Re: OT spam and munged addresses
Andrew DeFaria
On 5/1/2007 1:17 AM On a whim, Alex K. pounded out on the keyboardNo it's not regardless.
Cyker wrote:
b) Whoever you send it to using that that will also NOT be able to reply to you unless you are one of these brave people who's ISP has really really REALLY good spam filters (i.e. not me) and have put in your real e-mail address in plain, without any no-spam or other tricks like that.
You will note that I, and several others here, *do* post with our real
addresses. In fact, I counted five others, among todays posts in this
thread alone, that do not munge their addresses. In my case, gmail
handles the spam quite well, I get *maybe* 3 or 4 per *week* that slip
through.
f u set to moz gen
Regardless,
I don't believe a real email should be used.And who the hell are you - god?
Tony Mechelynck
> Everyone hates me because I'm paranoid.
Whether to post with real or bogus name & address is a personal choice; there
are plus and minus points to both.
I post with my real name and my real email address because:
- I believe in letting the people to whom I speak know who I am.
- I don't post in Usenet-mirrored newsgroups; I believe the Mozilla newsgroups
aren't as "assiduously" harvested by spammers (I may be wrong, of course).
- I retaliate against the authors of the spam I get, not by replying to the
from-line (which is usually bogus anyway) but by complaining to the ISP of the
machine which gave the mail to my ISP's incoming-mail routers (according to
the Received-lines added by my own ISP's mail servers after the mail left its
original sender).
There are people who make the opposite choice; it's their strictest right.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
You can't hold a man down without staying down with him.
-- Booker T. Washington
Terry R.
I said it's what I believe. I wasn't asking for your worthless opinion.
ESPECIALLY when it is regard to God...
--
Terry R.
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Terry R.
My real email address can be easily used by people, not bots. I didn't
think about it at first until the gmail account started getting all the
spam. I quickly added the munge and it has completely stopped. These
are the only groups I use this email address on so the address had to
come from here.
I don't really think the Moz groups are under any exception here, but
they are accessible through Google groups which could make them more
"bot" worthy.
Leonidas Jones
> On 5/1/2007 6:33 PM On a whim, Tony Mechelynck pounded out on the keyboard
>
>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>> On 5/1/2007 1:17 AM On a whim, Alex K. pounded out on the keyboard
>>>>
>>>>> Cyker wrote:
/snip/
>> I post with my real name and my real email address because:
>> - I believe in letting the people to whom I speak know who I am.
>> - I don't post in Usenet-mirrored newsgroups; I believe the Mozilla
>> newsgroups aren't as "assiduously" harvested by spammers (I may be
>> wrong, of course).
>> - I retaliate against the authors of the spam I get, not by replying
>> to the from-line (which is usually bogus anyway) but by complaining to
>> the ISP of the machine which gave the mail to my ISP's incoming-mail
>> routers (according to the Received-lines added by my own ISP's mail
>> servers after the mail left its original sender).
>>
>> There are people who make the opposite choice; it's their strictest
>> right.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tony.
>
> My real email address can be easily used by people, not bots. I didn't
> think about it at first until the gmail account started getting all the
> spam. I quickly added the munge and it has completely stopped. These
> are the only groups I use this email address on so the address had to
> come from here.
>
> I don't really think the Moz groups are under any exception here, but
> they are accessible through Google groups which could make them more
> "bot" worthy.
>
Well, for what its worth, I'm getting virtually no spam with this in the
clear email address.
I agree with Tony. I have always posted with my own name, (yes its
really my name, "300" regardless), and a valid email address, which I do
check, though I have changed it from time to time. Never for spam
related reasons though.
I just feel that if I am going to post my opinions, people have a right
to know from whom that is coming, and have a way to respond to me.
That's me, I would not presume to impose that on anyone else.
Lee
--
Leonidas Jones, Netscape/Mozilla Champion
The Champs: http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
Links: http://www.ufaq.org/ http://mozilla.com http://kb.mozillazine.org
Posting Etiquette: http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
Moz Champion (Dan)
I too use nothing but 'real' email addresses in my posts, regardless of
which newsgroup I use. And like Lee I see very little spam on this
account (moz.champion) perhaps 2 a week on average. I get MORE spam on
my anti-spam reporting account which has NEVER been used in a post
infact. Some of the addresses I use in usenet I have never received spam on
Terry R.
Since mine can be easily "unmunged", I think it's just as valid as a
real address but with a little extra precaution. But those that use a
completely fake address IMO, are just hiding behind their keyboards.
Terry R.
> Terry R. wrote:
>> On 5/1/2007 1:17 AM On a whim, Alex K. pounded out on the keyboard
>>
>>> Cyker wrote:
>>>
>>>> b) Whoever you send it to using that that will also NOT be able to
>>>> reply to you unless you are one of these brave people who's ISP has
>>>> really really REALLY good spam filters (i.e. not me) and have put in
>>>> your real e-mail address in plain, without any no-spam or other
>>>> tricks like that.
>>>
>>> You will note that I, and several others here, *do* post with our real
>>> addresses. In fact, I counted five others, among todays posts in this
>>> thread alone, that do not munge their addresses. In my case, gmail
>>> handles the spam quite well, I get *maybe* 3 or 4 per *week* that slip
>>> through.
>>>
>>
>> f u set to moz gen
>>
>> Regardless,
> No it's not regardless.
If you wouldn't have snipped the relevant material, it would be quite
obvious that you're wrong.
REGARDLESS if Alex and "several others" use real addresses, the fact
remains that you are more susceptible to address harvesting than if you
use a munged address. Those that say they don't get any spam when using
their real addresses are the exception, NOT the norm.
So are trying to be an editor now?
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
I never munge my email address, but receive on average 20 pieces per day
of spam (which SM catches) And I have another address that was
completely taken over by spam I retain just to catch spam. I have setup
through my ISP to catch it before I receive and by the end of the week I
have about 200 pieces to delete after I scan titles, through web mail.
But besides Mozilla I also read post for msnews.microsoft.com (Mac
Office applications), news annexcafe.com,
news.doagent.com.news.macromedia, news.projectseven, and so on.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET http://www.vpea.org
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm
Mac G4-500, OSX.3.9 Mac 17" PowerBook G4-1.67 Gb, OSX.4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
>> Regardless,
> No it's not regardless.
>> I don't believe a real email should be used.
> And who the hell are you - god?
Are you acknowledging that "Terry" may be God? Funny coming from an
atheist!!
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Terry R.
> On 01.05.2007 20:09, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>>> Regardless,
>> No it's not regardless.
>>> I don't believe a real email should be used.
>> And who the hell are you - god?
>
> Are you acknowledging that "Terry" may be God? Funny coming from an
> atheist!!
>
Yes! ;-)
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> But besides Mozilla I also read post for msnews.microsoft.com (Mac
> Office applications), news annexcafe.com,
> news.doagent.com.news.macromedia, news.projectseven, and so on.
geee, I think someone needs to get out more often. ;-)
--
Please do not email me for help. Reply to the newsgroup only. And only
click on the Reply button, not the Reply All one. Thanks!
Peter Potamus & His Magic Flying Balloon:
http://www.toonopedia.com/potamus.htm
Brian Heinrich
> On 01.05.2007 20:09, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
> --- Original Message ---
>
>>> Regardless,
>> No it's not regardless.
>>> I don't believe a real email should be used.
>> And who the hell are you - god?
>
> Are you acknowledging that "Terry" may be God? Funny coming from an
> atheist!!
Er, note the lack of a majuscule: Terry would merely be one putative god
amongst others.
*sigh* -- And why is it that so many aggressive atheists insist that people
(other atheists, anatheists, or whoever) lend some sort of credence to their
opinions when all they're doing is flaunting their ignorance?
Of course, because they deny the possibility that any god or gods (including
God) might exist, they also feel perfectly justified in rendering judgement
without bothering to know anything about what they're condemning.
Kinda 'minds me a bit of the 'magical' logic of the Inquisition, y'know? :-\
--
/b.
String quartets don't march very well.
--Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/
Ceil
bits of spam in my gmail "spam" folder a month, and I'd like to keep it
that way.
(Even if I never see the spam, as I check my mail with Thunderbird,
which doesn't even have a spam folder that I can find; not that I'd want
to.)
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
I am baptist by faith, but items that have happened in my Life. And
Items That have happened in the world while I've been living, has caused
me to question whether there is such a thing as God.
If there is a God all them students at Virginia Tech would not have been
killed. THe soon to be Killer would have been stuck down by lightning
and sent straight to hell before it happened.
In my own life my dad would not have gotten Alzheimer's.
I would not have had that 1976 Chrysler imperial run over me at that TV
shop. Causing me to take pills the rest of my life for seizer control.
And causing me to have to retire at 44 years old.
So I can't say whether there is one. at least it can't be proven by me.
Terry R.
the keyboard
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
Baptist by faith...what does that mean to you Phillip?
Your comments sound like someone who doesn't really know God or His
word. If you did, you would be able to understand hardships in life.
