eye of the beholder, isn't
> it?
Not if you have even the most trivial of concerns about
security, it isn't. If on the other hand, you don't care about
any data stored anywhere on your hard drive, or if you don't
care about your computer being used against your will by others
you have never met, then Windows is your first choice.
> Many users think that OS X is an inferior OS, not a better one.
Many people think that raising taxes will make them better off
too.
> Actually, the truth is more like "OS X is superior for some reasons, but
> Windows is superior for other reasons."
For very contrived definitions of "other reasons", perhaps.
> Good God, people:
No need to vapor lock. Who's overreacting here again? Oh,
yeah, you.
> We're arguing about OPERATING SYSTEMS, not Ultimate
> Reality or the Meaning of Life.
This is Usenet. This is an advocacy group. Take a clue from
the clue bag. If you want to talk about metaphysics, pick
another group.
Donald
0001HW.BFB20084...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
<nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Flint wrote
> (in article <RfKcnSWwBbU...@ptd.net>):
>
>> Mojo wrote:
>>> Check out this comparision from Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windoze
>>> Note: he's comparing the Vista beta (read vaporware) to Tiger (OSX.4)
>>> that is here today and being in the real world by millions of Mac
>>> users.:-)
>>>
>>> Enjoy:
>>>
>>> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp
>>
>>
>> Comparing a beta product to a finished product - *pointless*.
>
> Perhaps he didn't feel like waiting several more years to
> compare against something that isn't vapor. Hell, by that time,
> there won't be anything left in Vista except maybe jumbo icons,
> at which time you might as well compare it to OS 9.
>
Anyone who thinks that Vista is "vaporware" apparently doesn't know the
meaning of the term "vaporware" (or he is just propagandizing and spreading
lies).
But Vista is no more "vaporware" than OS X 10.5.0 is: That is, it is not
"vaporware", unless OS X 10.5.0 is also.
However, I learnt the meaning of "vaporware" long ago. Vista just doesn't
fit the definition, even in its unfinished state.
And it won't be "vaporware" next year at Christmas-time, either.
The fact is, Microsoft has staked billions of dollars on that so-called
"vaporware". They will not fail to release it next year, on target, as they
have said over and over.
You do Apple no good by lying about a competitor's products, my friend. But
this seems to be the way of Mac Fanatics in general. They appear to have no
morals, and find it easy to lie over and over, when it suits their
arguments. This is the way of cultists everywhere. They are Liars.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <BFB1F25F.4800%ortho...@mac.com>):
> Anyone who thinks that Vista is "vaporware" apparently doesn't know the
> meaning of the term "vaporware" (or he is just propagandizing and spreading
> lies).
Is it shipping yet? Can you buy a copy at Best buy? then it's
vapor. There may be some betas floating around, of which less
than half of the originally promised 'big features' still exist.
Compared to what was promised for Vista, the gold version will
be vaporous.
> But Vista is no more "vaporware" than OS X 10.5.0 is: That is, it is not
> "vaporware", unless OS X 10.5.0 is also.
Of course, they both are, since neither is available for
commercial customers.
> However, I learnt the meaning of "vaporware" long ago. Vista just doesn't
> fit the definition, even in its unfinished state.
Then you are simply confused.
> And it won't be "vaporware" next year at Christmas-time, either.
We'll see.
> The fact is, Microsoft has staked billions of dollars on that so-called
> "vaporware". They will not fail to release it next year, on target, as they
> have said over and over.
LOL. That's a keeper. Everybody should archive that quote.
> You do Apple no good by lying about a competitor's products, my friend.
I'm not lying. Show me where I can buy a copy of it off the
shelf for installation on a PC, and get technical support for it
from Microsoft, today.
> But this seems to be the way of Mac Fanatics in general.
It's funny how yesterday I was labeled a wintroll, and today I'm
a Mac fanatic. Maybe it's that I don't blindly follow either
side that confuses so many people.
Buzz
> On 11/29/05 7:44 AM, in article
> Nowhere-647D6E...@news1.west.earthlink.net, "TravelinMan"
> <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
>
...
>
>>
>>While I expect Apple's market share to continue to grow, I really don't
>>see it hitting double digits any time soon.
>
>
> And you, like all other children, fail to see the cost factor in anything,
> do you? You just can't seem to accept the fact that people buy a Windows
> machine because it is cheaper and more expandable that a similarly-equipped
> Mac, as well as being more powerful.
>
> As we've told you a thousand times before, most people just can't afford to
> buy Macs. And why would they want to buy the little toy called the
> "MacMini", when it is not expandable? Maybe Stevie mistakenly somehow got
> the impression that we just wanted a "smaller, cheaper, dumber" machine from
> idiots like you. Wintel users know why they purchase Wintels. But Mac users
> refuse to hear their reasons, even when it's coming from the "horse's
> mouth".
>
> But it is just not true. Windows users also want quality and expandability.
> Mac Fanatics simply fail to see just why people buy Wintels in the first
> place. You simply refuse to hear Windows users give their reasons for
> purchasing Wintels rather than Macs. You simply refuse to hear it, like a
> little child covering his ears and saying over and over to himself "I didn't
> really hear that, I really didn't hear that. This is what he REALLY
> said..."
>
I must not be a Mac Fanatic, since I simply fail to care just why people
buy Wintels in the first place.
Also, I simply fail to care whether most people just can't afford to buy
Macs. It is not my business what other people can or can't afford.
As to the MacMini, I have one right here. It is a very expandable.
I think that you are an idiot.
Lars Träger
> Unix, too, was developed in the pre-internet days. It was also an
> insecure mess for years. It does have an advantage in being 30 year
> old tech, so its had time to get the bugs out. And yet, I still get OS
> X Security Updates monthly. ;-)
Unlike Microsoft Patch day, which is only once a month.
--
Lars T.
Snit
1133292019.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 11/29/05 12:20 PM:
> Go play with the Power Puff Girls, Mojo Jojo.
>
I have not been following this thread, but when you snip and run like this,
Edwin, it is clear *you* feel you are in over your head again.
--
The sentence started with "In my life I never..." is finished by Edwin with
"... thought very hard."
Lars Träger
> On 11/29/05 8:43 AM, in article
> windoze_sucks-E40...@news.isp.giganews.com, "Mojo"
> <windoz...@microshaft.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <bil_gates_fudge_packer...@news.videotron.net>,
> > Mojo <bil_gates_f...@microshit.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Check out this comparision from Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windoze
> >> Note: he's comparing the Vista beta (read vaporware) to Tiger (OSX.4)
> >> that is here today and being in the real world by millions of Mac
> >> users.:-)
> >>
> >> Enjoy:
> >>
> >> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp
> >
> > Notice how zara (our lovable little zit faced wintroll) stayed out of
> > this one. As soon as you present fact, he's gone.
>
> Paul Thurrott is just ONE commentator out of hundreds of thousands. No
> thoughtful Windows (or Mac) user would ever make his purchasing decisions on
> his word alone. Many other Wintel commentators rave about Vista, and
> certainly don't call it "vaporware".
>
> This just shows how desperate Mac Fanatics are, to compare a Beta (Vista
> Beta 1) product to a RTM product like OS X 10.4.3.
You actually don't know Thurrott. Nor the Windows fanatics in this group
who cheered for every bit of info he wrote about Windows Vista even from
pre-beta versions and how it was better than Mac OS X - most of his
articles claiming "Microsoft announced the feature long before it
shipped in Tiger".
--
Lars T.
Lars Träger
Yes, one could say it stopped being vapourware. That doesn't mean it
will ship next year.
> And it won't be "vaporware" next year at Christmas-time, either.
That's what Microsoft said about it 4 years ago - "next Christmas". And
that was before they stripped some vapourware off of it and renamed it
Vista. And not to mention the OS it is a stop-gap for - and which was
supposed to ship over a year ago.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/27/microsoft_reshuffles_windows_roa
dmap_full/
But yeah, they made it to beta. But before they made it to the
vapourware charts.
2004 - place 3:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66195-3,00.html?tw=wn_story_pag
e_prev4
"Microsoft's successor to Windows XP was originally promised to ship in
2004, though the company subsequently pushed the launch date to 3015 or
something. Obviously, Microsoft won't be able to finish the code until
it's had a peek at Apple's forthcoming Tiger.
Bill Restemeyer suggested it be renamed "Longwait."
The company also cut a core feature, a new "revolutionary" file system
called WinFS.
Steve Story said, "WinFS has been vaporware for over a decade, and
recently a delay of many more years was announced. (2008 has been
bandied about.) Somewhere, Microsoft programmers are spending their
entire careers on a single piece of vaporware.""
2003 - dishonorable mention:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61935,00.html
[...] to Microsoft for [...] the ever-slipping ship date for Longhorn,
which is shaping up to be a very promising candidate for the Vaporware
awards in 2006, 2007 and maybe even 2008.
> The fact is, Microsoft has staked billions of dollars on that so-called
> "vaporware". They will not fail to release it next year, on target, as they
> have said over and over.
Exactly. Over and over they said it.
--
Lars T.
George Graves
wrote:
That's my feeling as well. Any interest I have in that area is purely
academic.
> Also, I simply fail to care whether most people just can't afford to buy
> Macs. It is not my business what other people can or can't afford.
Or what they use. Prefer the PC? Use it good health. I don't want to
convert you or anybody, for that matter.
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
Then, if you are so platform agnostic, why do you continue to post here?
CSMA is a place to argue the merits or Mac over Windows (not a difficult
task, I might add). But if you don't wish to do that, why do you post
here? Just asking. Not making any odious suggestions, you understand.
Tim Smith
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Donald wrote
> (in article <BFB1F25F.4800%ortho...@mac.com>):
>
> > Anyone who thinks that Vista is "vaporware" apparently doesn't know the
> > meaning of the term "vaporware" (or he is just propagandizing and spreading
> > lies).
>
> Is it shipping yet? Can you buy a copy at Best buy? then it's
> vapor. There may be some betas floating around, of which less
Looks like his guess is right: you don't know the meaning of the term
"vaporware". Get thee to wikipedia.
--
--Tim Smith
Super Spinner
Snit wrote:
> "Super Spinner" <Pepe....@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1133239407....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com on 11/28/05 9:43 PM:
>
> >
> > Snit wrote:
> >> "Mojo" <bil_gates_f...@microshit.com> stated in post
> >> bil_gates_fudge_packer...@news.videotron.net on 11/28/05
> >> 6:42 PM:
> >>
> >>> Check out this comparision from Paul Thurrott's Super Site for Windoze
> >>> Note: he's comparing the Vista beta (read vaporware) to Tiger (OSX.4)
> >>> that is here today and being in the real world by millions of Mac
> >>> users.:-)
> >>>
> >>> Enjoy:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_beta1_vs_tiger_02.asp
> >>
> >>
> >> -----
> >> Microsoft claims that Windows XP and, by extension, Windows Vista, were
> >> architected for security, thanks to their NT roots. That claim is, however,
> >> bogus. Windows NT was designed in the pre-Internet days, and though the
> >> system's architecture is extensible, modern Windows versions are further
> >> hobbled by the inclusion of the buggy and insecure IE Web browser and other
> >> design mistakes. In short, Windows is a house of cards that seems
> >> increasingly incapable of handling today's demands.
> >>
> >> Mac OS X, meanwhile, was truly designed for excellent security, thanks to
> >> its wonderful UNIX roots and clean architecture.
> >> -----
> >>
> >> How important is it for OS X that it is based, in part, on a Unix-like
> >> platform (FreeBSD)?
> >
> > Unix, too, was developed in the pre-internet days. It was also an
> > insecure mess for years. It does have an advantage in being 30 year
> > old tech, so its had time to get the bugs out. And yet, I still get OS
> > X Security Updates monthly. ;-)
>
> Granted, I am happy Apple keeps on top of such things...
>
Irrelevant to the issue of whether Mac OS X is "secure by design" by
virtue of its core being BSD. If it's really secure, then why the
monthly OS X Security Updates? The very existence of such updates
disproves the "secure by design" hypothesis.
> Classic Mac, unlike OS X, was not based at all on FreeBSD or any other Unix
> or Unix-like OS... and yet it, too, was quite secure. Linux seems quite
> secure. Seems Windows is, again, the odd man out when it comes to security.
>
There was a study done earlier this year, the results of which I
believe were released in February (the article appeared in numerous
papers; I saw it on slashdot, which referenced the Denver Post). In
the study, Windows XP, XP SP2, Mac OS X (I don' remember the version;
it was 10.2.8 or 10.3.something), and Linux (I believe an Ubunto
distribution) were connected to the internet using the default security
settings and left running for two weeks. The Windows XP machine was
compromised in 12 minutes. The XP SP2, OS X, and Linux machines were
never compromised. The XP SP2 machine was attacked orders of magnitude
more often than the OS X and Linux machines, but withstood the attacks.
But here's the key point - the study claimed that the some of the
attacks that OS X "withstood" would have compromised the machine if the
attacks had been written to attack OS X rather than XP. In other
words, OS X allowed the attacks to "run" but did no damage because the
attacks weren't targetting OS X. XP SP2 was actually more impressive
because it thwarted thousands of attacks while OS X couldn't even
thwart a handful and only got lucky because the attacks were meant for
a different system.
Snit
>>>> How important is it for OS X that it is based, in part, on a Unix-like
>>>> platform (FreeBSD)?
>>>
>>> Unix, too, was developed in the pre-internet days. It was also an
>>> insecure mess for years. It does have an advantage in being 30 year
>>> old tech, so its had time to get the bugs out. And yet, I still get OS
>>> X Security Updates monthly. ;-)
>>
>> Yeah - but have you ever heard of someone being hurt by not updating OS X?
>> Granted, I am happy Apple keeps on top of such things...
>
> Irrelevant to the issue of whether Mac OS X is "secure by design" by
> virtue of its core being BSD. If it's really secure, then why the
> monthly OS X Security Updates? The very existence of such updates
> disproves the "secure by design" hypothesis.
Incorrect: it is possible to have a secure design but still look at making
things more secure.
>
>> Classic Mac, unlike OS X, was not based at all on FreeBSD or any other Unix
>> or Unix-like OS... and yet it, too, was quite secure. Linux seems quite
>> secure. Seems Windows is, again, the odd man out when it comes to security.
>
> There was a study done earlier this year, the results of which I
> believe were released in February (the article appeared in numerous
> papers; I saw it on slashdot, which referenced the Denver Post). In
> the study, Windows XP, XP SP2, Mac OS X (I don' remember the version;
> it was 10.2.8 or 10.3.something), and Linux (I believe an Ubunto
> distribution) were connected to the internet using the default security
> settings and left running for two weeks. The Windows XP machine was
> compromised in 12 minutes. The XP SP2, OS X, and Linux machines were
> never compromised. The XP SP2 machine was attacked orders of magnitude
> more often than the OS X and Linux machines, but withstood the attacks.
SP2 is much, much better than previous versions of Windows.
> But here's the key point - the study claimed that the some of the
> attacks that OS X "withstood" would have compromised the machine if the
> attacks had been written to attack OS X rather than XP. In other
> words, OS X allowed the attacks to "run" but did no damage because the
> attacks weren't targetting OS X. XP SP2 was actually more impressive
> because it thwarted thousands of attacks while OS X couldn't even
> thwart a handful and only got lucky because the attacks were meant for
> a different system.
I will worry once there is a single significant malware outbreak for OS X.
It will almost certainly happen eventually. It has happened many, many
times for XP.
--
"Toasty is still missing. If you see him, please send him home... it's
bath night at the chicken farm." - Steve Carroll
Flint
Consider this also: in the past twelve months in particular, nearly
*all* of the XP exploits introduced into the wild were exploits that
appeared (quite often within days) of their announcement as proof of
concepts, and generally follow such announcements. If Microsoft
announces an acknowlegement of a proof of concept flaw, the hackers
immediately target/exploit the flaw. If M$ *doesn't* acknowlege them,
then they get derided for failing to do so, and accused of failing to
provide a timely update. All the while, Maccie fanboys continually
discount proof of concept flaws and only consider threats in the wild.
-Rick
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<reply_in_group-
9EB26A.202...@news1.east.earthlink.net>):
Eric Raymond's jargon file has been around far longer, and in
many ways is more authoritative.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/vaporware.html
Sounds like a PERFECT description of Vista.
Donald
"Lars Träger" <Lars.T...@epost.de> wrote:
Why you should take seriously anyone's lying statement that
"Microsoft has pushed the launch date to 3015" (a thousand years from now-
Geeze, Man, Microsoft as well as Apple will be out of business by then.) as
"truth", I just don't know.
> or something. Obviously, Microsoft won't be able to finish the code until
> it's had a peek at Apple's forthcoming Tiger.
> Bill Restemeyer suggested it be renamed "Longwait."
> The company also cut a core feature, a new "revolutionary" file system
> called WinFS.
Which will be released as a Service Pack when it is out of Beta by the
summer of 2006.