We all have them, and yes, there are times in every believers life when
questions and doubts arise. That's because we're human. We can't see
past the here and now. The bible is full of accounts of peoples
humanness and struggles. It might help if you begin to read it and
learn more of God's nature and how they learned to trust Him, regardless
of their circumstances.
squaredancer
Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
math-functions to figure the result of that equasion!
All that talk about "Man was given the ability of decision" is the
church way of saying "Not our fault - yours"
reg
Terry R.
Well, you did say one thing worthwhile, "Not Knowing is Ignorance".
Kind of summed up what you said.
Dennis McCunney
> Terry R. wrote:
>> Since mine can be easily "unmunged", I think it's just as valid as a
>> real address but with a little extra precaution. But those that use a
>> completely fake address IMO, are just hiding behind their keyboards.
>>
> Agreed. Mine's the same way for the same reason. I get no more than 10
> bits of spam in my gmail "spam" folder a month, and I'd like to keep it
> that way.
I get rather more than that, like 20 - 30 a day, but I don't care. I use
GMail as my primary account, GMail's spam filters are *very* effective,
and it's the work of a moment to clean out the stuff tagged with the
Spam label. (I get that many in part because I turned on GMail's
ability to get mail from my POP account, which is largely a spam trap now.)
I use a lightly munged version of my email address in the From: field,
and put the real address in the Reply-to field. This is mostly to fool
bots, as it won't deter a human harvester.
I've seen folks elsewhere who use a completely bogus email address *and*
post under an alias. There are places where I might do that, too, but
not many, and I see these folks in places where I *don't* expect
problems to occur from posting. I have to really wonder what they are
afraid of.
In general, I post under my real name, using a real address, and have
done so for many years. The only problems I've ever seen from it are
higher levels of spam, and that's what spam filters are for.
> (Even if I never see the spam, as I check my mail with Thunderbird,
> which doesn't even have a spam folder that I can find; not that I'd want
> to.)
Thunderbird does have a spam filter, based on Bayesian filtering.
Unfortunately, it seems to work well for some folks and not for others.
(And you *do* have to turn it on...)
There is now a TB extension to make it easier to use the open source
SpamBayes spam filter with TB. SpamBayes normally installs as a plugin
in Outlook, but can be set up as a proxy server between your network
connection and your email client if you don't run Outlook.
I use SpamBayes under Outlook, and it's wonderful. I've never seen it
make an error on mail it was sure was junk, and only saw a handful of
false positives in Junk Suspects. Once trained, it does a superb job.
But I'm bemused, because I saw a post elsewhere that the TBird devs had
taken the SpamBayes algorithms and converted from Python to C++ for use
in TB. If so, I'm really curious about the apparent lack of
effectiveness of TB's spam filters for some users, and why using
SpamBayes as a proxy should do better. (If not so, I'm still curious as
to why some folks have better luck than others with TB's filters.)
Personally, I use GMail as my primary email, and *prefer* the web
interface. So while it's neat that TB 2 now supports GMail "out of the
box", it's not a feature I use. I use TB primarily as a news reader,
with seven news servers configured. It would be nice if TB's spam
filter could be used on news feeds, but that appears impossible.
Ironically, the place where GMail's spam filters make the most false
positive errors here is messages to the SpamBayes mailing list... :-P
______
Dennis
--
I never really understood how there could be things that would drive
you insane just because you knew them until I ran into Windows.
-- Peter da Silva
Leonidas Jones
Well put Terry, and God bless you for it.
The Real Bev
> I am baptist by faith, but items that have happened in my Life. And
> Items That have happened in the world while I've been living, has caused
> me to question whether there is such a thing as God.
>
> If there is a God all them students at Virginia Tech would not have been
> killed. THe soon to be Killer would have been stuck down by lightning
> and sent straight to hell before it happened.
If there is a god, he's a real sonofabitch and has a lot to answer for.
Spam is only the least of it :-( Gmail does a fine job of weeding out most
of the spam, but I wish it would take my word for it that I REALLY want my
good mail deleted from the server when I download it.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No lawyering. Prosecutors will be violated.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
I knew/know God. But things happening in the world and to myself, have
caused me to question the validity of God.
"IF" there is a GOD then 9/11 (blowing up of the Twin Towers in NY)
would not have happened.
There would be no war in Iraq. I can think of other things. I've
already cited things that happened to me. I and my parents have suffered
from one misery to another. You'd think there would be a time even even
if there is no joy, that there would be a lull.
Terry R.
the keyboard
Phillip, IF you KNOW God, then ANYTHING that happens in life won't
affect your relationship with Him. SURE you can have questions. SURE
you can tell Him you're angry. That's the way a good relationship is.
Communication. Is your relationship conditional on EVERYTHING going
right in the world? That's not much of a relationship is it. I guess
someone needs to be a parent in order to understand unconditional love
(in its weakest form).
So ONLY if 9/11 didn't happen and ONLY if the war in Iraq didn't happen,
(or your list of other things), would you believe in God? But because
they DID happen, you don't believe. I think you need to decide whether
you do or don't Phillip.
It's funny how many conditions humans put on God, for basically an
excuse not to believe. Yet He only gave us one condition; John 3:16.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:16&version=31
Terry R.
> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>
>> I am baptist by faith, but items that have happened in my Life. And
>> Items That have happened in the world while I've been living, has caused
>> me to question whether there is such a thing as God.
>>
>> If there is a God all them students at Virginia Tech would not have been
>> killed. THe soon to be Killer would have been stuck down by lightning
>> and sent straight to hell before it happened.
>
> If there is a god, he's a real sonofabitch and has a lot to answer for.
Unfortunately, so will you.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=14&verse=10&version=31&context=verse
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
I just stating if we have an all knowing just and kind God, There is no
reason for such things to happen.
I guess I am now in the category of:
I use to believe in God when I was growing up.
But after growing up , and I and my family experiencing what we have,
and what has happened in the world; I know longer can say with out
equivocation that I do. I just don't know.
squaredancer
generate the following:? :
was written... considering the fact that most of the Followers were
illiterate??
IIRC, the new testament has been dated at about 300-350 AD.... and
written by the catholic church!
reg
»Q«
"Terry R." <Terry.F1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Phillip, IF you KNOW God, then ANYTHING that happens in life won't
> affect your relationship with Him.
This is true, but I'd put it a different way: If you are brainwashed
thoroughly enough, nothing can undo it.
squaredancer
Jones, C.E.T to generate the following:? :
with god - as in "you must invade Iraq, 'cos they have mass-destruction
weapons" (Bush used the fact that god told him to, as a reason for going in)
reg
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T
Wasn't God it was Dick Chaney that told him to invade Iraq. If you gave
bush a Light Bulb he'd have a hard time figuring out which end to screw
in the light socket. :-(
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
knowing Bush, he's probably imitate Uncle Fester of the Addams Family,
and stick the bulb in his mouth to get it to light up.
Terry R.
Yes, that is true in the other direction also, Q... I guess the real
question will be, "who was and who wasn't".
Terry R.
Well it sounds like you've got all the info there reg. I'm sure we can
ask you anything and you'll have an answer for it. Right or wrong,
you'll have an answer. And always nice getting input from someone in
another country. Bet things are just peachy on your side of the globe, eh?
Tony Mechelynck
> On 5/4/2007 12:18 PM On a whim, squaredancer pounded out on the keyboard
>> Phillip - you forget that the US president actually holds
>> conversations with god - as in "you must invade Iraq, 'cos they have
>> mass-destruction weapons" (Bush used the fact that god told him to, as
>> a reason for going in)
>>
>> reg
>
> Well it sounds like you've got all the info there reg. I'm sure we can
> ask you anything and you'll have an answer for it. Right or wrong,
> you'll have an answer. And always nice getting input from someone in
> another country. Bet things are just peachy on your side of the globe, eh?
>
Anyone can converse with God. It requires only concentration when sending
(praying) and constant attention when receiving (listening for) a possible
response.
However, there are two potential problems with that mode of communication:
- The channel is highly asynchronous: The reply never comes immediately;
indeed it usually pops into your mind when you're least expecting it,
sometimes days, weeks, even years after you started asking a question.
- There is no foolproof authentication, and indeed the fools are many, who
confuse their own delusions with The Word From On High.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
214. Your MCI "Circle of Friends" are all Hayes-compatible.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
you forgot one: the line may be busy between you and Him.
another: you may be in big crappers with the Big Man
which brings us to this one: you're praying to the wrong guy. Instead
of the big Man upstairs, you should be praying to the one down below.
[Sorry, but the devil made me say that one]
Tony Mechelynck
With asynchronous communication, a busy line is not a problem; it only
increases the turnaround time between send and receive.
>
> another: you may be in big crappers with the Big Man
>
> which brings us to this one: you're praying to the wrong guy. Instead
> of the big Man upstairs, you should be praying to the one down below.
How d'you know they are different? Aspects, you know, of a single abstraction:
Yin and Yang, or some such. Metaphorical heads and tails.
> [Sorry, but the devil made me say that one]
>
Best regards,
Tony.
--
You should not use your fireplace, because scientists now believe that,
contrary to popular opinion, fireplaces actually remove heat from
houses. Really, that's what scientists believe. In fact many
scientists actually use their fireplaces to cool their houses in the
summer. If you visit a scientist's house on a sultry August day,
you'll find a cheerful fire roaring on the hearth and the scientist
sitting nearby, remarking on how cool he is and drinking heavily.
-- Dave Barry, "Postpetroleum Guzzler"
Irwin Greenwald
> On 5/4/2007 12:18 PM On a whim, squaredancer pounded out on the keyboard
<snip>
>> Phillip - you forget that the US president actually holds
>> conversations with god - as in "you must invade Iraq, 'cos they have
>> mass-destruction weapons" (Bush used the fact that god told him to, as
>> a reason for going in)
>>
>> reg
>
> Well it sounds like you've got all the info there reg. I'm sure we can
> ask you anything and you'll have an answer for it. Right or wrong,
> you'll have an answer. And always nice getting input from someone in
> another country. Bet things are just peachy on your side of the globe, eh?
>
Does your God would approve ad hominem attacks?
--
Irwin
Please do not use my email address to make requests for help.
Knowledge Base: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Main_Page
Daniel
I'm sure I have read that they were written about the turn of the first
century ........ and I think the term "catholic" had a different usage
then, when there was only one church based on Christ's teachings.
Daniel
David Smith
Knowing Bush, if he had a lightbulb and a light socket that pointed
downward ...
he'd still screw it up.
--
Grizzly <grizzly at grizzly.podzone.org>
Podcast:
<http://feeds.feedburner.com/grizzlysgrowls>
A minor local celebrity's fifteen minutes of
fame
Leonidas Jones
> squaredancer wrote:
>> On 04/05/2007 19:06, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Terry R. to
>> generate the following:? :
>>> On 5/4/2007 6:38 AM On a whim, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T pounded out on
>>> the keyboard
>>>
>>>
>>>> Terry R. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/3/2007 11:52 AM On a whim, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T pounded out
>>>>> on the keyboard
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2007-05-02 10:25 (-0600 UTC), Jay Garcia wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01.05.2007 20:09, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --- Original Message ---
>>
>> IIRC, the new testament has been dated at about 300-350 AD.... and
>> written by the catholic church!
>>
>> reg
>
> I'm sure I have read that they were written about the turn of the first
> century ........ and I think the term "catholic" had a different usage
> then, when there was only one church based on Christ's teachings.
>
> Daniel
The term catholic means universal. To those of us who believe, Christ's
church is universal, with different denominations for those with
different needs. I have always felt the very beauty of Christ's church
is in its diversity.
Leonidas Jones
> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>
>> I am baptist by faith, but items that have happened in my Life. And
>> Items That have happened in the world while I've been living, has
>> caused me to question whether there is such a thing as God.
>>
>> If there is a God all them students at Virginia Tech would not have
>> been killed. THe soon to be Killer would have been stuck down by
>> lightning and sent straight to hell before it happened.
>
> If there is a god, he's a real sonofabitch and has a lot to answer for.
> Spam is only the least of it :-( Gmail does a fine job of weeding out
> most of the spam, but I wish it would take my word for it that I REALLY
> want my good mail deleted from the server when I download it.
>
I am sorry Bev, I find this very offensive. Phillip is a good man
struggling mightily with his faith, as all of us who believe have done.
Your post belittles his struggle, rather then helping.
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> Regardless, I don't believe a real email should be used.
>
> While I have my email modified (but not fake), I first started posting
> here with the real address and quickly changed it when all the junk
> started coming. Now it's back to normal without any junk.
But there would seem to be a not-insignificant difference between /munging/
one's e-mail address and using an utterly /invalid/ e-mail address.
> Why give the bots ANY opportunities?
Ultimately, however, it's not about the 'bots -- and, trust me, having had a
few e-mail addresses rendered unusable due to spam, I know /all/ about them
-- ; it's about being reachable.
Frankly, I'm at the point where I consider those who use invalid e-mail
addresses -- and therefore indicate that they're not willing to take stand
by what they've written -- to be on roughly the same scale of being as
trolls. . . . :-(
--
/b.
String quartets don't march very well.
--Donald Barthelme, /The Dead Father/
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Frankly, I'm at the point where I consider those who use invalid e-mail
> addresses -- and therefore indicate that they're not willing to take
> stand by what they've written -- to be on roughly the same scale of
> being as trolls. . . . :-(
I think I better say something here:
my email address is real. Its not munged. Anyone can email me and get
me. Only my name is munged.
The End.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>>
>>> I am baptist by faith, but items that have happened in my Life. And
>>> Items That have happened in the world while I've been living, has
>>> caused me to question whether there is such a thing as God.
>>>
>>> If there is a God all them students at Virginia Tech would not have
>>> been killed. THe soon to be Killer would have been stuck down by
>>> lightning and sent straight to hell before it happened.
>>
>> If there is a god, he's a real sonofabitch and has a lot to answer for.
>> Spam is only the least of it :-( Gmail does a fine job of weeding out
>> most of the spam, but I wish it would take my word for it that I REALLY
>> want my good mail deleted from the server when I download it.
>
> I am sorry Bev, I find this very offensive. Phillip is a good man
> struggling mightily with his faith, as all of us who believe have done.
>
> Your post belittles his struggle, rather then helping.
That being the case, I apologize. I really do not want to cause pain to
someone who doesn't need or deserve it. I have my own struggles right now,
though, and what I said is exactly what I believe.
squaredancer
controverse to *THE* belief (whoever's)
reg
»Q«
Leonidas Jones <Leonid...@netscape.net> wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
> > If there is a god, he's a real sonofabitch and has a lot to answer
> > for. Spam is only the least of it :-(
>
> I am sorry Bev, I find this very offensive. Phillip is a good man
> struggling mightily with his faith, as all of us who believe have
> done.
>
> Your post belittles his struggle, rather then helping.
I don't think it belittled anyone's struggle; it just poked at the
notion that there exists a caring god. If we have to tolerate Xtian
evangelism here, I guess we're going to have to tolerate ridicule of it
as well.
Terry R.
> On 2007-05-01 09:04 (-0600 UTC), Terry R. wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> Regardless, I don't believe a real email should be used.
>>
>> While I have my email modified (but not fake), I first started posting
>> here with the real address and quickly changed it when all the junk
>> started coming. Now it's back to normal without any junk.
>
> But there would seem to be a not-insignificant difference between /munging/
> one's e-mail address and using an utterly /invalid/ e-mail address.
In regards to junk mail, correct. But in regards to "reachability" (as
you mention below), it makes all the difference. You can reach me
easily even though my address is munged. Not the case with a fake one,
as you say, trolls use.
>
>> Why give the bots ANY opportunities?
>
> Ultimately, however, it's not about the 'bots -- and, trust me, having had a
> few e-mail addresses rendered unusable due to spam, I know /all/ about them
> -- ; it's about being reachable.
>
> Frankly, I'm at the point where I consider those who use invalid e-mail
> addresses -- and therefore indicate that they're not willing to take stand
> by what they've written -- to be on roughly the same scale of being as
> trolls. . . . :-(
>
--
Terry R.
out on the keyboard
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I'm at the point where I consider those who use invalid e-mail
>> addresses -- and therefore indicate that they're not willing to take
>> stand by what they've written -- to be on roughly the same scale of
>> being as trolls. . . . :-(
>
> I think I better say something here:
>
> my email address is real. Its not munged. Anyone can email me and get
> me. Only my name is munged.
>
> The End.
>
Did anyone accuse you of it? I know your email is valid. No problem
from me.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 5/4/2007 9:34 PM On a whim, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo pounded
> out on the keyboard
>
>> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>>
>>> Frankly, I'm at the point where I consider those who use invalid
>>> e-mail addresses -- and therefore indicate that they're not willing
>>> to take stand by what they've written -- to be on roughly the same
>>> scale of being as trolls. . . . :-(
>>
>> I think I better say something here:
>>
>> my email address is real. Its not munged. Anyone can email me and
>> get me. Only my name is munged.
>>
>> The End.
>>
>
> Did anyone accuse you of it?
Yes! A few have!
> I know your email is valid. No problem
> from me.
>
--
Leonidas Jones
I'm not trying to evangelize here, it is far from the proper forum. I'm
just trying to show concern for a friend struggling with many issues.
Irwin Greenwald
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>>
>>> I am baptist by faith, but items that have happened in my Life. And
>>> Items That have happened in the world while I've been living, has
>>> caused me to question whether there is such a thing as God.
>>>
>>> If there is a God all them students at Virginia Tech would not have
>>> been killed. THe soon to be Killer would have been stuck down by
>>> lightning and sent straight to hell before it happened.