> Steve Story said, "WinFS has been vaporware for over a decade, and
> recently a delay of many more years was announced. (2008 has been
> bandied about.) Somewhere, Microsoft programmers are spending their
> entire careers on a single piece of vaporware.""
Yeh, right: Microsoft is paying thousands of programmers millions of dollars
to continue working on something they know they will never release (the true
definition of "vaporware"). If you believe that, you belong in a Soviet
Communist culture.
>
> 2003 - dishonorable mention:
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61935,00.html
I've never known the publishers of Wired to be anything other than Mac
advocates. I wouldn't doubt that they bad-mouthed anything that Microsoft
was working on.
>
> [...] to Microsoft for [...] the ever-slipping ship date for Longhorn,
> which is shaping up to be a very promising candidate for the Vaporware
> awards in 2006, 2007 and maybe even 2008.
>
>> The fact is, Microsoft has staked billions of dollars on that so-called
>> "vaporware". They will not fail to release it next year, on target, as they
>> have said over and over.
>
> Exactly. Over and over they said it.
I wouldn't exactly call any of your cited article's authors "pro-Microsoft"
(or even "open-minded"), stud. Nor do I take your spin on them as
"pro-Microsoft" or "open-minded".
We will see whether Vista is released next year or not.
But the fact remains, Microsoft and Bill Gates are betting the future of the
company (and billions of dollars) on its release next year. Are YOU willing
to take that bet? But remember, YOU must be willing to pay MICROSOFT those
same billions if they DO release it next year if you want to seriously make
that bet.
Otherwise, stop making yourself into a fool over and over.
Donald
gmgraves-5177D8...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Evidently neither does Steve Jobs.
>
> Or what they use. Prefer the PC? Use it good health. I don't want to
> convert you or anybody, for that matter.
Thanks, George: That's really "big" of you. Now stop insulting Wintel (or
new ex-Wintel) users when they come into this forum.
But that is definitely not the attitude of several Mac users who regularly
post here, nor is it the attitude of Steve Jobs. I'm sure he goes to bed
every night wondering why he can't capture the Wintel crowd with his
"elegant" machines."
Donald
gmgraves-CDF06C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
F***ing liar! I no more believe your "Just asking. Not making any odious
suggestions" statement than I believe Christ said He won't return one day.
But I have to get through all the insults of the various Mac Fanatics to get
into a reasonable discussion about the relative merits of Macs and Wintels.
Don't any Mac users know how to read the headers of a posting? Anyone
reading my posts can see that I am posting using Entourage (a Mac program)
to post from. Don't you realize that this means that I have SOME access to
Macs?
The fact is, I am a former Wintel user who now uses a PowerMac G5 as his
"everyday" machine rather than a Wintel, because my brother, a Mac user,
gave me his year-old G5, and has been encouraging me to use it (if not
teaching me how to use it).
I have the ability to go back to the Wintel, if I so desire. I'm happy with
my Mac (if not the Usenet clients for Macs or Mac Fanatics). Happy enough
to not go back to the Wintel platform. The fact is, I haven't used a Wintel
for months. This does NOT mean that I suddenly decided that Microsoft or
Wintels are trash. I'm a reasonable man. I recognize the merits of both
platforms, since both platforms have something to recommend them. It only
means that I have gotten into the habit of using my Mac every day.
So your insult is misplaced, and actually falls on deaf ears, dude.
Donald
reply_in_group-9EB...@news1.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
Screw Wikipedia. It's just a mecha
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <BFB33F0D.4B0B%ortho...@mac.com>):
>>> Also, I simply fail to care whether most people just can't afford to buy
>>> Macs. It is not my business what other people can or can't afford.
>
> Evidently neither does Steve Jobs.
And neither (one suspects looking at the sticker price) do the
CEOs of Ferrari, Mercedes, BMW, Lotus, Lamborghini, Maserati,
etc.
Yet, they still seem to be selling them about as fast as they
can supply them, to good effect. Not everything needs to be
accessable to the local trailer park.
> But that is definitely not the attitude of several Mac users who regularly
> post here, nor is it the attitude of Steve Jobs. I'm sure he goes to bed
> every night wondering why he can't capture the Wintel crowd with his
> "elegant" machines."
I rather doubt he worries about it at all. He's probably far
more concerned with whether one or more of the music companies
will hire a hit man to shoot him in his sleep.
Donald
0001HW.BFB2AB7F...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
<nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote
> (in article
> <reply_in_group-
> 9EB26A.202...@news1.east.earthlink.net>):
>
>> In article <0001HW.BFB2187F...@news.verizon.net>,
>> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>> Donald wrote
>>> (in article <BFB1F25F.4800%ortho...@mac.com>):
>>>
>>>> Anyone who thinks that Vista is "vaporware" apparently doesn't know the
>>>> meaning of the term "vaporware" (or he is just propagandizing and spreading
>>>> lies).
>>>
>>> Is it shipping yet? Can you buy a copy at Best buy? then it's
>>> vapor. There may be some betas floating around, of which less
>>
>> Looks like his guess is right: you don't know the meaning of the term
>> "vaporware". Get thee to wikipedia.
>
> Eric Raymond's jargon file has been around far longer, and in
> many ways is more authoritative.
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/vaporware.html
>
> Sounds like a PERFECT description of Vista.
>
I wish you had quoted it rather than given a link. I am unable to reach
that domain for some reason.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <BFB34452.4B3D%ortho...@mac.com>):
>> Eric Raymond's jargon file has been around far longer, and in
>> many ways is more authoritative.
>>
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/vaporware.html
>>
>> Sounds like a PERFECT description of Vista.
>>
>
> I wish you had quoted it rather than given a link.
It's usually considered bad form, especially here, when every
demands 'proof', which is apparently comprised of a link to
anything, as long as they agree with it.
> I am unable to reach that domain for some reason.
Your DNS provider is bogus. You should consider running your
own bind (or equivalent) which can make for much, much faster
web browsing.
Anyway, here is the entry for vaporware from the Jargon File.
<quote>
vaporware: /vay愎r暈eir/, n.
Products announced far in advance of any release (which may or
may not actually take place).
</quote>
Clearly, Vista meets that description to a T.
Donald
0001HW.BFB2AB7F...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
<nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> Tim Smith wrote
> (in article
> <reply_in_group-
> 9EB26A.202...@news1.east.earthlink.net>):
>
>> In article <0001HW.BFB2187F...@news.verizon.net>,
>> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>> Donald wrote
>>> (in article <BFB1F25F.4800%ortho...@mac.com>):
>>>
>>>> Anyone who thinks that Vista is "vaporware" apparently doesn't know the
>>>> meaning of the term "vaporware" (or he is just propagandizing and spreading
>>>> lies).
>>>
>>> Is it shipping yet? Can you buy a copy at Best buy? then it's
>>> vapor. There may be some betas floating around, of which less
>>
>> Looks like his guess is right: you don't know the meaning of the term
>> "vaporware". Get thee to wikipedia.
>
> Eric Raymond's jargon file has been around far longer, and in
> many ways is more authoritative.
I've been around since the '70s. My first computer was a Timex-Sinclair
with chicklet keys, and I saved my programs on a normal tape recorder. I
know all about "jargon". In addition, I spent a year or so formally
learning computing with first an IBM 360 (and all that entails), then on CPM
machines, then MS-DOS 1.0, and on to Windows. The fact is, Mr. Raymond's
jargon file (at least in this instance) is much newer than you might think,
and does not reflect the early days of personal computing.
>
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/vaporware.html
>
> Sounds like a PERFECT description of Vista.
If you were in the Microsoft Beta program (or the Microsoft Developer
Network), you certainly wouldn't think it was "vaporware".
Anyway, I was finally able to download that page. And I simply disagree
with his definition, as do many, many others. So, "more authoritative" in
this case means absolutely nothing. I consider only ONE written work to be
"more authoritative" than another, or "PERFECT", as you claim your
definition is: The Holy Bible of Historical Christianity.
A hundred and fifty years ago, it was "more authoritative" to say that men
would never fly. And five hundred years ago, it was "more authoritative"
to say the best way to protect oneself from the Black Plague was by burning
herbs (while the rats were crawling all over the dinner table).
Just because something is in "Wikipedia" or any other web-site doesn't make
it "authoritative".
Usually, Humanity in general decides what "more authoritative" means.
Single self-appointed individuals certainly don't decide what "more
authoritative" means for anyone but themselves.
While something may be "more authoritative" to one person, it will be
nothing but "trash" to another. After all, "beauty is in the eye of the
beholder". We usually see only what we want to see, not what is actually
there.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <BFB34A6D.4B44%ortho...@mac.com>):
> On 11/29/05 11:06 PM, in article
> 0001HW.BFB2AB7F...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
> <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>> Tim Smith wrote
>> (in article
>> <reply_in_group-
>> 9EB26A.202...@news1.east.earthlink.net>):
>>
>>> In article <0001HW.BFB2187F...@news.verizon.net>,
>>> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>>>> Donald wrote
>>>> (in article <BFB1F25F.4800%ortho...@mac.com>):
>>>>
>>>>> Anyone who thinks that Vista is "vaporware" apparently doesn't know the
>>>>> meaning of the term "vaporware" (or he is just propagandizing and
>>>>> spreading
>>>>> lies).
>>>>
>>>> Is it shipping yet? Can you buy a copy at Best buy? then it's
>>>> vapor. There may be some betas floating around, of which less
>>>
>>> Looks like his guess is right: you don't know the meaning of the term
>>> "vaporware". Get thee to wikipedia.
>>
>> Eric Raymond's jargon file has been around far longer, and in
>> many ways is more authoritative.
>
> I've been around since the '70s.
Join the club.
> My first computer was a Timex-Sinclair
Sorry to hear that. Pathetic, even at that time.
> The fact is, Mr. Raymond's
> jargon file (at least in this instance) is much newer than you might think,
> and does not reflect the early days of personal computing.
I didn't say it did. It does however, have a far more
restricted 'editing' capability than Wikipedia. In fact, you
have to demonstrate that the term and usage is common in
multiple locations prior to it being added.
> If you were in the Microsoft Beta program (or the Microsoft Developer
> Network), you certainly wouldn't think it was "vaporware".
Strange, I have been a MSDN subscriber since its inception. I
think it is vaporware nonetheless.
> Anyway, I was finally able to download that page. And I simply disagree
> with his definition, as do many, many others.
Good for you.
> Just because something is in "Wikipedia" or any other web-site doesn't make
> it "authoritative".
True. That's especially true with Jargon, which has whatever
meaning you like.
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
Yeah, the Bible is "Perfect" all right.
"And Cain knew his wife". Where the fuck did SHE come from? I mean, if
you accept the nonsense that the first man and the first woman were Adam
and Eve, and Eve had two sons, Cain and Able, unless Cain was screwing a
sheep (the cute one, though, with the pretty pink ribbon) there were no
women in the world.
In the 6th chapter of Genesis, it says: "And of every living thing of
all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them
alive with thee; they shall be male and female."
But then, in Chapter 7, it says: "Of every clean beast thou shall take
to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts which are not
clean by two, the male and the female.
Now, which is it? By two or by seven? Oh yes, while you're at it you
might explain how even two of every creature is going to fit on a boat
that's 450 ft long, with a beam of 75 ft, and a height from the keel of
45 ft along with enough food to sustain them for a voyage that long?
Then in the book of Joshua, we have the Israelites passing through
kingdoms which wouldn't exist for another thousand years. We also have
Joshua attacking Jericho, a city which had been abandoned for 500 years
at the time of the Exodus.
Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
crucifixion.
Shall I go on?
And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
idiotic religion.
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
Wow! Chill-out buddy. I thought all you Christers were supposed to love
everybody? That's not "love" I detect in you above outburst. Could it be
that you're a phony Christian just like you seem to be a phony Mac
advocate? It appears so.
> But I have to get through all the insults of the various Mac Fanatics to get
> into a reasonable discussion about the relative merits of Macs and Wintels.
I didn't insult you above. I asked why you are here if you are an OS
agnostic. You're the one who flared.
> Don't any Mac users know how to read the headers of a posting? Anyone
> reading my posts can see that I am posting using Entourage (a Mac program)
> to post from. Don't you realize that this means that I have SOME access to
> Macs?
I never said that you didn't. I just said that I wished for you to
clarify your reasons for posting here and I get called, not just a liar,
but a fucking liar for my trouble.
> The fact is, I am a former Wintel user who now uses a PowerMac G5 as his
> "everyday" machine rather than a Wintel, because my brother, a Mac user,
> gave me his year-old G5, and has been encouraging me to use it (if not
> teaching me how to use it).
Yeah, yeah, we've heard this line before from you at least a dozen
times. What is it supposed to prove?
> I have the ability to go back to the Wintel, if I so desire. I'm happy with
> my Mac (if not the Usenet clients for Macs or Mac Fanatics). Happy enough
> to not go back to the Wintel platform. The fact is, I haven't used a Wintel
> for months. This does NOT mean that I suddenly decided that Microsoft or
> Wintels are trash. I'm a reasonable man.
An assertion NOT in evidence.
> I recognize the merits of both
> platforms, since both platforms have something to recommend them.
Good for you.
>It only
> means that I have gotten into the habit of using my Mac every day.
>
> So your insult is misplaced, and actually falls on deaf ears, dude.
It must fall on dumb ears as well. For while I can and have insulted
you, I was not trying to insult you with my question. Your reaction to
my question, does, however, speak volumes about you.
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
When they come with a chip on their shoulders like 99.999% of them, I
WILL insult them. When they make stupid remarks, or wear their idiotic
religious beliefs on their sleeves, I will ridicule them.
> But that is definitely not the attitude of several Mac users who regularly
> post here, nor is it the attitude of Steve Jobs. I'm sure he goes to bed
> every night wondering why he can't capture the Wintel crowd with his
> "elegant" machines."
I doubt that. I doubt that very seriously.
Lars Träger
> On 11/29/05 2:22 PM, in article 1h6t7p9.5z9udzws9dtpN%Lars.T...@epost.de,
> "Lars Träger" <Lars.T...@epost.de> wrote:
>
> > Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> However, I learnt the meaning of "vaporware" long ago. Vista just doesn't
> >> fit the definition, even in its unfinished state.
> >
> > Yes, one could say it stopped being vapourware. That doesn't mean it
> > will ship next year.
No answer.
> >> And it won't be "vaporware" next year at Christmas-time, either.
> >
> > That's what Microsoft said about it 4 years ago - "next Christmas". And
> > that was before they stripped some vapourware off of it and renamed it
> > Vista. And not to mention the OS it is a stop-gap for - and which was
> > supposed to ship over a year ago.
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/27/microsoft_reshuffles_windows_roa
> > dmap_full/
No answer.
> > But yeah, they made it to beta. But before they made it to the
> > vapourware charts.
> >
> > 2004 - place 3:
> > http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66195-3,00.html?tw=wn_story_pag
> > e_prev4
> >
> > "Microsoft's successor to Windows XP was originally promised to ship in
> > 2004, though the company subsequently pushed the launch date to 3015
>
> Why you should take seriously anyone's lying statement that
> "Microsoft has pushed the launch date to 3015" (a thousand years from now-
> Geeze, Man, Microsoft as well as Apple will be out of business by then.) as
> "truth", I just don't know.
It's called "humor", something Astroturfers are not known for.
> > or something. Obviously, Microsoft won't be able to finish the code until
> > it's had a peek at Apple's forthcoming Tiger.
> > Bill Restemeyer suggested it be renamed "Longwait."
> > The company also cut a core feature, a new "revolutionary" file system
> > called WinFS.
>
> Which will be released as a Service Pack when it is out of Beta by the
> summer of 2006.
Sure. Wait a sec - that will be BEFORE Vista comes out of beta, right?
Why did they "take it out" then? And what are your informations on the
new CLI they also took out?
> > Steve Story said, "WinFS has been vaporware for over a decade, and
> > recently a delay of many more years was announced. (2008 has been
> > bandied about.) Somewhere, Microsoft programmers are spending their
> > entire careers on a single piece of vaporware.""
>
> Yeh, right: Microsoft is paying thousands of programmers millions of dollars
> to continue working on something they know they will never release (the true
> definition of "vaporware"). If you believe that, you belong in a Soviet
> Communist culture.
In 2004 Vista WAS still vapourware. It's obvious you don't know what
that is. Hint: it does not mean it will never ship - because you could
never call anything vapourware, because you can never know if somebody
will not ship it in the year 3015.
> > 2003 - dishonorable mention:
> > http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,61935,00.html
>
> I've never known the publishers of Wired to be anything other than Mac
> advocates. I wouldn't doubt that they bad-mouthed anything that Microsoft
> was working on.
Could it have anything to do with the fact hat Microsoft promised but
didn't ship?
Noooooooo.
> > [...] to Microsoft for [...] the ever-slipping ship date for Longhorn,
> > which is shaping up to be a very promising candidate for the Vaporware
> > awards in 2006, 2007 and maybe even 2008.
> >
> >> The fact is, Microsoft has staked billions of dollars on that so-called
> >> "vaporware". They will not fail to release it next year, on target, as
> >> they have said over and over.
> >
> > Exactly. Over and over they said it.
>
> I wouldn't exactly call any of your cited article's authors "pro-Microsoft"
> (or even "open-minded"), stud. Nor do I take your spin on them as
> "pro-Microsoft" or "open-minded".
So Microsoft never said anything about a shipping date before they
mentioned "Christmas 2006"? Damn those anti-Microsoft Microsoft PR
people.
> We will see whether Vista is released next year or not.
> But the fact remains, Microsoft and Bill Gates are betting the future of the
> company (and billions of dollars) on its release next year. Are YOU willing
> to take that bet? But remember, YOU must be willing to pay MICROSOFT those
> same billions if they DO release it next year if you want to seriously make
> that bet.
No, I'm not willing to take that bet. I'm telling anyone to sell MSFT.
> Otherwise, stop making yourself into a fool over and over.
You SHOULD take your own advice, before Bill fires you.
--
Lars T.
Buzz
Donald seems to be one of those people who know how to run Apple better
than Steve Jobs. Donald must be very rich.
George Graves
<gmgraves-B38DED...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Notice - no answer from Donald.
Donald
0001HW.BFB36C4D...@news.verizon.net, "Lefty Bigfoot"
<nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
I, who had never used computers before or seen what they could do, thought
my own Timex-Sinclair ZX-81 was WONDERFUL. Mostly because I could afford to
buy one ($29.95 at the local drug store, while every other "home computer"
on the market was hundreds of dollars more). I had only heard about
computers when I read various Sci-Fi paperbacks. If I'm not mistaken, even
the first Commodore Vic-20 hadn't been manufactured yet, much less the
original IBM PC. But even the Vic-20 was far above my financial reach, so
under the circumstances, the Timex-Sinclair was the best solution for me to
have my entry into computers. Man! My wife put up a snitty-fit, I guarantee
you. She was a hard-core Pentecostal, so even autos were almost too modern
for her, much less a computer, which she loosely associated with the Devil
because of her strange interpretation of the Book of the Apocalypse. She
probably started praying for me the minute I brought the thing home for the
first time. Now, I admit I went through a phase of being a "holy-roller"
myself a few years earlier, but I was never that strange. Anyway, she was
faithful and true to me (not like my first wife, who was a full-blown
clinical nymphomaniac continually from the day we were married), so I
tolerated such strangeness in her, and even kind of appreciated it. At
least I knew that she was always thinking about me, rather than another man.
>
>> The fact is, Mr. Raymond's
>> jargon file (at least in this instance) is much newer than you might think,
>> and does not reflect the early days of personal computing.
>
> I didn't say it did. It does however, have a far more
> restricted 'editing' capability than Wikipedia. In fact, you
> have to demonstrate that the term and usage is common in
> multiple locations prior to it being added.
>
>> If you were in the Microsoft Beta program (or the Microsoft Developer
>> Network), you certainly wouldn't think it was "vaporware".
>
> Strange, I have been a MSDN subscriber since its inception. I
> think it is vaporware nonetheless.
>
>> Anyway, I was finally able to download that page. And I simply disagree
>> with his definition, as do many, many others.
>
> Good for you.
>
>> Just because something is in "Wikipedia" or any other web-site doesn't make
>> it "authoritative".
>
> True. That's especially true with Jargon, which has whatever
> meaning you like.
>
--
Donald L McDaniel
Lars Träger
> On 11/29/05 8:20 PM, in article
> reply_in_group-9EB...@news1.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <0001HW.BFB2187F...@news.verizon.net>,
> > Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> >> Donald wrote
> >> (in article <BFB1F25F.4800%ortho...@mac.com>):
> >>
> >>> Anyone who thinks that Vista is "vaporware" apparently doesn't know
> >>> the meaning of the term "vaporware" (or he is just propagandizing and
> >>> spreading lies).
> >>
> >> Is it shipping yet? Can you buy a copy at Best buy? then it's
> >> vapor. There may be some betas floating around, of which less
> >
> > Looks like his guess is right: you don't know the meaning of the term
> > "vaporware". Get thee to wikipedia.
>
> Screw Wikipedia. It's just a mecha
Screw you. You are NOT in any way an authority on the meaning of
"vaporware". And you have yet failed to quote one.
--
Lars T.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <BFB38B7A.4BFD%ortho...@mac.com>):
>>> My first computer was a Timex-Sinclair
>>
>> Sorry to hear that. Pathetic, even at that time.
>
> I, who had never used computers before or seen what they could do, thought
> my own Timex-Sinclair ZX-81 was WONDERFUL.
That just goes to demonstrate how suspect your perceptions are.
:-)
> Mostly because I could afford to
> buy one ($29.95 at the local drug store, while every other "home computer"
> on the market was hundreds of dollars more).
Wonder why.
> Man! My wife put up a snitty-fit, I guarantee you.
She had taste. :-)
Donald
gmgraves-EE052D...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
George, didn't you read the paragraphs above it, where God describes the way
He made the first man and woman? I advise you to go back and read the whole
Book before making such ignorant statements as that.
>
> In the 6th chapter of Genesis, it says: "And of every living thing of
> all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them
> alive with thee; they shall be male and female."
This is, I believe, the oldest version of the story, since it is the most
reasonable one. That the Flood story has authority is proven by its
existence (in one form or another -- the names might be changed, but the
story remains substantially the same in each version) in almost every
culture on the face of the Earth. This could only be because it truly
refers to a single actual historical and completely factual event, the
telling of which became confused with other traditions added to the story as
it was being orally passed down from father to son, or uncle to nephew, or
mother to daughter, or priest to priest for thousands of years.
>
> But then, in Chapter 7, it says: "Of every clean beast thou shall take
> to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts which are not
> clean by two, the male and the female.
This was added thousands of years later by the priest-editors (whoever they
were) who first put together the various written and oral records of the
Patriarchs since Noah and those who followed to create the Old Testament as
we find it today. No reasonable man could come to any other conclusion.
And no reasonable Christian has any other opinion about the matter. I am
well-aware of the Fundamentalist beliefs. I just don't hold them.
> Now, which is it? By two or by seven? Oh yes, while you're at it you
> might explain how even two of every creature is going to fit on a boat
> that's 450 ft long, with a beam of 75 ft, and a height from the keel of
> 45 ft along with enough food to sustain them for a voyage that long?
This, I think, is probably "poetic license" more than good reporting (even
though the Patriarchs and Jewish priests who followed them were pretty good
reporters, and very honest, for the most part). I certainly don't believe
such a foolish notion.
> Then in the book of Joshua, we have the Israelites passing through
> kingdoms which wouldn't exist for another thousand years.
The historical record is always behind the Biblical record, until honest
archaeologists go in and start digging. Then they usually find that the
Biblical record agrees with the historical record.
> We also have
> Joshua attacking Jericho, a city which had been abandoned for 500 years
> at the time of the Exodus.
>
> Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> crucifixion.
In the first place, Christ is not a "figure". Well, He is, in a way, since
He is referred to as the "express Ikon" (holy image) of God in the New
Testament Greek. But the God-Man Who is called Jesus Christ IS still a
Sentient Being, not a "lifeless figure".
Reasonable men who study the Bible do not see that the Apostles disagree,
but rather believe that each Apostle gives his own perspective of what he
saw, even down to small details. This is a proof of its veracity, not a
proof of its artificial construction. That the apparent "disagreements"
have continually remained in the Scriptures while the basic story has
remained the same for 2,000 years is proof of the Church's good-will and
total honesty before men. To my way of thinking, this is a much more
reasonable position to take if one wants to prove his veracity. Good or
bad, a man is usually inclined to take the word of a sincere man rather than
the word of a skeptic.
And that men still find fault with them is only proof to me of their closed
minds and hearts (open-minded as they may protest to being notwithstanding),
since all the Apostles agree on the important events (the Crucifixion and
Resurrection events) they each reported as they actually experienced them.
Remember that Greek is a very precise language. The writers of the New
Testament used the Aorist form of verbs when they reported the events. This
means that even as they wrote they were experiencing them in their minds and
hearts as if it were the actual moment they experienced them.
These men were "on fire" for Christ, my friend, not "pansies" like many
modern Christians. They were every one of them willing to sacrifice their
lives for the cause of Christ and the events they reported. Very few men
are willing to sacrifice their lives for a lie. These simple farmers and
fishermen were no different. Yet EVERY ONE OF THEM went to a horrible death
(except St. John the Beloved, who died in his sleep, and an old man full of
days) for his love and devotion to what you so glibly consider a "lie" or
"delusion".
They certainly didn't think of Christ as "a figure", capitalized or not.
They saw Him in their hearts and minds continually as the Loving Man He
truly is. And they saw the events they reported on in the same way. And so
many others met the same fate in the various public places of the Roman
Empire. All for a burning devotion to a Man Who unapologetically claimed to
be God, and for the ones who originally reported on the events of His Life
and Death. No my friend, these men and women were not deluded. They each
one of them went WILLINGLY to their deaths, proclaiming the Name of Jesus
until the moment they gave up the ghost. They will receive their just
reward when Christ returns. And so will the skeptics and antichrists.
There might be (and probably are) mistakes entered into the records of the
Hebrews and Christians (after all, one of our forefathers wrote "The Gospel
of Peter" (a highly-colorful, even "fantastic", and definitely apocryphal,
record of the events in the Bible and those which followed the Ascension of
Christ), which was very popular in its own time.)
It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a few errors or "edits" would
creep into the record over a few thousand years.
That the Judeo-Christian scriptures have pretty much remained unchanged for
almost 6,000 years, only shows me the editors were pretty much convinced of
the validity and veracity of the records they had before them.
However, the minor points of apparent disagreement (mostly literary "color",
usually) will never convince me of the untruth of the events recorded in the
Bible, most especially the record of the life, death, and Resurrection of
Christ, which is engraved on my heart (and the hearts of billions more
through the centuries) for Eternity.
>
> Shall I go on?
>
> And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
> is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> idiotic religion.
Personally, I don't believe anything written by men to be "perfect", since I
consider only God to be Perfect. No, anything touched by men is bound to
contain defects here and there. But it is the official position of the
Church I love, so I repeat it. What is really surprising to me is that the
text has been pretty much kept intact by the various scribes and publishers
since the time of the Apostles. To me, this is one of the major reasons for
believing that an intelligent Being has been behind its writing and
transmission through the centuries.
The Apostle Paul does teach us that "to those who are perishing, the Gospel
seems like foolishness". He also teaches that the wicked simply can't see
the truth of the Scriptures, because their minds are blinded by the god of
this age. We should pray for them, rather than try to humiliate them, as I
sometimes find myself (and see others) doing (I am a human being, after all.
It's easy for a man to respond to insults with more insults, rather than
understanding and compassion, which Christ demands of us.)
Anyway, my brother is trying to get me away from my computer, so I will end
it here.
Alan Baker
Why is it that you people can never bother to do a little check before
coming out with the ignorance...
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/revision-history.html>
"The Jargon File (hereafter referred to as jargon-1 or the File) was
begun by Raphael Finkel at Stanford in 1975. From this time until the
plug was finally pulled on the SAIL computer in 1991, the File was named
AIWORD.RF[UP,DOC] there. Some terms in it date back considerably earlier
(frob and some senses of moby, for instance, go back to the Tech Model
Railroad Club at MIT and are believed to date at least back to the early
1960s). The revisions of jargon-1 were all unnumbered and may be
collectively considered Version 1."
>
> >
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/V/vaporware.html
> >
> > Sounds like a PERFECT description of Vista.
>
> If you were in the Microsoft Beta program (or the Microsoft Developer
> Network), you certainly wouldn't think it was "vaporware".
Being in beta doesn't preclude a piece of software from being vaporware.
>
> Anyway, I was finally able to download that page. And I simply disagree
> with his definition, as do many, many others. So, "more authoritative" in
> this case means absolutely nothing. I consider only ONE written work to be
> "more authoritative" than another, or "PERFECT", as you claim your
> definition is: The Holy Bible of Historical Christianity.
Spare us the constant references to your superstitions.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
ed
> In article <BFB34A6D.4B44%ortho...@mac.com>,
> Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Anyway, I was finally able to download that page. And I simply disagree
> > with his definition, as do many, many others. So, "more authoritative" in
> > this case means absolutely nothing. I consider only ONE written work to be
> > "more authoritative" than another, or "PERFECT", as you claim your
> > definition is: The Holy Bible of Historical Christianity.
>
> Yeah, the Bible is "Perfect" all right.
>
> "And Cain knew his wife". Where the fuck did SHE come from? I mean, if
> you accept the nonsense that the first man and the first woman were Adam
> and Eve, and Eve had two sons, Cain and Able, unless Cain was screwing a
> sheep (the cute one, though, with the pretty pink ribbon) there were no
> women in the world.
um, sure there were- adam and eve had daughters as well. and more than
two sons. you'd make a much more effective bible basher if you'd
actually read the thing george...
<snip>
> Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> crucifixion.
why's that a big deal? you take 10 eye witnesses to a bank robbery
that happened an hour ago and you'll get 10 different stories. i don't
believe the bible is rooted in fact, but the gospels are basically
supposed to be different individuals perspectives on events. it'd be
dumb to expect them not to differ.
> Shall I go on?
>
> And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
> is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> idiotic religion.
perfect means different things to different people
Donald
gmgraves-B38DED...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
To a reasonable man, I will usually be reasonable, as the reasonable men in
here have found out. But to an unreasonable man, I will almost always be
unreasonable. Why not try reasoning with me, rather than insulting me over
and over.
>>
>> F***ing liar! I no more believe your "Just asking. Not making any odious
>> suggestions" statement than I believe Christ said He won't return one day.
>
> Wow! Chill-out buddy. I thought all you Christers were supposed to love
> everybody? That's not "love" I detect in you above outburst. Could it be
> that you're a phony Christian just like you seem to be a phony Mac
> advocate? It appears so.
Becoming a Christian doesn't make you into a "saint" suddenly. One must
spend all his life practicing his religion to see any changes. I still get
mad at hateful people (especially those who falsely accuse me), and respond
as I shouldn't, like almost all men. It is one of my faults, of which I
have many, and for which I pray continually for God's help in overcoming
them. Try being a little less hateful. It will pay dividends with me in the
end. St. Paul was cursed with my same character defect. It led to his
stoning a few times, I am afraid. But Christ was still His Lord and Savior
till his dying day. I have no doubt that he will be standing close to
Christ when I next see him.
>
>> But I have to get through all the insults of the various Mac Fanatics to get
>> into a reasonable discussion about the relative merits of Macs and Wintels.
>
> I didn't insult you above. I asked why you are here if you are an OS
> agnostic. You're the one who flared.
What do you expect after implying and calling me a liar over and over,
roses?
>
>> Don't any Mac users know how to read the headers of a posting? Anyone
>> reading my posts can see that I am posting using Entourage (a Mac program)
>> to post from. Don't you realize that this means that I have SOME access to
>> Macs?
>
> I never said that you didn't. I just said that I wished for you to
> clarify your reasons for posting here and I get called, not just a liar,
> but a fucking liar for my trouble.
Can't you even keep track of your own statements? In one part of this post
you imply that I am a "phony" Mac user. Yet in this part of your post you
accept the fact that I do use a Mac. Which one is it? Please make up your
mind.
And you haven't accused me of being a liar? F***ing hypocrite!
In the first place, my motives are none of your business. The only thing
which should matter to you are the veracity of my words.
But just so you will know: I am currently interested in the Mac platform,
since my computer is a Mac. Therefore, I like to talk with other Mac users
about computers. When I was using a Wintel, I communicated with Window
users. But I certainly can't stand fanatics of any kind, whether they are
Mac or Wintel users.
>
>> The fact is, I am a former Wintel user who now uses a PowerMac G5 as his
>> "everyday" machine rather than a Wintel, because my brother, a Mac user,
>> gave me his year-old G5, and has been encouraging me to use it (if not
>> teaching me how to use it).
>
> Yeah, yeah, we've heard this line before from you at least a dozen
> times. What is it supposed to prove?
Well, I would assume that it proves exactly what I am saying. I use a Mac.
Whether I "advocate" Macs or not is completely irrelevant. That is a
personal decision each person has to make for himself. But I will NEVER
"advocate" for anything men do apart from Christ. I "advocate" for a
Person, not a thing, whether it is a Mac or a Wintel. "Things" come and
go, but Christ never changes.
>
>> I have the ability to go back to the Wintel, if I so desire. I'm happy with
>> my Mac (if not the Usenet clients for Macs or Mac Fanatics). Happy enough
>> to not go back to the Wintel platform. The fact is, I haven't used a Wintel
>> for months. This does NOT mean that I suddenly decided that Microsoft or
>> Wintels are trash. I'm a reasonable man.