>>
>> If there is a god, he's a real sonofabitch and has a lot to answer
>> for. Spam is only the least of it :-( Gmail does a fine job of
>> weeding out most of the spam, but I wish it would take my word for it
>> that I REALLY want my good mail deleted from the server when I
>> download it.
>>
>
> I am sorry Bev, I find this very offensive. Phillip is a good man
> struggling mightily with his faith, as all of us who believe have done.
>
> Your post belittles his struggle, rather then helping.
>
> Lee
>
I agree that Bev's comment is offensive. OTOH I believe discussions of
religion in technical forums are offensive per se.
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> On 5/4/2007 8:57 PM, Leonidas Jones wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am baptist by faith, but items that have happened in my Life. And
>>>> Items That have happened in the world while I've been living, has
>>>> caused me to question whether there is such a thing as God.
>>>>
>>>> If there is a God all them students at Virginia Tech would not have
>>>> been killed. THe soon to be Killer would have been stuck down by
>>>> lightning and sent straight to hell before it happened.
>>>
>>> If there is a god, he's a real sonofabitch and has a lot to answer
>>> for. Spam is only the least of it :-( Gmail does a fine job of
>>> weeding out most of the spam, but I wish it would take my word for it
>>> that I REALLY want my good mail deleted from the server when I
>>> download it.
>>>
>>
>> I am sorry Bev, I find this very offensive. Phillip is a good man
>> struggling mightily with his faith, as all of us who believe have done.
>>
>> Your post belittles his struggle, rather then helping.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>
> I agree that Bev's comment is offensive.
I would disagree. What she said is fine to me. It doesn't bother me if
someone wants to use that type of language. I for one couldn't care less.
> OTOH I believe discussions of
> religion in technical forums are offensive per se.
but its not in a technical forum! Its in the general, where OTs of this
nature *are* permitted. Otherwise, if you want to call this a technical
forum, then create a NEW newsgroup called mozilla.ot [or
mozilla.test.ot, or whatever] and put all the OTs into that and not into
mozilla.general.
Irwin Greenwald
> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
<snip>
>> I agree that Bev's comment is offensive.
>
> I would disagree. What she said is fine to me. It doesn't bother me if
> someone wants to use that type of language. I for one couldn't care less.
>
>> OTOH I believe discussions of religion in technical forums are
>> offensive per se.
>
> but its not in a technical forum! Its in the general, where OTs of this
> nature *are* permitted. Otherwise, if you want to call this a technical
> forum, then create a NEW newsgroup called mozilla.ot [or
> mozilla.test.ot, or whatever] and put all the OTs into that and not into
> mozilla.general.
>
You are correct! I should have said "OTOH I believe discussions of
religion in Mozilla forums are offensive per se."
Tony Mechelynck
> squaredancer wrote:
[...]
>> IIRC, the new testament has been dated at about 300-350 AD.... and
>> written by the catholic church!
>>
>> reg
>
> I'm sure I have read that they were written about the turn of the first
> century ........ and I think the term "catholic" had a different usage
> then, when there was only one church based on Christ's teachings.
>
> Daniel
The Gospels, Acts and Epistles recount events having (or supposed to have)
happened around the turn of the first century. The Gospels (and the Acts,
which could well be called "Luke's Gospel, Book II") were put into their final
form at various dates, with the earliest being (IIUC) Mark's and the latest
John's (the latter a few centuries after the facts). The most "recent" book of
the Bible is Revelations.
"Catholic" comes from the Greek katholikos = kata + holos, "over the whole
(Earth)", universal. The name could be seen by non-Catholics as a bit of
propaganda on the part of the Roman church, as if naming itself "the only
valid church for all the peoples of the world". Similarly, the name of the
Orthodox church comes from Gr. orthodoxos < orthos "straight, just" + doxa
"opinion, doctrine", i.e., "the true doctrine". The proper name for the
"followers of Christ" of all denominations is of course Christian.
(Note: In the last sentence of the Credo, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the
Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, and
eternal life, Amen", the Protestants say "universal" rather than "catholic",
"in order to avoid ambiguity". Some Roman Catholics, OTOH, specify there "the
Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church".)
Best regards,
Tony.
»Q«
Leonidas Jones <Leonid...@netscape.net> wrote:
> I'm not trying to evangelize here
Just to be clear, I didn't mean to imply that you were the one doing
the evangelizing.
squaredancer
Greenwald to generate the following:? :
> On 5/5/2007 4:32 PM, Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>
>> Irwin Greenwald wrote:
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> I agree that Bev's comment is offensive.
>>>
>> I would disagree. What she said is fine to me. It doesn't bother me if
>> someone wants to use that type of language. I for one couldn't care less.
>>
>>
>>> OTOH I believe discussions of religion in technical forums are
>>> offensive per se.
>>>
>> but its not in a technical forum! Its in the general, where OTs of this
>> nature *are* permitted. Otherwise, if you want to call this a technical
>> forum, then create a NEW newsgroup called mozilla.ot [or
>> mozilla.test.ot, or whatever] and put all the OTs into that and not into
>> mozilla.general.
>>
>>
>
> You are correct! I should have said "OTOH I believe discussions of
> religion in Mozilla forums are offensive per se."
>
>
>
given, as a *true* discussion is on a par-level and all contributions
are considered on equal terms. What I (generally, not always!) dislike
is the way religious "zealots" promptly ridicule any form of controverse
argument that places "belief" on the same level as "don't know" - thus
forcing the "zealot" to open his mind to more wordly (modern,
non-medieval) ways of looking at religion!
The most impressive statement that I "caught" from religious instruction
was "The bible tells a story of the way things were *at the time* - and
of the way people saw and understood things *at the time*.
And *at the time* is two thousand years ago!
What also bugs me is the fanatical "hanging on" to the biblical
text.... no study and comparison of known facts is allowed. It's like
modern-day beaurocracy which tells you "It's in the computer, so it
*MUST* be correct".
My personal opinion - religion is OK for those who need it - but not in
my house, if you please!
A simple "fact" - ask the Mormons why they didn't allow coloured people
into their church - even though Jesus was of an arabic-tribal origin???
It should be noted though, that that policy has changed - IIRC under
political pressure.
reg
squaredancer
the Purple Hippo to generate the following:? :
> Brian Heinrich wrote:
>
>
>> Frankly, I'm at the point where I consider those who use invalid e-mail
>> addresses -- and therefore indicate that they're not willing to take
>> stand by what they've written -- to be on roughly the same scale of
>> being as trolls. . . . :-(
>>
>
> I think I better say something here:
>
> my email address is real. Its not munged. Anyone can email me and get
> me. Only my name is munged.
>
> The End.
>
>
*IS NOT* Hippo??? I am distressed beyond saying...
reg
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> (Note: In the last sentence of the Credo, "I believe in the Holy Spirit,
> the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of
> sins, and eternal life, Amen", the Protestants say "universal" rather
> than "catholic", "in order to avoid ambiguity". Some Roman Catholics,
> OTOH, specify there "the Holy Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church".)
Some of this phraseology will change depending on language and denomination;
for instance, I'm used to the Apostles' Creed ending:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy Christian Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen
The hymnal used by my congregation, /Lutheran Worship/ (there are some odd
synodical questions here: my congregation was a member of Lutheran
Church--Missouri Synod (who published the hymnal) for many years before
becoming a member of Lutheran Church--Canada when it was founded) has an
asterisk after 'Church', noting: 'The ancient text: the holy catholic Church'.
Similarly, in the Nicene Creed, 'And I believe in only holy Christian and
apostolic Church' could also read 'And I believe in one holy catholic and
apostolic church'.
As you point out, /catholic/ merely means /universal/; the fundamental split
here isn't between the Roman church and Protestantism (which happens much
later) but, rather, between the Western (Catholic) and Eastern (Orthodox)
churches. . . .
Brian Heinrich
<snip />
> What I (generally, not always!) dislike
> is the way religious "zealots" promptly ridicule any form of controverse
> argument that places "belief" on the same level as "don't know" - thus
> forcing the "zealot" to open his mind to more wordly (modern,
> non-medieval) ways of looking at religion!
Well, for some of us at least, this would be less of an issue were those who
'controverse' actually to know (something about) what they're on about.
Just about any thoughtful believer (of any faith) of my acquaintance will
cheerfully admit that 'faith' or 'belief' is different mode of 'knowing'
that is irreducible to empirical, scientific knowledge.
And just about any thoughtful non-believer of my acquaintance will
cheerfully admit that empirical, scientific knowledge has, over the past
century or so, come to involve a certain amount of faith or belief, since
causes are 'constructed' on the basis of effects.
At some level, there is little difference between believing in a
transcendental, absolute Other and believing that Schroedinger's wave
equations accurately describe something on the sub-atomic scale.
Seriously: If you were to go up to someone and say that /x/ neither existed
nor did not exist in a given place or space but simply had a statistical
probability of occupying that place or space at any given moment in time,
chances are he or she would look at you like you were a loon.
<snip />
> What also bugs me is the fanatical "hanging on" to the biblical
> text.... no study and comparison of known facts is allowed.