>
> An assertion NOT in evidence.
Read my header, stud. You will see that I am not posting from a PC, if
there is even one honest bone in your body left. Is there? I wonder...
>
>> I recognize the merits of both
>> platforms, since both platforms have something to recommend them.
>
> Good for you.
You can't admit the truth, so you try to make light of it. Pfft!
>
>> It only
>> means that I have gotten into the habit of using my Mac every day.
>>
>> So your insult is misplaced, and actually falls on deaf ears, dude.
>
> It must fall on dumb ears as well. For while I can and have insulted
> you, I was not trying to insult you with my question. Your reaction to
> my question, does, however, speak volumes about you.
I don't believe you. I personally believe that you WERE trying to insult me,
in a round-about-way, since you are basically a coward, so that you could
make yourself look "good", even though you are actually a poisonous snake.
Donald
gmgraves-94DF9C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
That is the EXACT proof that you ARE a Mac Fanatic. You are so in love with
yourself and your toy that you can't even consider that another person might
have different motivations for buying a compter than you.
>>>
>>> That's my feeling as well. Any interest I have in that area is purely
>>> academic.
>>>
>>>> Also, I simply fail to care whether most people just can't afford to buy
>>>> Macs. It is not my business what other people can or can't afford.
>>
>> Evidently neither does Steve Jobs.
>>
>>>
>>> Or what they use. Prefer the PC? Use it good health. I don't want to
>>> convert you or anybody, for that matter.
>>
>>
>> Thanks, George: That's really "big" of you. Now stop insulting Wintel (or
>> new ex-Wintel) users when they come into this forum.
>
> When they come with a chip on their shoulders like 99.999% of them, I
> WILL insult them. When they make stupid remarks, or wear their idiotic
> religious beliefs on their sleeves, I will ridicule them.
Man, the chip on your shoulder is so big you could build a three-storey
house with it. You should complain.
>
>> But that is definitely not the attitude of several Mac users who regularly
>> post here, nor is it the attitude of Steve Jobs. I'm sure he goes to bed
>> every night wondering why he can't capture the Wintel crowd with his
>> "elegant" machines."
>
> I doubt that. I doubt that very seriously.
Tim Smith
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> Personally, I don't believe anything written by men to be "perfect", since I
> consider only God to be Perfect. No, anything touched by men is bound to
> contain defects here and there. But it is the official position of the
> Church I love, so I repeat it. What is really surprising to me is that the
> text has been pretty much kept intact by the various scribes and publishers
> since the time of the Apostles. To me, this is one of the major reasons for
The text hasn't been kept anywhere near intact. Whole books were
deleted. for example (at least from Christian versions...some of them
were kept in the Koran).
--
--Tim Smith
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
You really can't be this naive, can you? (on second thought, knowing
your religious delusions, I guess you can be). I'll explain this once
and then give up.
This is a MACINTOSH newsgroup. I come here to talk about Macintosh
(mostly). If Wintrolls didn't come here and post, I'd never mention
Windows or how lousy it is (because I don't give a damn about Windows
and how lousy it is). But you see, Wintrolls DO come here, and they all
come here with the attitude (if not the actual thread heading) that
"Macs Suck." Now if that's not a chip on their shoulder, I don't know
what is. And with that attitude, is it any wonder that they don't get
welcomed with open arms? In other words of few syllables, so that there
is no mistake here, They do not come to this NG to discuss anything.
They come here to denigrate, ridicule, and TROLL. But this is an NG for
Mac users, I am a Mac user. Wintrolls largely are not. Do you "get it"
now?
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
Let me rephrase that last statement of yours. I don't CARE that another
person might have different motives for buying a computer, and the fact
that they do is certainly no cause for them to come here and tell Mac
users about it. Most of them DON'T CARE either! Most of us simply aren't
interested in what Windows PC users do.
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
I thought that was what I was doing.
>
> >>
> >> F***ing liar! I no more believe your "Just asking. Not making any odious
> >> suggestions" statement than I believe Christ said He won't return one day.
> >
> > Wow! Chill-out buddy. I thought all you Christers were supposed to love
> > everybody? That's not "love" I detect in you above outburst. Could it be
> > that you're a phony Christian just like you seem to be a phony Mac
> > advocate? It appears so.
>
> Becoming a Christian doesn't make you into a "saint" suddenly. One must
> spend all his life practicing his religion to see any changes. I still get
> mad at hateful people (especially those who falsely accuse me), and respond
> as I shouldn't, like almost all men. It is one of my faults, of which I
> have many, and for which I pray continually for God's help in overcoming
> them.
There's an old saying. You might take it to heart: "Try praying in one
hand and crapping in the other, and notice which one gets full first."
The meaning of that little homily is that your fate and the solutions to
your problems are in YOUR hands, not some erstwhile god's hands. In
other words, instead of praying to some dubious god, WORK on your
problems yourself. After all, even your religion teaches that your god
helps those who help themselves.
> Try being a little less hateful.
I don't hate you (I don't even know you), I just hate religion, all
religion. Religion is evil, and I don't appreciate having my nose rubbed
in yours every time I try to have a conversation with you. It OFFENDS me
mightily, so I offend you back. You want to believe in this nonsense, be
my guest, but kindly keep the crap to yourself. I simply cannot take you
seriously when you start Bible-thumping. Its just disgusting.
> It will pay dividends with me in the
> end. St. Paul was cursed with my same character defect. It led to his
> stoning a few times, I am afraid. But Christ was still His Lord and Savior
> till his dying day. I have no doubt that he will be standing close to
> Christ when I next see him.
See, you're doing it again! I don't give a damn about St. Paul. I don't
care that some mythical Jew was his "Lord and Savior." And I certainly
don't want a sermon about it from you in every post!
> >
> >> But I have to get through all the insults of the various Mac Fanatics to
> >> get
> >> into a reasonable discussion about the relative merits of Macs and
> >> Wintels.
> >
> > I didn't insult you above. I asked why you are here if you are an OS
> > agnostic. You're the one who flared.
>
> What do you expect after implying and calling me a liar over and over,
> roses?
Please show where I called you a liar?
> >> Don't any Mac users know how to read the headers of a posting? Anyone
> >> reading my posts can see that I am posting using Entourage (a Mac program)
> >> to post from. Don't you realize that this means that I have SOME access
> >> to
> >> Macs?
> >
> > I never said that you didn't. I just said that I wished for you to
> > clarify your reasons for posting here and I get called, not just a liar,
> > but a fucking liar for my trouble.
>
> Can't you even keep track of your own statements? In one part of this post
> you imply that I am a "phony" Mac user. Yet in this part of your post you
> accept the fact that I do use a Mac. Which one is it? Please make up your
> mind.
I was wondering aloud. You act like a phony Christian (like most other
so-called Christians), so maybe you're a phony Mac user too?
>
> And you haven't accused me of being a liar? F***ing hypocrite!
>
> In the first place, my motives are none of your business. The only thing
> which should matter to you are the veracity of my words.
What words? Your Bible-thumping? Who are you trying to convince with
that crap, anyway? Other people or yourself?
> But just so you will know: I am currently interested in the Mac platform,
> since my computer is a Mac. Therefore, I like to talk with other Mac users
> about computers. When I was using a Wintel, I communicated with Window
> users. But I certainly can't stand fanatics of any kind, whether they are
> Mac or Wintel users.
That's ironic coming from a religious fanatic like yourself who cannot
stop Bible-thumping for even a day. You're eat-up with this religious
crap and if that isn't fanaticism, I don't know what is!
> >> The fact is, I am a former Wintel user who now uses a PowerMac G5 as his
> >> "everyday" machine rather than a Wintel, because my brother, a Mac user,
> >> gave me his year-old G5, and has been encouraging me to use it (if not
> >> teaching me how to use it).
> >
> > Yeah, yeah, we've heard this line before from you at least a dozen
> > times. What is it supposed to prove?
>
> Well, I would assume that it proves exactly what I am saying. I use a Mac.
> Whether I "advocate" Macs or not is completely irrelevant. That is a
> personal decision each person has to make for himself. But I will NEVER
> "advocate" for anything men do apart from Christ. I "advocate" for a
> Person, not a thing, whether it is a Mac or a Wintel. "Things" come and
> go, but Christ never changes.
See what I mean? You are a religious fanatic. You literally can't stop!
> >> I have the ability to go back to the Wintel, if I so desire. I'm happy
> >> with
> >> my Mac (if not the Usenet clients for Macs or Mac Fanatics). Happy enough
> >> to not go back to the Wintel platform. The fact is, I haven't used a
> >> Wintel
> >> for months. This does NOT mean that I suddenly decided that Microsoft or
> >> Wintels are trash. I'm a reasonable man.
> >
> > An assertion NOT in evidence.
>
> Read my header, stud. You will see that I am not posting from a PC, if
> there is even one honest bone in your body left. Is there? I wonder...
I don't care what you post from. It doesn't mean a thing. I go by what
you say, not by what you post from. Hell, for all I know you might have
to use a Mac at work and that's where you get access to it. You wouldn't
be the first Wintroll to come here pretending to be a Mac advocate when
you weren't.
> >> I recognize the merits of both
> >> platforms, since both platforms have something to recommend them.
> >
> > Good for you.
>
> You can't admit the truth, so you try to make light of it. Pfft!
What truth? That you find merit in both systems? I don't care what
merits Windows has. Whether it has merits or not is simply irrelevant to
me.
> >> It only
> >> means that I have gotten into the habit of using my Mac every day.
> >>
> >> So your insult is misplaced, and actually falls on deaf ears, dude.
> >
> > It must fall on dumb ears as well. For while I can and have insulted
> > you, I was not trying to insult you with my question. Your reaction to
> > my question, does, however, speak volumes about you.
>
> I don't believe you. I personally believe that you WERE trying to insult me,
> in a round-about-way, since you are basically a coward, so that you could
> make yourself look "good", even though you are actually a poisonous snake.
Believe what you will. I really don't give a shit.
George Graves
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <BFB34A6D.4B44%ortho...@mac.com>,
> > Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Anyway, I was finally able to download that page. And I simply disagree
> > > with his definition, as do many, many others. So, "more authoritative"
> > > in
> > > this case means absolutely nothing. I consider only ONE written work to
> > > be
> > > "more authoritative" than another, or "PERFECT", as you claim your
> > > definition is: The Holy Bible of Historical Christianity.
> >
> > Yeah, the Bible is "Perfect" all right.
> >
> > "And Cain knew his wife". Where the fuck did SHE come from? I mean, if
> > you accept the nonsense that the first man and the first woman were Adam
> > and Eve, and Eve had two sons, Cain and Able, unless Cain was screwing a
> > sheep (the cute one, though, with the pretty pink ribbon) there were no
> > women in the world.
>
> um, sure there were- adam and eve had daughters as well.
Would you like to show me the chapter and verse where the Old Testament
says that Adam and Eve had more than the two sons? I'd love to see it.
In Genesis 4, verses 1 and 2 it says: And Adam knew Eve, his wife, and
she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the
Lord. And she again bare his brother Able. And Able was a keeper of
sheep but Cain was a tiller of the Land.
That's it. That's the full extent of the Bible's treatment of the
subject of Adam and Eve's offspring.
> and more than
> two sons. you'd make a much more effective bible basher if you'd
> actually read the thing george...
I have read it. Probably more than you have.
I know that some worthy in the 4th century wrote a book called the
"Story of Adam of Eve" and some early Bibles included it, and supposedly
it fleshes out the family with daughters and more sons (9 in all I
believe) but it has no provenance in Hebrew scripture.
> <snip>
having no answers for the Noah's Ark story's discrepancies, He simply
skips them...
> > Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> > Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> > totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> > crucifixion.
>
> why's that a big deal? you take 10 eye witnesses to a bank robbery
> that happened an hour ago and you'll get 10 different stories. i don't
> believe the bible is rooted in fact, but the gospels are basically
> supposed to be different individuals perspectives on events. it'd be
> dumb to expect them not to differ.
Yet you say that it is "Perfect." Odd hypocrisy that allows for such
glaring errors in a "perfect" text.
> > Shall I go on?
> >
> > And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
> > is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> > idiotic religion.
>
> perfect means different things to different people
No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
But the paragraphs above it or below it don't say that your silly god
ever did it again. He might have, but the scriptures don't reflect it.
I'm just showing the errors in the Bible, I'm not trying to second-guess
about what ISN'T stated in the myth. BTW, you actually believe that the
creation happened as it is described in Genesis don't you?
> > In the 6th chapter of Genesis, it says: "And of every living thing of
> > all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them
> > alive with thee; they shall be male and female."
>
> This is, I believe, the oldest version of the story, since it is the most
> reasonable one. That the Flood story has authority is proven by its
> existence (in one form or another -- the names might be changed, but the
> story remains substantially the same in each version) in almost every
> culture on the face of the Earth. This could only be because it truly
> refers to a single actual historical and completely factual event, the
> telling of which became confused with other traditions added to the story as
> it was being orally passed down from father to son, or uncle to nephew, or
> mother to daughter, or priest to priest for thousands of years.
This is all the proof that you crackpots require? A commonality of myth?
First of all, the earth is a closed hydrosphere. With but very small
losses due to sublimation, all the water that's ever been on this earth
or in it is still here. There is not enough water in the system to flood
the world. There never has been. Period.
>
> >
> > But then, in Chapter 7, it says: "Of every clean beast thou shall take
> > to thee by sevens, the male and his female, and of beasts which are not
> > clean by two, the male and the female.
>
> This was added thousands of years later by the priest-editors (whoever they
> were) who first put together the various written and oral records of the
> Patriarchs since Noah and those who followed to create the Old Testament as
> we find it today. No reasonable man could come to any other conclusion.
But its still a discrepancy, an error. Which is all I'm trying to show.
You don't need to apologize for these errors, after all, you didn't make
them.
>
> And no reasonable Christian has any other opinion about the matter. I am
> well-aware of the Fundamentalist beliefs. I just don't hold them.
>
> > Now, which is it? By two or by seven? Oh yes, while you're at it you
> > might explain how even two of every creature is going to fit on a boat
> > that's 450 ft long, with a beam of 75 ft, and a height from the keel of
> > 45 ft along with enough food to sustain them for a voyage that long?
>
> This, I think, is probably "poetic license" more than good reporting (even
> though the Patriarchs and Jewish priests who followed them were pretty good
> reporters, and very honest, for the most part). I certainly don't believe
> such a foolish notion.
Again, no need to apologize or explain. But I do have a question. Do you
actually believe that there was an ark and that the ark carried
specimens of every living creature? If so, how big do you reckon it
would have to be?
>
> > Then in the book of Joshua, we have the Israelites passing through
> > kingdoms which wouldn't exist for another thousand years.
>
> The historical record is always behind the Biblical record, until honest
> archaeologists go in and start digging. Then they usually find that the
> Biblical record agrees with the historical record.
No, it doesn't. And most Biblical Archaeologists are Biblical scholars
trying to PROVE the Bible is correct. So you are right about the need
for honest ones. I.E., those without an agenda.
> > We also have
> > Joshua attacking Jericho, a city which had been abandoned for 500 years
> > at the time of the Exodus.
> >
> > Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> > Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> > totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> > crucifixion.
>
> In the first place, Christ is not a "figure". Well, He is, in a way, since
> He is referred to as the "express Ikon" (holy image) of God in the New
> Testament Greek. But the God-Man Who is called Jesus Christ IS still a
> Sentient Being, not a "lifeless figure".
Only to religious crackpots. To less jaundiced minds, Christ is a
mythical character with absolutely no provenance.
> Reasonable men who study the Bible do not see that the Apostles disagree,
> but rather believe that each Apostle gives his own perspective of what he
> saw, even down to small details. This is a proof of its veracity, not a
> proof of its artificial construction. That the apparent "disagreements"
> have continually remained in the Scriptures while the basic story has
> remained the same for 2,000 years is proof of the Church's good-will and
> total honesty before men. To my way of thinking, this is a much more
> reasonable position to take if one wants to prove his veracity. Good or
> bad, a man is usually inclined to take the word of a sincere man rather than
> the word of a skeptic.
How about the word of a fanatic such as yourself?
> And that men still find fault with them is only proof to me of their closed
> minds and hearts (open-minded as they may protest to being notwithstanding),
> since all the Apostles agree on the important events (the Crucifixion and
> Resurrection events) they each reported as they actually experienced them.
> Remember that Greek is a very precise language. The writers of the New
> Testament used the Aorist form of verbs when they reported the events. This
> means that even as they wrote they were experiencing them in their minds and
> hearts as if it were the actual moment they experienced them.
>
> These men were "on fire" for Christ, my friend, not "pansies" like many
> modern Christians. They were every one of them willing to sacrifice their
> lives for the cause of Christ and the events they reported. Very few men
> are willing to sacrifice their lives for a lie. These simple farmers and
> fishermen were no different. Yet EVERY ONE OF THEM went to a horrible death
> (except St. John the Beloved, who died in his sleep, and an old man full of
> days) for his love and devotion to what you so glibly consider a "lie" or
> "delusion".