And to which 'known facts', precisely, is it that you refer?
<snip />
> My personal opinion - religion is OK for those who need it [ . . . ]
Are you suggesting that religion is somehow a crutch? -- Why are you
'fanatical[ly] "hanging on"' so such a knee-jerk position rather than
'study[ing] and compari[ng]' religion(s)? :-P
Personally, I find it remarkable that so many people, believers and
non-believers alike, seem oblivious to the fact that belief or faith (or
even the lack thereof) is an /act/, an /affirmation/. Since faith is
something in which one is actively engaged, it will always involve some
element of struggle. . . .
> [ . . . ] - but not in
> my house, if you please!
Ah, so you /are/ quite as close-minded as those whom you accuse of
close-mindedness. :-(
> A simple "fact" - ask the Mormons why they didn't allow coloured people
> into their church - even though Jesus was of an arabic-tribal origin???
You might want to ask a Mormon about that, but I'd venture to guess that
it's all Ham's fault. :-P
> It should be noted though, that that policy has changed - IIRC under
> political pressure.
--
Tony Mechelynck
> On 2007-05-05 18:17 (-0600 UTC), Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> (Note: In the last sentence of the Credo, "I believe in the Holy
>> Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the
>> remission of sins, and eternal life, Amen", the Protestants say
>> "universal" rather than "catholic", "in order to avoid ambiguity".
>> Some Roman Catholics, OTOH, specify there "the Holy Catholic,
>> Apostolic and Roman Church".)
>
> Some of this phraseology will change depending on language and
> denomination; for instance, I'm used to the Apostles' Creed ending:
>
> I believe in the Holy Spirit,
> the holy Christian Church,
> the communion of saints,
> the forgiveness of sins,
> the resurrection of the body,
> and the life everlasting. Amen
I was translating from the French-language Lutheran (Apostles' Symbolon) Credo
I learnt as a boy, but that doesn't matter since the originals (of both
Apostles' and Nicaea Credos) are neither in French nor in English but in
Greek. You understood what I meant. The exact text I was taught ended "...Je
crois au Saint-Esprit, la sainte Église universelle, la communion des saints,
la rémission des péchés (was there "la résurrection de la chair"? It's been so
long I'm not 100% sure) ...et la vie éternelle, Amen."
>
> The hymnal used by my congregation, /Lutheran Worship/ (there are some
> odd synodical questions here: my congregation was a member of Lutheran
> Church--Missouri Synod (who published the hymnal) for many years before
> becoming a member of Lutheran Church--Canada when it was founded) has an
> asterisk after 'Church', noting: 'The ancient text: the holy catholic
> Church'.
>
> Similarly, in the Nicene Creed, 'And I believe in only holy Christian
> and apostolic Church' could also read 'And I believe in one holy
> catholic and apostolic church'.
>
> As you point out, /catholic/ merely means /universal/; the fundamental
> split here isn't between the Roman church and Protestantism (which
> happens much later) but, rather, between the Western (Catholic) and
> Eastern (Orthodox) churches. . . .
>
Best regards,
Tony.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
217. Your sex life has drastically improved...so what if it's only cyber-sex!
Tony Mechelynck
> On 2007-05-06 00:37 (-0600 UTC), squaredancer wrote:
>
> <snip />
>
>> What I (generally, not always!) dislike is the way religious "zealots"
>> promptly ridicule any form of controverse argument that places
>> "belief" on the same level as "don't know" - thus forcing the "zealot"
>> to open his mind to more wordly (modern, non-medieval) ways of looking
>> at religion!
>
> Well, for some of us at least, this would be less of an issue were those
> who 'controverse' actually to know (something about) what they're on about.
>
> Just about any thoughtful believer (of any faith) of my acquaintance
> will cheerfully admit that 'faith' or 'belief' is different mode of
> 'knowing' that is irreducible to empirical, scientific knowledge.
>
> And just about any thoughtful non-believer of my acquaintance will
> cheerfully admit that empirical, scientific knowledge has, over the past
> century or so, come to involve a certain amount of faith or belief,
> since causes are 'constructed' on the basis of effects.
It's not so simple. Scientific theory is always empirical, in that not only
scientific theories are constructed on the basis of observed facts (as you
say), they are also discarded (or kept, like Newtonian mechanics, as only a
first approximation) once the results of experimentation depart from theory by
significantly more than the margin of experimental error. The layman may or
may not be conscious of that but the scientist doesn't label as "science" any
theory which doesn't make "disprovable" predictions. In a nutshell,
"scientific theories can't be proven but they can be disproven".
Religious faith, OTOH, is not subject to experiment: the nature of life after
death, if any; the existence of one, many, or no god(s); the particular ritual
forms (if any) which such god(s) (if any) "prefer" their faithful to observe,
and so on and so forth, are not statements that can be proven or disproven --
at most, they can be believed or disbelieved for subjective reasons. Let's
stay humble: as long as you don't try to force your religion down my throat,
I'll let you believe in peace. In any case I would never try to force /my/
unprovable beliefs down /your/ throat.
As for morals, I'll take "Do unto others as thou wouldst want others to do
unto you", which has been advocated by countless religious and non-religious
philosophers of all times and places; I'll take it not because "God" (whatever
meaning one puts into that word) ordained it but because I sincerely believe
(after examining all the pertinent evidence which has been brought to my
attention, and until proof of the contrary) that regardless of any religious
beliefs it is a sound basis for ethics.
>
> At some level, there is little difference between believing in a
> transcendental, absolute Other and believing that Schroedinger's wave
> equations accurately describe something on the sub-atomic scale.
Schrödinger's equations are useful to describe and even predict observable
phenomena: when scattering electrons through a crystal they behave as waves
going through a lattice, and when illuminating photoelectric cells the light
behaves as a shower of particles with well-defined individual mass and
momentum. As for lasers... IIUC (but it isn't my specialty) the light in them
behaves as both waves and particles at the same time. So the wave/particle
duality /is/ observable, when the objects of observation are small enough and
fast enough.
>
> Seriously: If you were to go up to someone and say that /x/ neither
> existed nor did not exist in a given place or space but simply had a
> statistical probability of occupying that place or space at any given
> moment in time, chances are he or she would look at you like you were a
> loon.
To some scientists, the fact that the act itself of observation interacts with
the observed phenomenon, and the fact that predictions can only be made in
terms of probabilities and not of yes/no answers, that measurements (of
position and momentum together) have a measurable nonzero lower limit of
precision, place the yes/no questions about a single particle and the
questions asking for an answer more precise than that lower limit outside the
realm of science. Here we come to grips, not so much with Scrödinger's
equations as with Planck's constant.
>
> <snip />
>
>> What also bugs me is the fanatical "hanging on" to the biblical
>> text.... no study and comparison of known facts is allowed.
>
> And to which 'known facts', precisely, is it that you refer?
Among the contrascientific statements held (now or in the past) by some
staunch believers even against empirical observations, I'll mention some like
"the Earth is a flat disk, and the sky is a solid half-sphere touching its
edge"; "the Sun goes round the Earth and not vice-versa, since Gideon said
'Sun, make a halt over Gabaon, and you Moon over the valley of Ajjalon' -- and
they obeyed!" "The Earth is about 6000 years old and was created in 6 days of
24 hours each; any evidence to the contrary, such as fossils, etc., was put in
there at Creation time by God to poke fun at unbelieving self-styled
scientists" "Mary was a virgin, in the gynaecological sense of the term,
before, during and after giving birth to Jesus, until her death" or even "The
proof that the Holy Book [whichever one] is the literal Word of God is that
the Holy Book, which is the literal Word of God, says so". Happily, far from
all believers go to such extremes. But, alas, there are some.
>
> <snip />
>
>> My personal opinion - religion is OK for those who need it [ . . . ]
>
> Are you suggesting that religion is somehow a crutch? -- Why are you
> 'fanatical[ly] "hanging on"' so such a knee-jerk position rather than
> 'study[ing] and compari[ng]' religion(s)? :-P
There are religion-like aspects to some forms of atheism, Marxism, etc., too.
>
> Personally, I find it remarkable that so many people, believers and
> non-believers alike, seem oblivious to the fact that belief or faith (or
> even the lack thereof) is an /act/, an /affirmation/. Since faith is
> something in which one is actively engaged, it will always involve some
> element of struggle. . . .
>
>> [ . . . ] - but not in my house, if you please!
>
> Ah, so you /are/ quite as close-minded as those whom you accuse of
> close-mindedness. :-(
>
>> A simple "fact" - ask the Mormons why they didn't allow coloured
>> people into their church - even though Jesus was of an arabic-tribal
>> origin???
>
> You might want to ask a Mormon about that, but I'd venture to guess that
> it's all Ham's fault. :-P
>
>> It should be noted though, that that policy has changed - IIRC under
>> political pressure.
>
Best regards,
Tony.
--
I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park anywhere
near the place.