Its too bad they couldn't stamp out this stupid religion along with the
fanatics who went to a "horrible death."
>
> They certainly didn't think of Christ as "a figure", capitalized or not.
> They saw Him in their hearts and minds continually as the Loving Man He
> truly is. And they saw the events they reported on in the same way. And so
> many others met the same fate in the various public places of the Roman
> Empire. All for a burning devotion to a Man Who unapologetically claimed to
> be God, and for the ones who originally reported on the events of His Life
> and Death. No my friend, these men and women were not deluded. They each
> one of them went WILLINGLY to their deaths, proclaiming the Name of Jesus
> until the moment they gave up the ghost. They will receive their just
> reward when Christ returns. And so will the skeptics and antichrists.
There you go, preaching again. I merely pointed out that the Bible
wasn't perfect, I certainly didn't ask for this sermon. Just shows the
depth of your fanaticism.
> There might be (and probably are) mistakes entered into the records of the
> Hebrews and Christians (after all, one of our forefathers wrote "The Gospel
> of Peter" (a highly-colorful, even "fantastic", and definitely apocryphal,
> record of the events in the Bible and those which followed the Ascension of
> Christ), which was very popular in its own time.)
Why has not your all powerful god corrected them? Could it be because
such a deity is myth?
>
> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a few errors or "edits" would
> creep into the record over a few thousand years.
>
> That the Judeo-Christian scriptures have pretty much remained unchanged for
> almost 6,000 years, only shows me the editors were pretty much convinced of
> the validity and veracity of the records they had before them.
Well, they were wrong. Such is the blindness of fanaticism.
>
> However, the minor points of apparent disagreement (mostly literary "color",
> usually) will never convince me of the untruth of the events recorded in the
> Bible, most especially the record of the life, death, and Resurrection of
> Christ, which is engraved on my heart (and the hearts of billions more
> through the centuries) for Eternity.
Actually, until you die. Then you get the endless oblivion of the rest
of us. Too bad I won't be able to whisper to you, "I told you so."
>
> >
> > Shall I go on?
> >
> > And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
> > is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> > idiotic religion.
>
> Personally, I don't believe anything written by men to be "perfect", since I
> consider only God to be Perfect.
Then why, in the previous post to the one to which you are now
responding, did you say that the Bible was perfect? Crawdading a bit,
are we?
> No, anything touched by men is bound to
> contain defects here and there. But it is the official position of the
> Church I love, so I repeat it. What is really surprising to me is that the
> text has been pretty much kept intact by the various scribes and publishers
> since the time of the Apostles. To me, this is one of the major reasons for
> believing that an intelligent Being has been behind its writing and
> transmission through the centuries.
No, mindlessness is your reason for believing the irrational, the
impossible and the highly unlikely.
> The Apostle Paul does teach us that "to those who are perishing, the Gospel
> seems like foolishness".
I always thought this was a very clever bit of creative CYA (cover your
ass) on the part of the early church. It defuses any rational argument
against the irrational nature of religion by simply anticipating it.
Very good.
> He also teaches that the wicked simply can't see
> the truth of the Scriptures, because their minds are blinded by the god of
> this age. We should pray for them, rather than try to humiliate them, as I
> sometimes find myself (and see others) doing (I am a human being, after all.
> It's easy for a man to respond to insults with more insults, rather than
> understanding and compassion, which Christ demands of us.)
Christ demands nothing as he never existed. Neither does your god.
Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
>
> Anyway, my brother is trying to get me away from my computer, so I will end
> it here.
Thank you.
Flint
> No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
Not necessarilly. That is the prevailing definition *today*. In a
biblical context, "perfect", or "perfection" can also mean completely
equipped for, or suited for a particular task, function, or role. The
"without flaw" qualifier is not a necessary requirement for perfection,
and is often superfluous.
-Rick
Snit
on 12/1/05 2:52 AM:
Do you have any support for your position on this? I would like to see it
if you do.
--
"I'm a troll that pisses off many CSMA regulars" - Tim Adams
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Donald
reply_in_group-ACC...@news1.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
<reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
As if the veracity of anything ever found in the Koran has never been
questioned, even by scholars. I personally question the veracity of every
single scrap of paper a copy of the Koran is inscribed or printed upon,
since what is inscribed there is a phantasm of a deluded mind. Islam since
its very beginning has never been in agreement with the Church of Jesus
Christ about the facts of the Scriptures. They can in no way be considered
as "Christians, but different Christians". Their doctrine is strictly "in
the spirit of the antichrist", by the clear definition of the word given by
St. John in his Letter now called "1 John". No one who is an antichrist has
any part of Christ or His Church.
The Canon of the Scriptures was decided upon by the mutual consent of all
the presiding bishops in the then known world. At least the Canon was
decided upon by the majority of all those present, if not by "all" the
presiding bishops in the then-known world. I assume that if they had
actually all been there, they would have filled the Super Dome and more, and
one of their sessions would have created more noise and rioting than a
British soccer team who just won the championship (or lost it. It doesn't
seem to matter with European soccer fans. They will take either outcome as
an occasion to create havoc and guzzle gallons of beer.)
Anyway, the Canon was decided upon even with rather strict criteria for
adding or removing a book (or books). Many books, those we now call
"apocryphal", didn't pass the test of Apostolic authorship or inspiration
(probably the most important criterion), so they were culled to keep the
Apostolic Doctrine as pure as possible.
Donald
gmgraves-BC815E...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
So you actually admit that you don't want a discussion about the relative
merits of Macs versus Wintels. Under those circumstances, how can you
"advocate for Macs" to anyone else other than other Mac users. So I guess
you are being a very poor "Mac advocate", aren't you, since you are only
giving back to the choir that which was previously given to you by the same
choir?
Well, at least you're honest about your lack of willingness to ever
understand any other view than your own, even though you don't actually
understand just what you are saying, or how bigoted you are being. But it
still reveals to me your dull mind and poor spirit, the state of your lack
of understanding in general notwithstanding.
Snit
BFB41824.4CEC%ortho...@mac.com on 12/1/05 4:01 AM:
>> Let me rephrase that last statement of yours. I don't CARE that another
>> person might have different motives for buying a computer, and the fact
>> that they do is certainly no cause for them to come here and tell Mac
>> users about it. Most of them DON'T CARE either! Most of us simply aren't
>> interested in what Windows PC users do.
>
> So you actually admit that you don't want a discussion about the relative
> merits of Macs versus Wintels. Under those circumstances, how can you
> "advocate for Macs" to anyone else other than other Mac users. So I guess
> you are being a very poor "Mac advocate", aren't you, since you are only
> giving back to the choir that which was previously given to you by the same
> choir?
Worse than that - once he realized that even though I am a Mac advocate I do
not deny the weaknesses of the platform nor the strengths of others he put
me in his KF. Sad, really.
>
> Well, at least you're honest about your lack of willingness to ever
> understand any other view than your own, even though you don't actually
> understand just what you are saying, or how bigoted you are being. But it
> still reveals to me your dull mind and poor spirit, the state of your lack
> of understanding in general notwithstanding.
--
I know, this shows how weak my game really is. -- Steve Carroll
Donald
gmgraves-B45175...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
For which I sincerely apologize. I got a little too zealous and frustrated
there for a moment, and spoke unreasonably. Christ will reward or punish me
as I deserve.
Nevertheless, I felt at the time (and still feel) that you were attempting
to lay a trap for me rather than gain any understanding of me. So I very
naturally called you a liar. That you were being so devious in your
approach only incensed me further, and convinced me of your insincerity even
more. Your subsequent obviously emotional outbursts against Christians only
turned me off to anything you might have to say, because it shows how deeply
entrenched your bigotry really is.
>>
>> Can't you even keep track of your own statements? In one part of this post
>> you imply that I am a "phony" Mac user. Yet in this part of your post you
>> accept the fact that I do use a Mac. Which one is it? Please make up your
>> mind.
>
> I was wondering aloud. You act like a phony Christian (like most other
> so-called Christians), so maybe you're a phony Mac user too?
How would you know what a true Christian is, anyway? You are certainly no
Biblical scholar or saint yourself. Therefore, you certainly are no
reliable authority on the matter. Only a true Christian (or God) can
recognize another true Christian (or phony one). Anyone else will only get
an uneasy feeling when they come into contact with true Christians.
>>
>> And you haven't accused me of being a liar? F***ing hypocrite!
>>
>> In the first place, my motives are none of your business. The only thing
>> which should matter to you are the veracity of my words.
>
> What words? Your Bible-thumping? Who are you trying to convince with
> that crap, anyway? Other people or yourself?
>
>> But just so you will know: I am currently interested in the Mac platform,
>> since my computer is a Mac. Therefore, I like to talk with other Mac users
>> about computers. When I was using a Wintel, I communicated with Window
>> users. But I certainly can't stand fanatics of any kind, whether they are
>> Mac or Wintel users.
>
> That's ironic coming from a religious fanatic like yourself who cannot
> stop Bible-thumping for even a day. You're eat-up with this religious
> crap and if that isn't fanaticism, I don't know what is!
And you aren't eaten up by your fanaticism? I spoke well to call you a
hypocrite.
There is just no pleasing you, is there? You are what the Bible refers to
as "intransigent". I give you what you claim you want, and you use it as a
spring-board to insult me again rather than gain understanding of me. This
is the common behavior of most anti-Christians, so don't feel alone. This
is why many Christians stay away from anti-Christians as much as possible.
After all, no one wants to be continually insulted. But I've gotten a
pretty thick skin after 40 years of being a Christian and advocate for
Christ, so it really doesn't bother me as it used to.
>
>>>> The fact is, I am a former Wintel user who now uses a PowerMac G5 as his
>>>> "everyday" machine rather than a Wintel, because my brother, a Mac user,
>>>> gave me his year-old G5, and has been encouraging me to use it (if not
>>>> teaching me how to use it).
>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah, we've heard this line before from you at least a dozen
>>> times. What is it supposed to prove?
>>
>> Well, I would assume that it proves exactly what I am saying. I use a Mac.
>> Whether I "advocate" Macs or not is completely irrelevant. That is a
>> personal decision each person has to make for himself. But I will NEVER
>> "advocate" for anything men do apart from Christ. I "advocate" for a
>> Person, not a thing, whether it is a Mac or a Wintel. "Things" come and
>> go, but Christ never changes.
>
> See what I mean? You are a religious fanatic. You literally can't stop!
My Christian witness is my right, as your Godless witness is your right.
Don't try to step on my God-given and 1st Amendment rights, bud. I don't
try to deny you yours. Please give me the same respect and you will gain
favor with God and man.
>
>>>> I have the ability to go back to the Wintel, if I so desire. I'm happy
>>>> with
>>>> my Mac (if not the Usenet clients for Macs or Mac Fanatics). Happy enough
>>>> to not go back to the Wintel platform. The fact is, I haven't used a
>>>> Wintel
>>>> for months. This does NOT mean that I suddenly decided that Microsoft or
>>>> Wintels are trash. I'm a reasonable man.
>>>
>>> An assertion NOT in evidence.
>>
>> Read my header, stud. You will see that I am not posting from a PC, if
>> there is even one honest bone in your body left. Is there? I wonder...
>
> I don't care what you post from. It doesn't mean a thing. I go by what
> you say, not by what you post from. Hell, for all I know you might have
> to use a Mac at work and that's where you get access to it. You wouldn't
> be the first Wintroll to come here pretending to be a Mac advocate when
> you weren't.
And you wouldn't be the first hypocrite who claimed he never lied about me
in one breath, and implied that I am a liar the next. Jesus! Man! At least
be consistent in your lies.
I have never once claimed to be a "Mac advocate" since the first day I
posted in this newsgroup, so please stop slandering me with words I never
spoke.
Nor have I ever claimed to be a "Windows advocate". I HAVE claimed to be a
computer advocate, and an advocate for a decent Mac newsreader, and always
an advocate for Christ. Always. He is just as much a part of me as my own
heart. I cannot live a life apart from Him. And I certainly don't
apologize for my faith, which I believe many could profit from, if they were
willing to open their hearts and minds.
>
>>>> I recognize the merits of both
>>>> platforms, since both platforms have something to recommend them.
>>>
>>> Good for you.
>>
>> You can't admit the truth, so you try to make light of it. Pfft!
>
> What truth? That you find merit in both systems? I don't care what
> merits Windows has. Whether it has merits or not is simply irrelevant to
> me.
>
>>>> It only
>>>> means that I have gotten into the habit of using my Mac every day.
>>>>
>>>> So your insult is misplaced, and actually falls on deaf ears, dude.
>>>
>>> It must fall on dumb ears as well. For while I can and have insulted
>>> you, I was not trying to insult you with my question. Your reaction to
>>> my question, does, however, speak volumes about you.
>>
>> I don't believe you. I personally believe that you WERE trying to insult me,
>> in a round-about-way, since you are basically a coward, so that you could
>> make yourself look "good", even though you are actually a poisonous snake.
>
> Believe what you will. I really don't give a shit.
That's your problem, my friend: you don't give a shit about anyone but
yourself. I have found that such an attitude will eventually lead to a life
lived in a vacuum, with no real human contact.
Donald
gmgraves-372087...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
That you failed to read further only proves your total lack of
understanding.
The Bible clearly states further on in the same chapter that they had "other
sons and daughters" during their hundreds of years on the earth.
In the New Testament, "perfect" has more a meaning of "mature" than of
"absolute and complete moral and physical perfection". I know of no
professing Christian who believes that anyone but God Himself can be
"perfect" in the absolute sense as long as he is in his corruptible flesh.
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Flint" <age...@section31.org> stated in post vEKdnbWPQM1...@ptd.net
> on 12/1/05 2:52 AM:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> >> No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
> >
> > Not necessarilly. That is the prevailing definition *today*. In a
> > biblical context, "perfect", or "perfection" can also mean completely
> > equipped for, or suited for a particular task, function, or role. The
> > "without flaw" qualifier is not a necessary requirement for perfection,
> > and is often superfluous.
>
> Do you have any support for your position on this? I would like to see it
> if you do.
His "position" (which challenges George's position... that you've chosen
to include in your reply) is simply fact. The word 'perfect
(perfection)' is not limited to meaning "without flaw", particularly in
the aforementioned context. Within a minute, I pulled up:
http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6806
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=perfect&searchmode=none
Before you give your usual display of a severe reading comprehension
problem, notice his qualifier: "In a biblical context,..."
Reading is fundamental, as is comprehension and context. It's a new
day... perhaps you'll take context into consideration for once and not
make a fool of yourself again.
p.s.
It's mind boggling you're calling yourself an IT teacher, hooking up to
the net as long as you claim to have, yet, you still can't/don't use it
to learn these kinds of simple facts.
--
"I would not be a good liar, being that I have little if any practice." - Snit
Donald
gmgraves-63D4F2...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
<gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
I have no doubt but that some errors and exaggerations entered into the text
over the last few thousand years, so I certainly don't apologize for any
errors. And I certainly don't reject the main truths of the Bible because
an ignorant mn 3 thousand years ago thought he would entertain his family
and friends with a more colorful interpretation of the same old Bible. That
he was probably a priest makes no difference, since anyone can get a little
bored after hearing the same story told in the same way over and over for a
thousand years.
>>
>> And no reasonable Christian has any other opinion about the matter. I am
>> well-aware of the Fundamentalist beliefs. I just don't hold them.
>>
>>> Now, which is it? By two or by seven? Oh yes, while you're at it you
>>> might explain how even two of every creature is going to fit on a boat
>>> that's 450 ft long, with a beam of 75 ft, and a height from the keel of
>>> 45 ft along with enough food to sustain them for a voyage that long?
>>
>> This, I think, is probably "poetic license" more than good reporting (even
>> though the Patriarchs and Jewish priests who followed them were pretty good
>> reporters, and very honest, for the most part). I certainly don't believe
>> such a foolish notion.
>
> Again, no need to apologize or explain. But I do have a question. Do you
> actually believe that there was an ark and that the ark carried
> specimens of every living creature? If so, how big do you reckon it
> would have to be?
I believe there was "some" form of escape from the water which came on the
earth for at least Noah and his family, and there was some way all the land
animals were brought through the Flood. That the sea creatures and most
birds were not harmed is pretty evident to any reasonable man, so God
couldn't really have meant that "all flesh" with breath in its nostrils
would perish in an absolute sense, as you try to make it appear. Whether
true and historical events happened exactly as the Bible tells it or not I
don't know, nor am I completely convinced of such an interpretation, since
it does not sound very reasonable on the face of it.