-- Steven Wright
Chris Ilias
> but its not in a technical forum! Its in the general, where OTs of this
> nature *are* permitted. Otherwise, if you want to call this a technical
> forum, then create a NEW newsgroup called mozilla.ot [or
> mozilla.test.ot, or whatever] and put all the OTs into that and not into
> mozilla.general.
<nit-pick>
mozilla.general is intended for any discussion related to Mozilla.
Religious discussion is still considered OT in here; but the big
difference is that OT discussion is allowed here.
</nit-pick>
--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
List-owner: support-firefox, support-thunderbird
mozilla.test.multimedia moderator
(Please do not email me tech support questions)
squaredancer
Mechelynck to generate the following:? :
I'm afraid, as you seem also to have noticed, that Brian carries all the
arguments that "the church" (not, please note, "religion") has used to
implement "belief" upon its followers... "DO NOT question the arguments
of your church leaders, or you will end in damnation"
reg
Dennis McCunney
> It's not so simple. Scientific theory is always empirical, in that not
> only scientific theories are constructed on the basis of observed facts
> (as you say), they are also discarded (or kept, like Newtonian
> mechanics, as only a first approximation) once the results of
> experimentation depart from theory by significantly more than the margin
> of experimental error. The layman may or may not be conscious of that
> but the scientist doesn't label as "science" any theory which doesn't
> make "disprovable" predictions. In a nutshell, "scientific theories
> can't be proven but they can be disproven".
Correct. The late Susan Sontag once pointed out that science is the
process of *disproving* theories. The theories that are generally
accepted are those no one has successfully disproven.
Believers of various sorts tend to say "That's just a *theory*" about
aspects of science that go against their beliefs. (Evolution and
estimates of the age of the universe are common places for this to
happen.) Quite so, but they are theories no one has successfully disproven.
The essence of the scientific method is *repeatable* results. An
experiment can be conducted by a researcher to yield a set of findings.
Another researcher should be able to duplicate the set up, carry out
the same experiments, and get the *same* results. If they don't,
something is wrong somewhere.
Religious believers have been complaining various things are simply
theories for as long as I can recall, but none have offered repeatable
experiments to *disprove* those theories. That's why Creation Science
isn't science.
> Religious faith, OTOH, is not subject to experiment: the nature of life
> after death, if any; the existence of one, many, or no god(s); the
> particular ritual forms (if any) which such god(s) (if any) "prefer"
> their faithful to observe, and so on and so forth, are not statements
> that can be proven or disproven -- at most, they can be believed or
> disbelieved for subjective reasons.
Well, religious faith is not *currently* subject to experiment. We have
no idea what to test for, and may lack the equipment to make the tests,
as we would be trying to measure things our current kit can't detect.
Our technology is limited to what can be observed within the
electromagnetic spectrum. Religious phenomena by definition take place
outside of that framework. Cosmologist once posited the existance of
"tachyons", particles whose *lowest* speed was the speed of light, and
which normally travelled much faster. Unfortunately, there was no way
to detect such things save by any interaction they might have with
normal particles, because nothing we have operates in the range where
tachyons would exist.
You have to wonder what might occur if we developed gear that *could*
detect and examine planes of reality beyond the ones we can see now.
> As for morals, I'll take "Do unto others as thou wouldst want others to
> do unto you", which has been advocated by countless religious and
> non-religious philosophers of all times and places; I'll take it not
> because "God" (whatever meaning one puts into that word) ordained it but
> because I sincerely believe (after examining all the pertinent evidence
> which has been brought to my attention, and until proof of the contrary)
> that regardless of any religious beliefs it is a sound basis for ethics.
Whenever humans live together in groups, there *must* be agreement about
what constitutes acceptable behavior so that the group can function. We
call that agreement "ethics" or "morality". We call the written down
version "law". Different societies may have different ideas of what is
acceptable, but that agreement must exist or the society cannot survive.
The Ten Commandments are good, common sense, rules of thumb for living
together in a group and getting along with your neighbors, and worth
following whether you believe they came from God or not. The things
they prohibit are all things that tend to harm the functioning of the
society you live in, and cause problems for everybody else.
> Schrödinger's equations are useful to describe and even predict
> observable phenomena: when scattering electrons through a crystal they
> behave as waves going through a lattice, and when illuminating
> photoelectric cells the light behaves as a shower of particles with
> well-defined individual mass and momentum. As for lasers... IIUC (but it
> isn't my specialty) the light in them behaves as both waves and
> particles at the same time. So the wave/particle duality /is/
> observable, when the objects of observation are small enough and fast
> enough.
And Schrodinger's work is specific to a particular scale. It's only
valid on the quantum level. I've seen all manner of amusing comment
that appears to have forgotten that.
> Among the contrascientific statements held (now or in the past) by some
> staunch believers even against empirical observations, I'll mention some
> like "the Earth is a flat disk, and the sky is a solid half-sphere
> touching its edge"; "the Sun goes round the Earth and not vice-versa,
> since Gideon said 'Sun, make a halt over Gabaon, and you Moon over the
> valley of Ajjalon' -- and they obeyed!" "The Earth is about 6000 years
> old and was created in 6 days of 24 hours each; any evidence to the
> contrary, such as fossils, etc., was put in there at Creation time by
> God to poke fun at unbelieving self-styled scientists" "Mary was a
> virgin, in the gynaecological sense of the term, before, during and
> after giving birth to Jesus, until her death" or even "The proof that
> the Holy Book [whichever one] is the literal Word of God is that the
> Holy Book, which is the literal Word of God, says so". Happily, far from
> all believers go to such extremes. But, alas, there are some.
Ah, yes, "The Gostak and the Doshes". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gostak)
"The Gostak distims the Doshes!"
"What's a Gostak?"
"That which distims Doshes."
"What's a Dosh?"
"That which is distimmed by the Gostak."
"What's distimming?"
"That which the Gostak does to the Doshes, dummy! Don't you know
*anything*?"
All circular, self-referential, and incapable of proof or disproof.
As for the age of the universe, that hinges on the length of a day. The
Bible claims God created everything in six days and rested on the
seventh. Since our day is based on the time it takes Earth to revolve
once on its axis, and the Earth didn't exist to provide that measurement
when creation began, I have to wonder where the folks who make that
claim got the idea. The Bible certainly doesn't specify it.
Assumptions that one of God's days is 24 of our hours long strike me as
reaching a bit.
> There are religion-like aspects to some forms of atheism, Marxism, etc.,
> too.
There are religion like aspects to a lot of beliefs. The late
psychiatrist Eric Berne talked about the Position. The Position is an
unconscious, existential statement of who we are, and how we fit into
the scheme of things. The Position is learned by osmosis as small
children, and generally set in broad outline as early as 5 years old.
Once we have adopted a Position, our main goal is to *defend* it.
Evidence that supports it is clutched to our chests with happy little
noises. Evidence that contradicts it is ignored or rejected, sometimes
violently. The Position corresponds to "sense of self", and questions
of the Position may be interpreted as attacks upon the holder.
A Position needs to be congruent to observable reality, or problems
occur. Positions somewhat out of alignment with reality may be called
neuroses. Positions really out of alignment with reality may be called
psychoses. Psychiatry in large part the process of making the Position
conscious and explicit where it can be examined and modified, and the
practice can be physically dangerous for the practitioner because
questioning of some Positions can produce violent responses.
Religious belief is often part of our Position, and questions of it are
reacted to in the same way. But how you react is less a matter of what
you believe than the manner in which you were raised. Your theology
determines what you believe. The culture in which you are raised
determines the manner in which you *express* your beliefs. If Mohammed
had been a Teuton in what is now Germany instead of an Arab in the
Middle East, would Islam look anything like it does now? I very much
doubt it. Two *very* different cultures were involved.
There was an article in the Wall Street Journal a while back talking
about Latino Christians leaving the Roman Catholic church to join one of
the "charismatic" Christian sects. One such convert commented that the
singing, dancing, and testifying of the charismatic service made him
feel "closer to Jesus". Religion operates on an emotional level, and
the Dionysian nature of the charismatic service satisfied that convert
better than the restrained and Apollonian nature of the RC worship.
So it is with religion in general. It operates on a gut level. We
hold a belief because it satisfies us emotionally, and we switch beliefs
if we do because the new belief provides greater emotional satisfaction.
This is a principal reason why religious discussions come to grief.
Religion mostly doesn't operate on the level of reason, and an emotional
response is not amenable to reasoned argument.
> Best regards,
> Tony.
______
Dennis
--
The truth that survives is simply the lie that is pleasantest to believe.
Daniel
Yes, Lee, "The term catholic means universal" was what I, poorly, tried
to indicate.
I am very familiar with the term "Roman Catholic Church" but I cannot
say I've heard of the "Anglican Catholic Church" or "Lutheran Catholic
Church".
Indeed, when I was doing my Electronics Apprenticeship in the Australian
Army in the early-mid 70's, we had weekly Religious Education classes
which were broken up into three varieties, Catholic, Anglican and Other
Protestant Denominations
Daniel
Daniel
My Uncle, a practicing Roman Catholic, used to say "Lutheran's, they
were first out (of the Catholic Church) ... and they'll be the first
back in.
And just to take this discussion around another turn, it just occured to
me, reading your reference to the Orthodox churches, one of the early
Popes, Constantine maybe/probably, moved the centre of the Catholic
church from Rome, (or more correctly, the Vatican City) to Istanbul and
changed the Cities name to Constantinople.
Is this how we ended up with the Eastern (Constantinople) and Western
(Roman) churches?
Daniel
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
Constantinople was named after Constantine I The Great, the first
Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire, around 330 CE. Constantinople
became the NEW capital of the Roman Empire.
With the decline of Rome, Constantinople remained the capital of the
Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire and the center of Eastern Christianity.
Following the schism of 1054, which divided Christianity between the
Eastern and Western churches, Constantinople became a commercial rival
to the Roman Catholic kingdoms in the western Mediterranean, especially
Venice. Schism = Event that separated the Byzantine and Roman churches.
Constantinople rose to challenge that of Rome; the rivalry would
culminate in the Schism of 1054 between the Eastern and Western
churches. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the papacy found
protection under the wing of Charlemagne and his successors
Daniel
Thanks for that, Peter.
I thought schism was any split in the church i.e. Luther caused a schism
as well.
Charlemagne was a Moslem, wasn't he? If so, interesting that the papacy
found protection from him, given current world situation.
Daniel
Daniel
Thanks for that, Peter.
I thought schism was any split in the church i.e. Luther caused a schism
as well.
Charlemagne was a Muslim, wasn't he? If so, interesting that the papacy
Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
> Charlemagne was a Moslem, wasn't he? If so, interesting that the papacy
> found protection from him, given current world situation.
>
> Daniel
A Moslem!? Oh good gravy, no.
Charlemagne was the Frankish king who conquered most of Europe. He
founded the Holy Roman Empire and was crowned the first Holy Roman
Emperor by Pope Leo III in the year 800 CE. Charlemagne was probably
born somewhere in what is now France or Germany. Its to be said that
the Sword of Charlemagne actually belonged to King Arthur.
Irwin Greenwald
<snip>
> Charlemagne was a Muslim, wasn't he? If so, interesting that the papacy
> found protection from him, given current world situation.
>
> Daniel
http://www.chronique.com/Library/MedHistory/charlemagne.htm
The Real Bev
> Daniel wrote:
>> Charlemagne was a Moslem, wasn't he? If so, interesting that the papacy
>> found protection from him, given current world situation.
>>
>> Daniel
>
> A Moslem!? Oh good gravy, no.
When I was a kid they were referred to as Mohammedans or Moslems. When did
they become Muslims?
> Charlemagne was the Frankish king who conquered most of Europe. He
> founded the Holy Roman Empire and was crowned the first Holy Roman
> Emperor by Pope Leo III in the year 800 CE. Charlemagne was probably
> born somewhere in what is now France or Germany. Its to be said that
> the Sword of Charlemagne actually belonged to King Arthur.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
================================================================
"Everything sucks; reverse the wires and everything will blow."
-- Desert Ed
»Q«
The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When I was a kid they were referred to as Mohammedans or Moslems.
> When did they become Muslims?
Not Musselmen? ;)
"Muslim" is closer to the way the Arabic word is pronounced, and I
think they just finally convinced us to use it instead of Moslem. They
don't like "Mohammedan" because it implies worship of their prophet.
Leonidas Jones
Yet the Anglicans and Episcopalians, and I believe the Lutherans say the
Nicene creed every week, where we profess belief in the "one Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic church". If its not the Nicene creed, its the
Apostolic Creed, which says the same thing.
We do not state that our church is the universal church, but that
Christ's Church is the universal church. Its rather a different thing.
I stated my belief, and it is mine, I do not intend to force it on
others. The true beauty of Christ's Church is in its diversity. A
seeker can find the denomination that suits his/her own needs. My choice
might not be another's. Yet we are all brothers/sisters in Christ's
universal Church.
Its my belief, take it for what it is worth.
The Real Bev
> In <news:-9qdnVzilPY1daLb...@mozilla.org>,
> The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> When I was a kid they were referred to as Mohammedans or Moslems.
>> When did they become Muslims?
>
> Not Musselmen? ;)
Oh lordy, I forgot about that name. Just for curious, are there any
differences between proper Jewish and Muslim diets?
> "Muslim" is closer to the way the Arabic word is pronounced, and I
> think they just finally convinced us to use it instead of Moslem. They
> don't like "Mohammedan" because it implies worship of their prophet.
--
Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 11.0)
***********************************************
"A complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
that the conspiracy is working." -- Tanuki
»Q«
Leonidas Jones <Leonid...@netscape.net> wrote:
> Yet the Anglicans and Episcopalians, and I believe the Lutherans say
> the Nicene creed every week, where we profess belief in the "one Holy,
> Catholic and Apostolic church". If its not the Nicene creed, its the
> Apostolic Creed, which says the same thing.
The Apostle's Creed which I once had memorized from saying it weekly
doesn't actually have "apostolic" in it. It professes belief in "the
holy ghost, the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the
forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life
everlasting."
Wikipedia has a pretty good rundown of the various ways in which the
"catholic" is interpreted by various groups. I had no idea the use of
the word to describe christianity went back so far; Ignatius of
Antioch used it in writing c. 107, and it seems to have been in use
before then.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One%2C_Holy%2C_Catholic%2C_and_Apostolic_Church>
squaredancer
>
>
>> In <news:-9qdnVzilPY1daLb...@mozilla.org>,
>> The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> When I was a kid they were referred to as Mohammedans or Moslems.
>>> When did they become Muslims?
>>>
>> Not Musselmen? ;)
>>
>
> Oh lordy, I forgot about that name. Just for curious, are there any
> differences between proper Jewish and Muslim diets?
>
>
>> "Muslim" is closer to the way the Arabic word is pronounced, and I
>> think they just finally convinced us to use it instead of Moslem. They
>> don't like "Mohammedan" because it implies worship of their prophet.
>>
>
>
reg
Jay Garcia
--- Original Message ---
> When I was a kid they were referred to as Mohammedans or Moslems. When did
> they become Muslims?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim
--
Jay Garcia Netscape/Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Tony Mechelynck
The Lutheran church I went to used the "Apostles' Symbolon" Credo, with
"...the holy universal Church..." ("la sainte Église universelle", since it
was in French). Protestants don't use the world "catholic" in their Credo,
except maybe if some of them say it in Greek (where "universal" is
"katholikos" -- and, by the way, "republic" is "dhimokratia": how to they tell
apart a Democrat from a Republican?)
>
> We do not state that our church is the universal church, but that
> Christ's Church is the universal church. Its rather a different thing.
>
> I stated my belief, and it is mine, I do not intend to force it on
> others. The true beauty of Christ's Church is in its diversity. A
> seeker can find the denomination that suits his/her own needs. My choice
> might not be another's. Yet we are all brothers/sisters in Christ's
> universal Church.
>
> Its my belief, take it for what it is worth.
>
> Lee
>
Best regards,
Tony.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
219. Your spouse has his or her lawyer deliver the divorce papers...
via e-mail.
Tony Mechelynck
I don't believe they will ever be back in. Time will tell.
>
> And just to take this discussion around another turn, it just occured to
> me, reading your reference to the Orthodox churches, one of the early
> Popes, Constantine maybe/probably, moved the centre of the Catholic
> church from Rome, (or more correctly, the Vatican City) to Istanbul and
> changed the Cities name to Constantinople.
He changed it from Byzantion (not from Istanbul) to Konstantinopolis.
"Byzantium" was still in use however, at some much later times, together with
"Constantinople" (e.g., the coins of Constantinople were named "besants", from
Byzantium); and "Istanbul" is nothing else than an approximative
transliteration of "Konstantinopolis" (or, if you speak fast, "stadnópol")
into the Arabic language (where two consonants are not possible at the start
of a word so an epenthetic vowel, usually i, is added). (And, yes,
Constantinople was conquered by Turks, not Arabs, but they used Arabic as an
upper-class literary and liturgical language, the way the Western people of
the same period were using Latin.)
>
> Is this how we ended up with the Eastern (Constantinople) and Western
> (Roman) churches?
>
> Daniel
>
>
At first, the Patriarch of Rome (who wasn't yet called "the Pope") had only a
very limited preeminence over the other Patriarchs, whose sees were at
Alexandria (of Egypt), Ephese, and a couple of other cities which I don't
remember by heart; maybe Constantinople was one of them. Starting when the
Christian religion was made Religion of State in the Roman empire, it became
intimately bound with the imperial political power, so that when the empire
was divided into Western and Eastern empires (with Rome largely autonomous but
second to Constantinople), it was to be expected that a similar division would
affect the church. But besides the Latin church (Rome) and the Greek one
(Constantinople), other independent churches founded in the Antiquity have
subsisted to this day, such e.g. as the Armenian or the Syriac church.