But whether the Patriarchs' report of the Flood Event was exactly as it
happened has absolutely nothing to do with my conviction that Christ and the
Apostles spoke the truth, since my faith does not depend on "miracles" to
support it, as it apparently does for many Fundamentalists (and even
non-Christians). However, extra-natural events I have experienced have
helped to convince me of Christ's reality, since they all pointed to Christ.
I stopped seeking "signs" very early in my Christian experience (all young
Christians go through a phase of comparing their faith and experiences with
other Christians. They hear reports of miracles from other Christians, and
think that seeking for them is something to be desired in a "good
Christian".
Those who eventually discover the truth of the Scriptures for themselves
seldom continue in their search for miracles). That God gave them to me
anyway is proof in my mind of His Kindness and Good Will, as well as His
willingness to bend over backward to keep me from destroying myself.
>>
>>> Then in the book of Joshua, we have the Israelites passing through
>>> kingdoms which wouldn't exist for another thousand years.
>>
>> The historical record is always behind the Biblical record, until honest
>> archaeologists go in and start digging. Then they usually find that the
>> Biblical record agrees with the historical record.
>
> No, it doesn't.
Your protestations not withstanding, this is a fact well-established
nonetheless.
> And most Biblical Archaeologists are Biblical scholars
> trying to PROVE the Bible is correct. So you are right about the need
> for honest ones. I.E., those without an agenda.
Most Biblical Archaeologists have no other agenda than to be recognized by
other Biblical Archaeologists. They are usually trying to prove nothing but
their "superior" knowledge. Such "scholars" are seldom Christians.
>
>>> We also have
>>> Joshua attacking Jericho, a city which had been abandoned for 500 years
>>> at the time of the Exodus.
Many right-thinking and reasonable archaeologists have a different opinion
about what the historical time-line of Jericho should be, many of them being
non-Christians. That some of them are Christians makes their opinions no
less valid than any others.
>>> Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
>>> Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
>>> totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
>>> crucifixion.
>>
>> In the first place, Christ is not a "figure". Well, He is, in a way, since
>> He is referred to as the "express Ikon" (holy image) of God in the New
>> Testament Greek. But the God-Man Who is called Jesus Christ IS still a
>> Sentient Being, not a "lifeless figure".
>
> Only to religious crackpots. To less jaundiced minds, Christ is a
> mythical character with absolutely no provenance.
My mind is "jaundiced"? I am not the one who is displaying any bigotry
here, dude. You've done nothing but display your bigotry toward Christians
on more than one occasion in this discussion. And many of those so-called
"unjaundiced" persons like yourself are more than willing to foully jump on
a Christian, any Christian, the minute he even mentions Christ's name in a
casual manner.
Yet you probably believe that Julius Caesar was a historical person, simply
because the experts YOU agree with say he was. Are you any different than
me or any other Christian? No, not in the least. There is no "real",
"scientific" proof that he ever existed, none any more valid than the
Christian record. And none any more more "real". We all depend on our
various "experts" to give us meaning in life. Antichristians like yourself
are no different than Christians in this respect.
>
>> Reasonable men who study the Bible do not see that the Apostles disagree,
>> but rather believe that each Apostle gives his own perspective of what he
>> saw, even down to small details. This is a proof of its veracity, not a
>> proof of its artificial construction. That the apparent "disagreements"
>> have continually remained in the Scriptures while the basic story has
>> remained the same for 2,000 years is proof of the Church's good-will and
>> total honesty before men. To my way of thinking, this is a much more
>> reasonable position to take if one wants to prove his veracity. Good or
>> bad, a man is usually inclined to take the word of a sincere man rather than
>> the word of a skeptic.
>
> How about the word of a fanatic such as yourself?
I wouldn't know about that, since I am far from being a fanatic of any kind.
I am simply completely convinced of the basic veracity of the Bible.
>
>> And that men still find fault with them is only proof to me of their closed
>> minds and hearts (open-minded as they may protest to being notwithstanding),
>> since all the Apostles agree on the important events (the Crucifixion and
>> Resurrection events) they each reported as they actually experienced them.
>> Remember that Greek is a very precise language. The writers of the New
>> Testament used the Aorist form of verbs when they reported the events. This
>> means that even as they wrote they were experiencing them in their minds and
>> hearts as if it were the actual moment they experienced them.
>>
>> These men were "on fire" for Christ, my friend, not "pansies" like many
>> modern Christians. They were every one of them willing to sacrifice their
>> lives for the cause of Christ and the events they reported. Very few men
>> are willing to sacrifice their lives for a lie. These simple farmers and
>> fishermen were no different. Yet EVERY ONE OF THEM went to a horrible death
>> (except St. John the Beloved, who died in his sleep, and an old man full of
>> days) for his love and devotion to what you so glibly consider a "lie" or
>> "delusion".
>
> Its too bad they couldn't stamp out this stupid religion along with the
> fanatics who went to a "horrible death."
I am sure that is a sentiment that Satan shares at this present time. But
he at least knows that his time is short. In some ways, Satan is wiser than
most human beings, especially the antichrists, evil as he may be.
Those "fanatics", as you call them, were too convinced of the truth of the
events they reported to be easily stomped out. In fact, many, many "strong"
men have tried to "stomp out" Christianity in the 2,000 years it has been on
the earth, but all have grievously failed in their efforts. This is because
people want hope, not skepticism, which holds out no hope. It is also
because of Christ's prophecy that the Church would not cease to exist or be
defeated by Satan, and because of Christ's prayers for us continually since
then.
All others will fail to "stomp out" Christianity, as long as there is even
one Christian left on the face of the earth who is willing to seal his
testimony with his blood. Many times, as a result of their execution, their
executioners were converted to the Faith by the burning devotion of those
they murdered. It has long been a truism in the Church that "the blood of
the martyrs is the seed of the Church", since martyrdoms never failed to
make conversions even as those innocent men were being murdered by the
jeering crowds. No, my friend, the Church will go on unbroken, until Christ
returns.
>>
>> They certainly didn't think of Christ as "a figure", capitalized or not.
>> They saw Him in their hearts and minds continually as the Loving Man He
>> truly is. And they saw the events they reported on in the same way. And so
>> many others met the same fate in the various public places of the Roman
>> Empire. All for a burning devotion to a Man Who unapologetically claimed to
>> be God, and for the ones who originally reported on the events of His Life
>> and Death. No my friend, these men and women were not deluded. They each
>> one of them went WILLINGLY to their deaths, proclaiming the Name of Jesus
>> until the moment they gave up the ghost. They will receive their just
>> reward when Christ returns. And so will the skeptics and antichrists.
>
> There you go, preaching again. I merely pointed out that the Bible
> wasn't perfect, I certainly didn't ask for this sermon. Just shows the
> depth of your fanaticism.
No, stud: you were no more "only pointing out that the Bible wasn't perfect"
than you were proclaiming yourself a Christian. You were "preaching" at me
your brand of fanaticism, just as much as I may have been "preaching" at
you. So don't get on your high horsey: you have no more justification for
doing so then I do.
>
>> There might be (and probably are) mistakes entered into the records of the
>> Hebrews and Christians (after all, one of our forefathers wrote "The Gospel
>> of Peter" (a highly-colorful, even "fantastic", and definitely apocryphal,
>> record of the events in the Bible and those which followed the Ascension of
>> Christ), which was very popular in its own time.)
>
> Why has not your all powerful god corrected them? Could it be because
> such a deity is myth?
The errors of the heretics were corrected long ago by an obedient Church.
That you fail to recognize this truth is no reason to call the God I worship
a "myth". Perhaps you would like to hear me say that the foolishness of all
antichrists such as yourself is no different than a "myth". In fact, it is
actually an out and out lie, much less a "myth". Would you enjoy hearing it
said about you over and over that you are a liar, and deluded? I doubt it.
So how do you like it when others do to you exactly what you do them? Not
pleasant, is it.
>>
>> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a few errors or "edits" would
>> creep into the record over a few thousand years.
>>
>> That the Judeo-Christian scriptures have pretty much remained unchanged for
>> almost 6,000 years, only shows me the editors were pretty much convinced of
>> the validity and veracity of the records they had before them.
>
> Well, they were wrong. Such is the blindness of fanaticism.
Fanatics, heretics, and antichrists come and go, but the Church's true
doctrine will remain unchanged as long as Christ continues interceding for
us.
>>
>> However, the minor points of apparent disagreement (mostly literary "color",
>> usually) will never convince me of the untruth of the events recorded in the
>> Bible, most especially the record of the life, death, and Resurrection of
>> Christ, which is engraved on my heart (and the hearts of billions more
>> through the centuries) for Eternity.
>
> Actually, until you die. Then you get the endless oblivion of the rest
> of us. Too bad I won't be able to whisper to you, "I told you so."
You may or may not have "endless oblivion" after you die, but Christ has
promised me Eternal life in His Presence, and the Presence of His Father,
when I die. In addition, He has promised me a new and incorruptible body.
I certainly could never live very long if I thought that oblivion was all I
had to look forward to. You must really live a desolate and miserable life,
my friend, to have such little hope, and the willingness and zeal to sow
such hopelessness in others.
I certainly won't be able to tell you then that "I told you so", since there
will be an uncrossable separation made between the righteous and the wicked
at that time.
>>
>>>
>>> Shall I go on?
>>>
>>> And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
>>> is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
>>> idiotic religion.
>>
>> Personally, I don't believe anything written by men to be "perfect", since I
>> consider only God to be Perfect.
>
>
> Then why, in the previous post to the one to which you are now
> responding, did you say that the Bible was perfect? Crawdading a bit,
> are we?
>
>> No, anything touched by men is bound to
>> contain defects here and there. But it is the official position of the
>> Church I love, so I repeat it. What is really surprising to me is that the
>> text has been pretty much kept intact by the various scribes and publishers
>> since the time of the Apostles. To me, this is one of the major reasons for
>> believing that an intelligent Being has been behind its writing and
>> transmission through the centuries.
>
> No, mindlessness is your reason for believing the irrational, the
> impossible and the highly unlikely.
Even secular self-help gurus teach that one must be willing to embrace the
irrational, impossible, and highly unlikely to be successful in life. Why
you are so skeptical, I have no idea.
>
>> The Apostle Paul does teach us that "to those who are perishing, the Gospel
>> seems like foolishness".
>
> I always thought this was a very clever bit of creative CYA (cover your
> ass) on the part of the early church. It defuses any rational argument
> against the irrational nature of religion by simply anticipating it.
> Very good.
I guess that it could also prove that God knows how to confound the devious
minds of self-appointed "experts", couldn't it? I just guess it depends on
your perspective about the sincerity of the early (or present day)
Christians.
>
>> He also teaches that the wicked simply can't see
>> the truth of the Scriptures, because their minds are blinded by the god of
>> this age. We should pray for them, rather than try to humiliate them, as I
>> sometimes find myself (and see others) doing (I am a human being, after all.
>> It's easy for a man to respond to insults with more insults, rather than
>> understanding and compassion, which Christ demands of us.)
>
> Christ demands nothing as he never existed. Neither does your god.
> Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
Protesting over and over that Christ never existed is certainly no proof
that He didn't ever exist or that He to this day does not exist. Personally,
I would rather take the word of an ignorant fisherman like St. Peter and
others of the Apostles than a sophisticated skeptic's word like yours, no
matter how intelligent he may outwardly appear to be.
>>
>> Anyway, my brother is trying to get me away from my computer, so I will end
>> it here.
>
> Thank you.
Dave Fritzinger
Snit wrote:
> "Donald" <ortho...@mac.com> stated in post
> BFB41824.4CEC%ortho...@mac.com on 12/1/05 4:01 AM:
>
> >> Let me rephrase that last statement of yours. I don't CARE that another
> >> person might have different motives for buying a computer, and the fact
> >> that they do is certainly no cause for them to come here and tell Mac
> >> users about it. Most of them DON'T CARE either! Most of us simply aren't
> >> interested in what Windows PC users do.
> >
> > So you actually admit that you don't want a discussion about the relative
> > merits of Macs versus Wintels. Under those circumstances, how can you
> > "advocate for Macs" to anyone else other than other Mac users. So I guess
> > you are being a very poor "Mac advocate", aren't you, since you are only
> > giving back to the choir that which was previously given to you by the same
> > choir?
>
> Worse than that - once he realized that even though I am a Mac advocate I do
> not deny the weaknesses of the platform nor the strengths of others he put
> me in his KF. Sad, really.
Snit, you really are being disingenuous here. While you occasionally
make reasonable posts, you know the reason you have been killfiled by
so many people here is the "Snit Circus", and the continuing round of
insults that takes over thread after thread in this group. Hell, an
example of this is in your .sig, below. If you would stop this crap,
you really would have much more credability.
> I know, this shows how weak my game really is. -- Steve Carroll
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
ZnU
John C. Randolph From: <j...@idiom.com> wrote:
> As an Apple shareholder, I can't wait for Vista. The sooner everyone sees
> it and realizes that it just more of the same, with a little bit of UI
> tweaking
> and a couple of half-assed attempts at copying Quartz Extreme and Spotlight,
> the sooner Apple stock will go above $100/share.
>
> Windows Vista will be a tipping point in favor of the Mac.
I think Vista will mostly be a whole lot of nothing. Consumers aren't
paying much attention now, won't pay much attention then, and will
mostly just upgrade to Vista as they buy new systems that come with it
pre-installed. Corporate customers will probably see the whole thing as
just one more hassle to deal with, and will ignore it for at least the
first couple of years.
--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
Steve Mackay
Snit with credibility? You're kidding, right? Why do you think he has
created so many sock puppets? His credibility in this group is shot, so
he needs this artificial "help" to back his positions.
Flint
> On 11/30/05 9:10 PM, in article
> reply_in_group-ACC...@news1.east.earthlink.net, "Tim Smith"
> <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <BFB3A65F.4BFF%ortho...@mac.com>,
>> Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Personally, I don't believe anything written by men to be "perfect", since I
>>>consider only God to be Perfect. No, anything touched by men is bound to
>>>contain defects here and there. But it is the official position of the
>>>Church I love, so I repeat it. What is really surprising to me is that the
>>>text has been pretty much kept intact by the various scribes and publishers
>>>since the time of the Apostles. To me, this is one of the major reasons for
>>
>>The text hasn't been kept anywhere near intact. Whole books were
>>deleted. for example (at least from Christian versions...some of them
>>were kept in the Koran).
>>
>
>
> As if the veracity of anything ever found in the Koran has never been
> questioned, even by scholars. I personally question the veracity of every
> single scrap of paper a copy of the Koran is inscribed or printed upon,
> since what is inscribed there is a phantasm of a deluded mind.
And well you should, since there is mounting evidence that islam is
little more than a plagiarized form christianity that was actually
helped along by excommunicated heretic bishops in nomadic exile.
> Islam since
> its very beginning has never been in agreement with the Church of Jesus
> Christ about the facts of the Scriptures. They can in no way be considered
> as "Christians, but different Christians".
To a myopic fundy xtian mindset, perhaps. But to those of us with the
advantage of being able look at both of your religions from *outside*
the myopic boxes you both live and operate it, you two leopards have
more spots in commonality than difference.
Their doctrine is strictly "in
> the spirit of the antichrist", by the clear definition of the word given by
> St. John in his Letter now called "1 John". No one who is an antichrist has
> any part of Christ or His Church.
Funny, I'm told by xtians themselves Satan himself is the most regular
churchgoer of all.
> The Canon of the Scriptures was decided upon by the mutual consent of all
> the presiding bishops in the then known world...
... who, by that time, were members of the single largest perverted and
corrupted organization claiming to be the church of Jesus. So they
agreed amongst themselves what fairy tales they held in common -
whoopdiedoo! No different than a a bunch of Trekkies hanging out
together after a Trek convention closes down for the day, and they all
get to discussing the best and worst Trek episodes. Its interesting,
but at the end of the day, its also pretty useless...
> At least the Canon was
> decided upon by the majority of all those present, if not by "all" the
> presiding bishops in the then-known world.
A majority approved set of fairy tales and mass delusions - how comforting.
> I assume that if they had
> actually all been there, they would have filled the Super Dome and more, and
> one of their sessions would have created more noise and rioting than a
> British soccer team who just won the championship (or lost it. It doesn't
> seem to matter with European soccer fans. They will take either outcome as
> an occasion to create havoc and guzzle gallons of beer.)
>
> Anyway, the Canon was decided upon even with rather strict criteria for
> adding or removing a book (or books). Many books, those we now call
> "apocryphal", didn't pass the test of Apostolic authorship or inspiration
> (probably the most important criterion), so they were culled to keep the
> Apostolic Doctrine as pure as possible.
So explain then why 'infallible, inspired' King James translation of
1611 which fundies just *loooooooove* to tout as the 'only reeeel
bah-ble' initially *include* the apocryphal books in it's first edition,
only to later take them out?
Flint
> "Flint" <age...@section31.org> stated in post vEKdnbWPQM1...@ptd.net
> on 12/1/05 2:52 AM:
>
>
>>George Graves wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
>>
>>Not necessarilly. That is the prevailing definition *today*. In a
>>biblical context, "perfect", or "perfection" can also mean completely
>>equipped for, or suited for a particular task, function, or role. The
>>"without flaw" qualifier is not a necessary requirement for perfection,
>>and is often superfluous.
>
>
> Do you have any support for your position on this? I would like to see it
> if you do.
Unfortunately, I no longer have the many concordances, lexicons,
interlinear translations, and linquistic analysts' commentaries I once
did. The word perfect has been covered in various social/cultural or
idiomatic contexts. I gave up ancient Aramaic and Koine' Greek for a
much more interesting language.... Mark Ocrand's Klingonese! ;-)
If I get time, I suppose I can research it a bit for you.
-Rick
ed
> In article <1133406993....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> > > In article <BFB34A6D.4B44%ortho...@mac.com>,
> > > Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Anyway, I was finally able to download that page. And I simply disagree
> > > > with his definition, as do many, many others. So, "more authoritative"
> > > > in
> > > > this case means absolutely nothing. I consider only ONE written work to
> > > > be
> > > > "more authoritative" than another, or "PERFECT", as you claim your
> > > > definition is: The Holy Bible of Historical Christianity.
> > >
> > > Yeah, the Bible is "Perfect" all right.
> > >
> > > "And Cain knew his wife". Where the fuck did SHE come from? I mean, if
> > > you accept the nonsense that the first man and the first woman were Adam
> > > and Eve, and Eve had two sons, Cain and Able, unless Cain was screwing a
> > > sheep (the cute one, though, with the pretty pink ribbon) there were no
> > > women in the world.
> >
> > um, sure there were- adam and eve had daughters as well.
>
> Would you like to show me the chapter and verse where the Old Testament
> says that Adam and Eve had more than the two sons?
i don't have a bible in front of me right now, but Seth is explicitly
mentioned by name as a son of adam and eve, and there are other more
generic mentions of additional siblings elsewhere.
> I'd love to see it.
so you should go read a bible. =D
> In Genesis 4, verses 1 and 2 it says: And Adam knew Eve, his wife, and
> she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the
> Lord. And she again bare his brother Able. And Able was a keeper of
> sheep but Cain was a tiller of the Land.
>
> That's it. That's the full extent of the Bible's treatment of the
> subject of Adam and Eve's offspring.
no, no it isn't. you clearly have never read the bible george, and are
simply trumpeting arguments you've heard others make. just did a quick
lookup of the bible on the gutenburg site, and 2 lousy verses down from
what you're quoting":
5:4. And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred
years: and he begot sons and daughters.
> > and more than
> > two sons. you'd make a much more effective bible basher if you'd
> > actually read the thing george...
>
> I have read it. Probably more than you have.
um, that doesn't seem to be the case given your above arguments, eh?
> I know that some worthy in the 4th century wrote a book called the
> "Story of Adam of Eve" and some early Bibles included it, and supposedly
> it fleshes out the family with daughters and more sons (9 in all I
> believe) but it has no provenance in Hebrew scripture.
>
> > <snip>
>
> having no answers for the Noah's Ark story's discrepancies, He simply
> skips them...
why do i need 'answers' for them? as i've stated george, i'm not even
a christian, but if you're going to bash something, at least be
informed and don't just make stuff up!
> > > Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> > > Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> > > totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> > > crucifixion.
> >
> > why's that a big deal? you take 10 eye witnesses to a bank robbery
> > that happened an hour ago and you'll get 10 different stories. i don't
> > believe the bible is rooted in fact, but the gospels are basically
> > supposed to be different individuals perspectives on events. it'd be
> > dumb to expect them not to differ.
>
> Yet you say that it is "Perfect."
and where, oh where, do i say *that*?
> Odd hypocrisy that allows for such
> glaring errors in a "perfect" text.
that would be a "contradiction", and not a "hypocrisy".
> > > Shall I go on?
> > >
> > > And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
> > > is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> > > idiotic religion.
> >
> > perfect means different things to different people
>
> No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
no, it's not. ;D
ed
> "Flint" <age...@section31.org> stated in post vEKdnbWPQM1...@ptd.net
> on 12/1/05 2:52 AM:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> >
> >
> >> No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
> >
> > Not necessarilly. That is the prevailing definition *today*. In a
> > biblical context, "perfect", or "perfection" can also mean completely
> > equipped for, or suited for a particular task, function, or role. The
> > "without flaw" qualifier is not a necessary requirement for perfection,
> > and is often superfluous.
>
> Do you have any support for your position on this? I would like to see it
> if you do.
the usage that flint is referencing here is more than adequately
defined here, even w/out a biblical context:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perfect
ZnU
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> John C. Randolph From: wrote
> (in article <1133262995.568184@smirk>):
>
> > As an Apple shareholder, I can't wait for Vista.
>
> Even the Apple insiders are selling now. Profit taking, anyone?
> Good luck holding it long-term, but you can probably make more
> taking it now and buying back in on the dips.
People always get skittish after price run-ups like AAPL has had.
Looking at the company itself, though, rather than at market dynamics,
suggests there's no particular reason to expect Apple's present growth
to top off soon. I'd guess they're still pretty far from saturating the
iPod's full potential market, rumors are circulating about more forays
into consumer electronics, and the switch to Intel should bring some
healthy unit sales growth to the Mac segment, particularly with laptops.
This doesn't mean the stock price won't drop, of course. Just that if it
does, it won't be for any particularly good reason. The market is
sometimes like that.
Lars Träger
> On 12/1/05 12:30 AM, in article
> gmgraves-BC815E...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
> <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <BFB3B044.4C07%ortho...@mac.com>,
> > Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> I must not be a Mac Fanatic, since I simply fail to care just why
> >>>>>> people buy Wintels in the first place.
> >>
> >> That is the EXACT proof that you ARE a Mac Fanatic. You are so in love
> >> with yourself and your toy that you can't even consider that another
> >> person might have different motivations for buying a compter than you.
> >
> > Let me rephrase that last statement of yours. I don't CARE that another
> > person might have different motives for buying a computer, and the fact
> > that they do is certainly no cause for them to come here and tell Mac
> > users about it. Most of them DON'T CARE either! Most of us simply aren't
> > interested in what Windows PC users do.
>
> So you actually admit that you don't want a discussion about the relative
> merits of Macs versus Wintels. Under those circumstances, how can you
> "advocate for Macs" to anyone else other than other Mac users. So I guess
> you are being a very poor "Mac advocate", aren't you, since you are only
> giving back to the choir that which was previously given to you by the same
> choir?
Let's recap: HE is a Mac Fanatic because he doesn't want to force people
to talk abou why they bouht a different computer than him. While YOU are
not a PC Fanatic for insisting to come here to tell people who have a
Mac that they should buy a PC instead.
--
Lars T.
Snit
1133461760....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com on 12/1/05 11:29 AM:
>
> Snit wrote:
>> "Donald" <ortho...@mac.com> stated in post
>> BFB41824.4CEC%ortho...@mac.com on 12/1/05 4:01 AM:
>>
>>>> Let me rephrase that last statement of yours. I don't CARE that another
>>>> person might have different motives for buying a computer, and the fact
>>>> that they do is certainly no cause for them to come here and tell Mac
>>>> users about it. Most of them DON'T CARE either! Most of us simply aren't
>>>> interested in what Windows PC users do.
>>>
>>> So you actually admit that you don't want a discussion about the relative
>>> merits of Macs versus Wintels. Under those circumstances, how can you
>>> "advocate for Macs" to anyone else other than other Mac users. So I guess
>>> you are being a very poor "Mac advocate", aren't you, since you are only
>>> giving back to the choir that which was previously given to you by the same
>>> choir?
>>
>> Worse than that - once he realized that even though I am a Mac advocate I do
>> not deny the weaknesses of the platform nor the strengths of others he put
>> me in his KF. Sad, really.
>
> Snit, you really are being disingenuous here. While you occasionally
> make reasonable posts, you know the reason you have been killfiled by
> so many people here is the "Snit Circus",
The "Snit Circus" is nothing more than my responding to troll posts. I do
agree that the fact that I respond to such post likely is not something all
people agree with.
> and the continuing round of insults that takes over thread after thread in
> this group. Hell, an example of this is in your .sig, below. If you would
> stop this crap, you really would have much more credability.
I have gone back to using sigs that likely will offend those that are
obsessively trolling me. It is, really, a minor, response to the trolling
and flaming that I have recently endured by them. Just some examples: they
have hunted sown information they believe to be about my finances and then
made up stories about it... someone's finances should never be a topic and
the lies most certainly should not. They have hunted down information about
my family. They have made accusations of my e-mailing their significant
others (who may or may not even exist). Most recently they have hunted down
information about my mother who recently passed away and used that
information in their trolling.
Yes, I am responding to their actions. Yes I am pointing out how repulsive
and despicable they are. If my *reaction* to their cyber-stalking and
unbelievably outrageous actions offends you I can understand that... but it
is disingenuous to comment about my relatively minor action of quoting their
trolling without commenting on their trolling itself.
I have *never* seen a group of trolls sink as low as Steve Carroll,
Elizabot, and crew have done recently. It is beyond despicable. Do you
have any comments about that? Perhaps that will put your comments about me
in better perspective.
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
Snit
on 12/1/05 12:29 PM:
Thanks.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Dave Fritzinger
You are all acting like a bunch of idiots, IMHO, and I dearly wish you
would all just ignore one another.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu,HI
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
Except, that just as in the case of Creationist "Science", the Christian
archaeologists already have the "answer". They are, unlike real
archaeologists, working backward from that "answer" to try to make the
facts fit. This is NOT science.
> >>> Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> >>> Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> >>> totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> >>> crucifixion.
> >>
> >> In the first place, Christ is not a "figure". Well, He is, in a way,
> >> since
> >> He is referred to as the "express Ikon" (holy image) of God in the New
> >> Testament Greek. But the God-Man Who is called Jesus Christ IS still a
> >> Sentient Being, not a "lifeless figure".
> >
> > Only to religious crackpots. To less jaundiced minds, Christ is a
> > mythical character with absolutely no provenance.
>
> My mind is "jaundiced"?
Yep. You have abrogated any intellectual skepticism on this subject by
swallowing the premise, hook, line, and sinker.
> I am not the one who is displaying any bigotry
> here, dude. You've done nothing but display your bigotry toward Christians
> on more than one occasion in this discussion.
My dislike of religion may be bigotry, but it is not unwarranted. The
Christian religion is self-agrandizing, presumptive, and irrational. So
are most other religions, but we're talking about Christianity here.
> And many of those so-called
> "unjaundiced" persons like yourself are more than willing to foully jump on
> a Christian, any Christian, the minute he even mentions Christ's name in a
> casual manner.
Maybe its because we feel that your stupid belief system stops where our
noses - and ears - begin.
>
> Yet you probably believe that Julius Caesar was a historical person, simply
> because the experts YOU agree with say he was.
There is historical provenance from many different sources which attest
to the fact that Julius Caesar existed. It's called "history."
> Are you any different than me or any other Christian?
Only in this regard. My standards for corroberation seem to be higher
than yours. I seem to be able to better separate what is historical with
what is mythological.
> No, not in the least. There is no "real",
> "scientific" proof that he ever existed, none any more valid than the
> Christian record.
Certainly there is. There are many contemporary references to Caesar,
from many disparate sources. There are many contemporary likenesses of
Julius Caesar sculpted from life. With your Christ, there is only the
New Testament, and all of it was written long after the fact. Not one
corroborating account of the Christ exists. He's not even mentioned in
Pilate's memoirs or in any contemporary Roman or Jewish record. Add to
that the similarities between the Christ, and the much older tradition
of the Essene "Son of Light" figure, and it become clear that the Christ
is a fabrication.
> And none any more more "real". We all depend on our
> various "experts" to give us meaning in life. Antichristians like yourself
> are no different than Christians in this respect.
We just have more proof than Christians have. Let me rephrase that, we
have SOME proof.
> >
> >> Reasonable men who study the Bible do not see that the Apostles disagree,
> >> but rather believe that each Apostle gives his own perspective of what he
> >> saw, even down to small details. This is a proof of its veracity, not a
> >> proof of its artificial construction. That the apparent "disagreements"
> >> have continually remained in the Scriptures while the basic story has
> >> remained the same for 2,000 years is proof of the Church's good-will and
> >> total honesty before men. To my way of thinking, this is a much more
> >> reasonable position to take if one wants to prove his veracity. Good or
> >> bad, a man is usually inclined to take the word of a sincere man rather
> >> than
> >> the word of a skeptic.
> >
> > How about the word of a fanatic such as yourself?
>
> I wouldn't know about that, since I am far from being a fanatic of any kind.
> I am simply completely convinced of the basic veracity of the Bible.
And you can't stop yourself from mentioning you religious beliefs in
almost every post. You are eaten-up with your religion. That's the
definition of a fanatic.
What nonsense
The thread started because you said that the Bible was perfect and I
pointed out that it was full of errors. Then you started apologizing for
those errors, backpedaling about the Bible being "perfect" and ended up
preaching your nonsense. Stop trying to move the goal posts.
> >
> >> There might be (and probably are) mistakes entered into the records of the
> >> Hebrews and Christians (after all, one of our forefathers wrote "The
> >> Gospel
> >> of Peter" (a highly-colorful, even "fantastic", and definitely apocryphal,
> >> record of the events in the Bible and those which followed the Ascension
> >> of
> >> Christ), which was very popular in its own time.)
> >
> > Why has not your all powerful god corrected them? Could it be because
> > such a deity is myth?
>
> The errors of the heretics were corrected long ago by an obedient Church.
> That you fail to recognize this truth is no reason to call the God I worship
> a "myth". Perhaps you would like to hear me say that the foolishness of all
> antichrists such as yourself is no different than a "myth". In fact, it is
> actually an out and out lie, much less a "myth". Would you enjoy hearing it
> said about you over and over that you are a liar, and deluded? I doubt it.
But you are deluded. You are probably not a liar, because a lie is a
falsehood propagated as truth by one who knows its a falsehood. You
honestly believe your nonsense, so you are not lying in the classical
sense of the term. What you believe is false, and therefore a lie, but
since you believe it to be true, you are merely a deluded fool.
> So how do you like it when others do to you exactly what you do them? Not
> pleasant, is it.
But I have the weight of fact to back me up. You have nothing but a 2000
year-old fairy tale (and a pretty blatant and totally irrational one, at
that) behind you.
>
> >>
> >> It is perfectly reasonable to believe that a few errors or "edits" would
> >> creep into the record over a few thousand years.
> >>
> >> That the Judeo-Christian scriptures have pretty much remained unchanged
> >> for
> >> almost 6,000 years, only shows me the editors were pretty much convinced
> >> of
> >> the validity and veracity of the records they had before them.
> >
> > Well, they were wrong. Such is the blindness of fanaticism.
>
> Fanatics, heretics, and antichrists come and go, but the Church's true
> doctrine will remain unchanged as long as Christ continues interceding for
> us.
How can a mythical figure intercede for anybody? Your assumptions are
based on facts not in evidence: 1) That Christ did exist. 2) That if he
existed that he was some god's son. 3) That this god exists. 4) That
either of them, if they existed. would care about mere mortals on an
individual basis. That's a lot of unlikely assumptions.
> >> However, the minor points of apparent disagreement (mostly literary
> >> "color",
> >> usually) will never convince me of the untruth of the events recorded in
> >> the
> >> Bible, most especially the record of the life, death, and Resurrection of
> >> Christ, which is engraved on my heart (and the hearts of billions more
> >> through the centuries) for Eternity.
> >
> > Actually, until you die. Then you get the endless oblivion of the rest
> > of us. Too bad I won't be able to whisper to you, "I told you so."
>
> You may or may not have "endless oblivion" after you die, but Christ has
> promised me Eternal life in His Presence, and the Presence of His Father,
> when I die. In addition, He has promised me a new and incorruptible body.
But that's because you have accepted the premise. If the premise is
false (as it surely would have to be in a rational universe) then that
promise is worthless.
> I certainly could never live very long if I thought that oblivion was all I
> had to look forward to. You must really live a desolate and miserable life,
> my friend, to have such little hope, and the willingness and zeal to sow
> such hopelessness in others.
It has nothing to do with living a miserable life. Its just FACT. I
accept it along with the fact that the sun will come up tomorrow. It has
no real bearing on how I live my life. Look, its so simple. Human beings
are the only animals on earth (as far as we know) who understand on a
conscious level that we are going to die. Very early on, learned men
figured out that people don't like that "knowledge" and that it scares
them. So they invented religion to take advantage of that and other
fears. Christianity uses the "promise" of an eternal life as a control
mechanism to wield power. If you obey the church and give them absolute
sway over your lives (in Jesus' name, of course) you will be rewarded
with a life of leisure in some paradisal environment. But, if you don't
obey us, you will go to another kind of eternal life. One filled with
unspeakable torment. It's so transparent that I find it a constant
source of amazement that they can get anybody to buy it. But apparently,
they can. Heck, the promise of the reward of paradise is ostensibly so
strong that it motivates young, fanatical Muslims to strap explosives to
their bodies or fly aircraft filled with innocent passengers into
buildings in order to attain that paradise. Religion is dangerous.