Best regards,
Tony.
Tony Mechelynck
[...]
> Charlemagne was a Moslem, wasn't he? If so, interesting that the papacy
> found protection from him, given current world situation.
>
> Daniel
Are you kidding? Charlemagne was a Christian, his father (Pippin the Short)
having called himself King by deposing the last successor of Clovis, who is
famed to have converted himself from Germanic paganism to Christianity after
the battle of Tolbiac.
Pippin was from a dynasty of "hereditary prime ministers", or "mayors of the
palace" as they were then called, who had more actual power than the kings
"under" whom they were supposed to serve. Some of these mayors of the palace
were heads of government of several kingdoms at the same time, and, IIRC, one
of them, Charles Martel, solved the question by choosing a common king for his
various kingdoms.
Charlemagne, who inherited from Pippin the title of King of the Franks, was
crowned Emperor in Rome by the Pope in 800. He did have diplomatic relations
with some Moslem sovereigns, among them Harun ar-Rasheed, caliph of Bagdad,
who made him a present of the first chess set to reach the Western world.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
This planet has -- or rather had -- a problem, which was this: most of
the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many
solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were
largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper,
which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of
paper that were unhappy.
-- Douglas Adams
Tony Mechelynck
>> Charlemagne was a Moslem, wasn't he? If so, interesting that the
>> papacy found protection from him, given current world situation.
>>
>> Daniel
>
> A Moslem!? Oh good gravy, no.
>
> Charlemagne was the Frankish king who conquered most of Europe. He
> founded the Holy Roman Empire and was crowned the first Holy Roman
> Emperor by Pope Leo III in the year 800 CE. Charlemagne was probably
...or Belgium. The French and English Wikipedias say "probably in Herstal,
near Liège, in what is now Belgium"; the German one (understandably?) prefers
Prüm, in what is now Germany; other places mentioned are Jupille (now in
Belgium), Düren or Aachen (now in Germany), Quierzy-sur-Oise (now in France),
none of them very far from Belgium.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the
ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our
very selfhood revealed."
And Jesus replied, "What?"
Tony Mechelynck
[...]
> When I was a kid they were referred to as Mohammedans or Moslems. When
> did they become Muslims?
The Arabic language, which is the Moslems' liturgical language because it is
the original language of their holy book (the Koran or Qur`ān), possesses no
other vowels than short or long a, u and i (approx. as API [a], [a:], [u],
[u:] [i] and [i:]). They call themselves (in the singular) Muslīm (Engl. pron.
approx. Musleem), which is a derivative from Islām, itself a cognate of salaam
(peace). Muslīm means "someone who practices Islām" from the same derivation
process which gives mujaheed or mujahīd as "someone who practices the jihād".
"Moslem" and "Muslim" both are transliteration of the word Muslīm into
English. Of the two, "Muslim" is somewhat nearer the original.
"Mohammedans" means "followers of Mohammed" from the founder of Islām, who was
named Mohammed or, in his native Arabic, Muhhammād. Even though the Islamic
credo (the "shadda" or profession of faith, IIRC "ashaddu lā ilāha illallāhi
Muhhammādan rassūlu lillāhi") can be translated something like "I bear witness
that there is no god except God and that Muhammad is the envoy of God", naming
Mohammed but not Islam, they prefer to be called Muslims (from what they are)
rather than Mohammedans (from the Prophet they follow).
The Arabic plural "Muslimīn" has been transliterated into "Musulman" (or
similar forms), a term in long usage in various Western languages to mean a
Muslim.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
"But this has taken us far afield from interface, which is not a bad
place to be, since I particularly want to move ahead to the kludge.
Why do people have so much trouble understanding the kludge? What is a
kludge, after all, but not enough Ks, not enough ROMs, not enough RAMs,
poor quality interface and too few bytes to go around? Have I
explained yet about the bytes?"
»Q«
Tony Mechelynck <antoine.m...@belgacom.net> wrote:
> The Lutheran church I went to used the "Apostles' Symbolon" Credo,
> with "...the holy universal Church..." ("la sainte Église
> universelle", since it was in French). Protestants don't use the
> world "catholic" in their Credo, except maybe if some of them say it
> in Greek (where "universal" is "katholikos" -- and, by the way,
> "republic" is "dhimokratia": how to they tell apart a Democrat from a
> Republican?)
In the US, many (most?) protestant denominations do say "holy catholic
church".
Tony Mechelynck
[...]
> differences between proper Jewish and Muslim diets?
Yes, the Jewish rules are much stricter. For instance, the Jews prohibit not
only pork but a number of other diets including seafood (or anything "which
creeps underwater, or which swims in the water and hasn't got fish-like
scales"), or rabbit ("you may eat the flesh of the ox, the sheep and the goat,
which chew the cud and have cloven hooves, but you may not eat the flesh of
the pig, which has cloven hooves but doesn't chew the cud, nor of the rabbit,
which chews the cud but doesn't have cloven hooves") and their rules prescribe
at least 2 hours' wait after eating milk, cream or cheese before one may eat
meat, and at least (IIRC) six hours' wait after eating meat before one may eat
dairy products. This "required wait" results from a non-Biblical commentary on
"thou shalt not cook the kid in the milk of its mother", via assimilation of
digestion to "cooking".
The Muslim prohibit pork (like Jews) and they have (like Jews) ritual rules
about how meat-producing animals may be slaughtered, but IIUC in case of
necessity any meat prepared by a member of the "peoples of the Book" (i.e.,
not only a Muslim but also a Jew or a Christian), and not including pork, may
be declared "halāl" (pure, licit, or, in the case of food, fit to eat) by
speaking the name of God (the formula "bismillāhi -rrahhmāni -rrahhīmi", i.e.,
approx. "In the name of God, the Generous, the Merciful") over it before
eating it.
Best regards,
Tony.
--
Grain grows best in shit
-- Ursula K. LeGuin
Tony Mechelynck
Well, you can be sure that in countries (like mine) where Roman Catholicism
has an overwhelming majority, or even a militant minority, they never do. Just
imagine a Protestant from Belfast saying "I believe in the holy Catholic church"!
Best regards,
Tony.
--
hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict:
220. Your wife asks for sex and you tell her where to find you on IRC.
Leonidas Jones
> »Q« wrote:
>> In <news:2bKdnW3grZE_Kd3b...@mozilla.org>,
>> Tony Mechelynck <antoine.m...@belgacom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Lutheran church I went to used the "Apostles' Symbolon" Credo,
>>> with "...the holy universal Church..." ("la sainte Église
>>> universelle", since it was in French). Protestants don't use the
>>> world "catholic" in their Credo, except maybe if some of them say it
>>> in Greek (where "universal" is "katholikos" -- and, by the way,
>>> "republic" is "dhimokratia": how to they tell apart a Democrat from a
>>> Republican?)
>>
>> In the US, many (most?) protestant denominations do say "holy catholic
>> church".
>
> Well, you can be sure that in countries (like mine) where Roman
> Catholicism has an overwhelming majority, or even a militant minority,
> they never do. Just imagine a Protestant from Belfast saying "I believe
> in the holy Catholic church"!
>
>
> Best regards,
> Tony.
As »Q« says, we do indeed.
I would suspect this thread is running its course, though there have
been very interesting submissions. I found it interesting that at
tonight's rehearsal, we were working on the Reformation Symphony.
Daniel
> Tony Mechelynck wrote:
>> »Q« wrote:
>>> In <news:2bKdnW3grZE_Kd3b...@mozilla.org>,
>>> Tony Mechelynck <antoine.m...@belgacom.net> wrote:
>>>
> I would suspect this thread is running its course, though there have
> been very interesting submissions. I found it interesting that at
> tonight's rehearsal, we were working on the Reformation Symphony.
>
> Lee
>
"tonight's rehearsal"????
Daniel
Leonidas Jones
Sorry, many people here know that I am a performing symphonic musician.
I meant to say the rehearsal I had just returned from last night.
Somehow the irony of Mendelssohn's Reformation Symphony being on the
program struck me.
Daniel
> On 12/05/2007 17:41, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Leonidas Jones
>>
>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>>>>
Snip
>>
> who wants to be "strict" on general??
>
> Anyway - out of bitter, 45 years of experience, blame the surveyors all
> you want.... we're used to it :'( :'( :'(
>
> reg
Ahhh so it was you, reg, that made all the problems with the world??
Daniel
squaredancer
> squaredancer wrote:
>
>> On 12/05/2007 17:41, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Leonidas Jones
>> to generate the following:? :
>>
>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Daniel wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>
> Snip
>
>
>>>
>>>
>> who wants to be "strict" on general??
>>
>> Anyway - out of bitter, 45 years of experience, blame the surveyors all
>> you want.... we're used to it :'( :'( :'(
>>
>> reg
>>
>
> Ahhh so it was you, reg, that made all the problems with the world??
>
> Daniel
>
eye the land, draw the maps..... and get the hell out of the way, that's us!
reg