> I certainly won't be able to tell you then that "I told you so", since there
> will be an uncrossable separation made between the righteous and the wicked
> at that time.
You're right. Like me, you won't be able to tell anybody anything
because you will have ceased to exist along with the rest of both the
"wicked" and the "righteous." And how presumptuous of you to place
yourself conveniently in the "righteous" category and me in the "wicked"
category. But I guess when you are as deluded as you obviously are, its
in for a dollar, in for a dime.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Shall I go on?
> >>>
> >>> And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The thing
> >>> is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> >>> idiotic religion.
> >>
> >> Personally, I don't believe anything written by men to be "perfect", since
> >> I
> >> consider only God to be Perfect.
> >
> >
> > Then why, in the previous post to the one to which you are now
> > responding, did you say that the Bible was perfect? Crawdading a bit,
> > are we?
Not honest enough to answer that one?
> >> No, anything touched by men is bound to
> >> contain defects here and there. But it is the official position of the
> >> Church I love, so I repeat it. What is really surprising to me is that
> >> the
> >> text has been pretty much kept intact by the various scribes and
> >> publishers
> >> since the time of the Apostles. To me, this is one of the major reasons
> >> for
> >> believing that an intelligent Being has been behind its writing and
> >> transmission through the centuries.
> >
> > No, mindlessness is your reason for believing the irrational, the
> > impossible and the highly unlikely.
>
> Even secular self-help gurus teach that one must be willing to embrace the
> irrational, impossible, and highly unlikely to be successful in life. Why
> you are so skeptical, I have no idea.
I reject the concept partly because it's so transparently a crock of
shit, that no modern educated person in their right mind could possibly
believe it. I have read that researchers now think that there is a
genetic disposition toward religious belief. If that's true, that could
explain it, because nothing else does. Just as obviously, I was not born
with that genetic predisposition.
> >
> >> The Apostle Paul does teach us that "to those who are perishing, the
> >> Gospel
> >> seems like foolishness".
> >
> > I always thought this was a very clever bit of creative CYA (cover your
> > ass) on the part of the early church. It defuses any rational argument
> > against the irrational nature of religion by simply anticipating it.
> > Very good.
>
> I guess that it could also prove that God knows how to confound the devious
> minds of self-appointed "experts", couldn't it?
I said it was clever, not god-like brilliant. Let's not go overboard
here.
> I just guess it depends on
> your perspective about the sincerity of the early (or present day)
> Christians.
Christianity was, originally, a religion made up by the Judean Jews to
destroy the Roman Empire (sort of like a computer virus). That it
backfired just shows, that like a virus, once something like that gets
out into the wild, nobody can contain or control it. It's the single
best argument against biological warfare. Once released, there are no
guarantees that it won't backfire and infect the attackers as well as
the attacked. That's certainly what happened with Christianity.
George Graves
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
You are right. I forgot about Enoch and Seth. Both born of Adam in later
years. But no women are mentioned, which is my point.
George Graves
"ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
What have I made up? I forgot about Seth and Enoch, but the Bible still
mentions no women born to Adam and Eve. BTW, I wasn't talking to you,
but rather to Donald. I don't care if you answer or not.
>
> > > > Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> > > > Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> > > > totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> > > > crucifixion.
> > >
> > > why's that a big deal? you take 10 eye witnesses to a bank robbery
> > > that happened an hour ago and you'll get 10 different stories. i don't
> > > believe the bible is rooted in fact, but the gospels are basically
> > > supposed to be different individuals perspectives on events. it'd be
> > > dumb to expect them not to differ.
> >
> > Yet you say that it is "Perfect."
>
> and where, oh where, do i say *that*?
Again. I'm talking about Donald. Not you.
>
> > Odd hypocrisy that allows for such
> > glaring errors in a "perfect" text.
>
> that would be a "contradiction", and not a "hypocrisy".
>
> > > > Shall I go on?
> > > >
> > > > And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The
> > > > thing
> > > > is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> > > > idiotic religion.
> > >
> > > perfect means different things to different people
> >
> > No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
>
> no, it's not. ;D
Oh, then do tell.
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
You are right and I am wrong. Genesis mentions Enoch, and Seth born of
Adam and Eve (I forgot those). But Seth and Enoch also bore sons and
they took wives, yet no female offspring are attributed to them (yet
their wives are named). I suppose it could have been early Hebrew
tradition to not list women among offspring, I suppose. I'll give you
this one under the assumption that Adam and Eve had daughters who were
just not mentioned. No wonder Jews are bald-headed and wear glasses.
It's a mercy that they don't have two heads and four arms with a gene
pool like that! :->
Nice save. But that's not what you meant when you said that Bible was
perfect. I can tell that from your context.
ed
> In article <1133466563....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > Would you like to show me the chapter and verse where the Old Testament
> > > says that Adam and Eve had more than the two sons?
> >
> > i don't have a bible in front of me right now, but Seth is explicitly
> > mentioned by name as a son of adam and eve, and there are other more
> > generic mentions of additional siblings elsewhere.
>
> You are right. I forgot about Enoch and Seth. Both born of Adam in later
> years. But no women are mentioned, which is my point.
you should have read the rest of the post you snipped before
responding:
5:4. And the days of Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred
years: and he begot sons and daughters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
George Graves
Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
>
> > No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
>
> Not necessarilly. That is the prevailing definition *today*. In a
> biblical context, "perfect", or "perfection" can also mean completely
> equipped for, or suited for a particular task, function, or role. The
> "without flaw" qualifier is not a necessary requirement for perfection,
> and is often superfluous.
>
>
> -Rick
Possibly, but our friend MacDaniel didn't mean it that way.
ed
> In article <1133466563....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > George Graves wrote:
> > why do i need 'answers' for them? as i've stated george, i'm not even
> > a christian, but if you're going to bash something, at least be
> > informed and don't just make stuff up!
>
> What have I made up? I forgot about Seth and Enoch,
you sure sound like you're making stuff up when you're claiming to have
read the bible and you quote it, but you miss points 2 sentences down
from your quote that directly contradict you.
> but the Bible still
> mentions no women born to Adam and Eve.
yes, it does george. you're just conveniently ignoring it. not only
is it just two sentences down from one of the quotes you provided, you
just ignored it in the post you responded to. 5:4. And the days of
Adam, after he begot Seth, were eight hundred
years: and he begot sons and daughters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> BTW, I wasn't talking to you,
sure you were. you responded to my post, with questions directed at
what i snipped out.
> but rather to Donald. I don't care if you answer or not.
> >
> > > > > Jumping ahead to the New Testament, we have the Gospels of Matthew and
> > > > > Luke disagreeing on many points of the life of the Christ Figure. They
> > > > > totally disagree about the series of events leading up to the
> > > > > crucifixion.
> > > >
> > > > why's that a big deal? you take 10 eye witnesses to a bank robbery
> > > > that happened an hour ago and you'll get 10 different stories. i don't
> > > > believe the bible is rooted in fact, but the gospels are basically
> > > > supposed to be different individuals perspectives on events. it'd be
> > > > dumb to expect them not to differ.
> > >
> > > Yet you say that it is "Perfect."
> >
> > and where, oh where, do i say *that*?
>
> Again. I'm talking about Donald. Not you.
that was my comments you were addressing.
> > > Odd hypocrisy that allows for such
> > > glaring errors in a "perfect" text.
> >
> > that would be a "contradiction", and not a "hypocrisy".
> >
> > > > > Shall I go on?
> > > > >
> > > > > And this is what you Christians call a "Perfect" written work? The
> > > > > thing
> > > > > is full of more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Just like your
> > > > > idiotic religion.
> > > >
> > > > perfect means different things to different people
> > >
> > > No. "Perfect" means "without flaw." It's that simple.
> >
> > no, it's not. ;D
>
> Oh, then do tell.
perfect has meanings other than "without flaw". i'm not sure how you
got to your ripe old age without knowing that. =D
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=perfect
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
You still can't stop it can you? Wow, this is incredible!
>
> Nevertheless, I felt at the time (and still feel) that you were attempting
> to lay a trap for me rather than gain any understanding of me. So I very
> naturally called you a liar. That you were being so devious in your
> approach only incensed me further, and convinced me of your insincerity even
> more. Your subsequent obviously emotional outbursts against Christians only
> turned me off to anything you might have to say, because it shows how deeply
> entrenched your bigotry really is.
>
> >>
> >> Can't you even keep track of your own statements? In one part of this
> >> post
> >> you imply that I am a "phony" Mac user. Yet in this part of your post you
> >> accept the fact that I do use a Mac. Which one is it? Please make up
> >> your
> >> mind.
> >
> > I was wondering aloud. You act like a phony Christian (like most other
> > so-called Christians), so maybe you're a phony Mac user too?
>
> How would you know what a true Christian is, anyway? You are certainly no
> Biblical scholar or saint yourself. Therefore, you certainly are no
> reliable authority on the matter. Only a true Christian (or God) can
> recognize another true Christian (or phony one). Anyone else will only get
> an uneasy feeling when they come into contact with true Christians.
In the end, all you bastards are phony hypocrites.
> >> And you haven't accused me of being a liar? F***ing hypocrite!
> >>
> >> In the first place, my motives are none of your business. The only thing
> >> which should matter to you are the veracity of my words.
> >
> > What words? Your Bible-thumping? Who are you trying to convince with
> > that crap, anyway? Other people or yourself?
> >
> >> But just so you will know: I am currently interested in the Mac platform,
> >> since my computer is a Mac. Therefore, I like to talk with other Mac
> >> users
> >> about computers. When I was using a Wintel, I communicated with Window
> >> users. But I certainly can't stand fanatics of any kind, whether they are
> >> Mac or Wintel users.
> >
> > That's ironic coming from a religious fanatic like yourself who cannot
> > stop Bible-thumping for even a day. You're eat-up with this religious
> > crap and if that isn't fanaticism, I don't know what is!
>
> And you aren't eaten up by your fanaticism? I spoke well to call you a
> hypocrite.
I'm not a fanatic. I don't mention my dislike of religion in every post.
You can't help yourself from mentioning your god or your Jesus in every
post. THAT's the mark of a fanatic.
None of that alters the fact that you ARE a fanatic.
> >>>> I have the ability to go back to the Wintel, if I so desire. I'm happy
> >>>> with
> >>>> my Mac (if not the Usenet clients for Macs or Mac Fanatics). Happy
> >>>> enough
> >>>> to not go back to the Wintel platform. The fact is, I haven't used a
> >>>> Wintel
> >>>> for months. This does NOT mean that I suddenly decided that Microsoft
> >>>> or
> >>>> Wintels are trash. I'm a reasonable man.
> >>>
> >>> An assertion NOT in evidence.
> >>
> >> Read my header, stud. You will see that I am not posting from a PC, if
> >> there is even one honest bone in your body left. Is there? I wonder...
> >
> > I don't care what you post from. It doesn't mean a thing. I go by what
> > you say, not by what you post from. Hell, for all I know you might have
> > to use a Mac at work and that's where you get access to it. You wouldn't
> > be the first Wintroll to come here pretending to be a Mac advocate when
> > you weren't.
>
> And you wouldn't be the first hypocrite who claimed he never lied about me
> in one breath, and implied that I am a liar the next. Jesus! Man! At least
> be consistent in your lies.
You need a course in reading comprehension. I didn't call you a liar, i
just said that if you WERE a liar and a PC advocate pretending to be a
Mac advocate, you wouldn't be the first. Is English your native language?
>
> I have never once claimed to be a "Mac advocate" since the first day I
> posted in this newsgroup, so please stop slandering me with words I never
> spoke.
Again, I never said that you were a Mac advocate or a Windows advocate.
I said that WERE you a Win advocate pretending to be a Mac advocate, you
wouldn't be the first. You don't read so well, do you?
You have found that, huh? Isn't that just special?
ed
George Graves wrote:
> In article <1133466563....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "ed" <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > i don't have a bible in front of me right now, but Seth is explicitly
> > mentioned by name as a son of adam and eve, and there are other more
> > generic mentions of additional siblings elsewhere.
>
> You are right. I forgot about Enoch and Seth.
oh yeah, and where do you get the impression that enoch is the son of
adam and eve? if i recall correctly, seth, cain, and abel were the
only sons of adam named in the bible...
George Graves
Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/05 12:30 AM, in article
> gmgraves-BC815E...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George Graves"
> <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <BFB3B044.4C07%ortho...@mac.com>,
> > Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 11/30/05 1:54 PM, in article
> >> gmgraves-94DF9C...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George
> >> Graves"
> >> <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <BFB33F0D.4B0B%ortho...@mac.com>,
> >>> Donald <ortho...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 11/29/05 2:45 PM, in article
> >>>> gmgraves-5177D8...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com, "George
> >>>> Graves"
> >>>> <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <m8mdnaRePNo...@adelphia.com>, Buzz <bu...@buzz.inv>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Donald wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/29/05 7:44 AM, in article
> >>>>>>> Nowhere-647D6E...@news1.west.earthlink.net, "TravelinMan"
> >>>>>>> <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> While I expect Apple's market share to continue to grow, I really
> >>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>> see it hitting double digits any time soon.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> And you, like all other children, fail to see the cost factor in
> >>>>>>> anything,
> >>>>>>> do you? You just can't seem to accept the fact that people buy a
> >>>>>>> Windows
> >>>>>>> machine because it is cheaper and more expandable that a
> >>>>>>> similarly-equipped
> >>>>>>> Mac, as well as being more powerful.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As we've told you a thousand times before, most people just can't
> >>>>>>> afford
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> buy Macs. And why would they want to buy the little toy called the
> >>>>>>> "MacMini", when it is not expandable? Maybe Stevie mistakenly
> >>>>>>> somehow
> >>>>>>> got
> >>>>>>> the impression that we just wanted a "smaller, cheaper, dumber"
> >>>>>>> machine
> >>>>>>> from
> >>>>>>> idiots like you. Wintel users know why they purchase Wintels. But
> >>>>>>> Mac
> >>>>>>> users
> >>>>>>> refuse to hear their reasons, even when it's coming from the "horse's
> >>>>>>> mouth".
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But it is just not true. Windows users also want quality and
> >>>>>>> expandability.
> >>>>>>> Mac Fanatics simply fail to see just why people buy Wintels in the
> >>>>>>> first
> >>>>>>> place. You simply refuse to hear Windows users give their reasons
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>> purchasing Wintels rather than Macs. You simply refuse to hear it,
> >>>>>>> like
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> little child covering his ears and saying over and over to himself "I
> >>>>>>> didn't
> >>>>>>> really hear that, I really didn't hear that. This is what he REALLY
> >>>>>>> said..."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I must not be a Mac Fanatic, since I simply fail to care just why
> >>>>>> people
> >>>>>> buy Wintels in the first place.
> >>
> >> That is the EXACT proof that you ARE a Mac Fanatic. You are so in love
> >> with
> >> yourself and your toy that you can't even consider that another person
> >> might
> >> have different motivations for buying a compter than you.
> >
> > Let me rephrase that last statement of yours. I don't CARE that another
> > person might have different motives for buying a computer, and the fact
> > that they do is certainly no cause for them to come here and tell Mac
> > users about it. Most of them DON'T CARE either! Most of us simply aren't
> > interested in what Windows PC users do.
>
> So you actually admit that you don't want a discussion about the relative
> merits of Macs versus Wintels.
I have never maintained otherwise.
> Under those circumstances, how can you
> "advocate for Macs" to anyone else other than other Mac users.
My Mac advocacy consists almost totally of derailing Wintroll's lies,
half-truths and distortions about the Mac platform. I rarely get
embroiled in Mac vs PC issues because I really don't care about the PC.
If Wintrolls didn't come here, I'd never mention Windows or the PC.
> So I guess you are being a very poor "Mac advocate", aren't you, since you are only
> giving back to the choir that which was previously given to you by the same
> choir?
That's an assumption. Like I said, my "advocacy" consists of debunking
Wintroll lies about Macs. I do that so newbies won't pick up these
untruths and propagate them as reality, or make a decision on what
computer to buy based upon those untruths. So, I'd say my advocacy, such
as it is, has a place here.
>
> Well, at least you're honest about your lack of willingness to ever
> understand any other view than your own, even though you don't actually
> understand just what you are saying, or how bigoted you are being. But it
> still reveals to me your dull mind and poor spirit, the state of your lack
> of understanding in general notwithstanding.
Thank you for your kind words.
Tim Adams
George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
George; Genesis, Chapter 5 verse 4 "And the days of Adam after he had had
begotten Seth were eight hundred years; and he begat sons and daughters:"
--
I eat dog shit to get attention - snit.
Tim