Andy Schlafly is back!!!
David C. Fritzinger
evidence group, hoping to see his mathematical proof against evolution.
(Still haven't seen it, by the way). Guess who showed up there today.
None other than Andy Schafly. Anyone want to come over there and argue
with him again? The address of the group is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolution-evidence
BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
to t.o anymore.
Thanks,
Dave Fritzinger
Mark VandeWettering
>As I mentioned before, I joined David Vizcarra's yahoo evolution
>evidence group, hoping to see his mathematical proof against evolution.
>(Still haven't seen it, by the way). Guess who showed up there today.
>None other than Andy Schafly. Anyone want to come over there and argue
>with him again? The address of the group is:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolution-evidence
Ah, he was stupid, but annoying as well.
Who could forget the "plus qu'une" fiasco, where he argued endlessly about
the meaning of french with native french speakers?
Or his assertion that Darrow was trying to win the Scopes Monkey trial?
Or his cry for data on Mungo Man?
Hard to forget. But worth a shot.
>BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
>to t.o anymore.
It couldn't have been the pasting that the talk.origins crew subjected him
to... nah... it must be the bot.
Mark
>Thanks,
>Dave Fritzinger
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Mark E. Miller
<dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>As I mentioned before, I joined David Vizcarra's yahoo evolution
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
..something singularly appropriate about that juxtaposition..
>evidence group, hoping to see his mathematical proof against evolution.
>(Still haven't seen it, by the way). Guess who showed up there today.
>None other than Andy Schlafly. Anyone want to come over there and argue
Schlafly... that's an unusual name.. any relation to the infamous
Phyllis Schlafly?
MEM
Adam Marczyk
news:3B08523A...@nospam.yahoo.com...
That happened pretty suddenly, didn't it? One day he was here and the next
gone. Has anyone changed the bot in that time? ;)
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Bigdakine
>From: ma...@peewee.telescopemaking.org (Mark VandeWettering)
>Date: 5/20/01 1:57 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <slrn9ggmf3...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>
>
>David C. Fritzinger <dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>As I mentioned before, I joined David Vizcarra's yahoo evolution
>>evidence group, hoping to see his mathematical proof against evolution.
>>(Still haven't seen it, by the way). Guess who showed up there today.
>>None other than Andy Schafly. Anyone want to come over there and argue
>>with him again? The address of the group is:
>>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolution-evidence
>
>Ah, he was stupid, but annoying as well.
>
>Who could forget the "plus qu'une" fiasco, where he argued endlessly about
>the meaning of french with native french speakers?
>
>Or his assertion that Darrow was trying to win the Scopes Monkey trial?
>
>Or his cry for data on Mungo Man?
>
>Hard to forget. But worth a shot.
>
>>BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
>>to t.o anymore.
>
>It couldn't have been the pasting that the talk.origins crew subjected him
>to... nah... it must be the bot.
>
> Mark
Goodness, you failed to mention the creme' de la creme' of his arguments..
Devil's Tower was created by the Noachian deluge..
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Adam Marczyk
news:3b086b59$0$62152$bbae...@news.net-link.net...
He's her son, isn't he? I don't think he's ever explicitly said so, but the
connections are obvious.
Mark VandeWettering
>Goodness, you failed to mention the creme' de la creme' of his arguments..
>
>Devil's Tower was created by the Noachian deluge..
Ah yes, and how millions of tons of water actually raises mountains
above sea level!
Truly, as good an argument for birth control as any I've seen.
Mark
Bigdakine
>Message-id: <slrn9ghc3k...@peewee.telescopemaking.org>
>
>On 21 May 2001 00:04:22 -0400, Bigdakine <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote:
>
>>Goodness, you failed to mention the creme' de la creme' of his arguments..
>>
>>Devil's Tower was created by the Noachian deluge..
>
>Ah yes, and how millions of tons of water actually raises mountains
>above sea level!
>
>Truly, as good an argument for birth control as any I've seen.
Or retroactive abortion..
Bill Thomas
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message news:9ea42n$1d1m$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
The Schlafly's were posting to sci.astro for while after they left
here. They were posting some bizzare revisionist idea about
how useless Galileo and Newton were compared to their
hero, Kepler IIRC.
LoRezMe
>
>Schlafly... that's an unusual name.. any relation to the infamous
>Phyllis Schlafly?
I'm glad you asked since I was about to. It all sounds just about right...
lorez
Ken Cox
> BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
> to t.o anymore.
I see he hasn't stopped lying.
He's active on sci.physics (where he's arguing that
relativity is unscientific because gravity waves are
not falsifiable). A reply with a judiciously-added
crosspost to talk.origins would be fun.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Henry Barwood
Ken Cox wrote:
Of Andy Schlafly:
> A reply with a judiciously-added
> crosspost to talk.origins would be fun.
Only if you also enjoy a root canal! Without Novocain!
Barwood
Mark VandeWettering
Heh. :-)
I'll have to check this out. Gravity waves not falsifiable? This
might be a new high in Schlafly-reality-revision.
Mark
>--
>Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Bobby D. Bryant
> Goodness, you failed to mention the creme' de la creme' of his arguments..
>
> Devil's Tower was created by the Noachian deluge..
Was that the one where he argued that the pressure of all the surrounding
water made it squirt up high?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David Fritzinger
I'd love to, but he is on David Vizcarra's private evolution group at
yahoo. Does anyone know how I can crosspost to t.o from there?
Thanks,
Dave Fritzinger
Adam Marczyk
news:99043881...@nntp.win.co.nz...
>
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:9ea42n$1d1m$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net...
> > David C. Fritzinger <dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3B08523A...@nospam.yahoo.com...
> > > As I mentioned before, I joined David Vizcarra's yahoo evolution
> > > evidence group, hoping to see his mathematical proof against
evolution.
> > > (Still haven't seen it, by the way). Guess who showed up there today.
> > > None other than Andy Schafly. Anyone want to come over there and argue
> > > with him again? The address of the group is:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolution-evidence
> > >
> > > BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from
posting
> > > to t.o anymore.
> >
> > That happened pretty suddenly, didn't it? One day he was here and the
next
> > gone. Has anyone changed the bot in that time? ;)
> >
>
> here. They were posting some bizzare revisionist idea about
> how useless Galileo and Newton were compared to their
> hero, Kepler IIRC.
I saw a bit of that. I also saw them arguing against relativity on
sci.physics -- an attempt which failed even more miserably and showcased
their complete lack of knowledge even more spectacularly (if such is
possible) than their arguing against evolution here.
Sherilyn
David Fritzinger <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<3B092A0D...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>>
>> He's active on sci.physics (where he's arguing that
>> relativity is unscientific because gravity waves are
>> not falsifiable). A reply with a judiciously-added
>> crosspost to talk.origins would be fun.
>
>I'd love to, but he is on David Vizcarra's private evolution group at
>yahoo. Does anyone know how I can crosspost to t.o from there?
>
think is very unlikely. Opportunistic crossposts aren't
necessarily a good idea, anyway.
--
http://www.sherilyn.org.uk/
Bigdakine
>Date: 5/21/01 4:45 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3B092A0D...@research.bell-labs.com>
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>:
I didn't realize you're an S&M devotee.
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Ken Cox
> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>:
> >"David C. Fritzinger" wrote:
> >> BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
> >> to t.o anymore.
> >A reply [in sci.physics] with a judiciously-added
> >crosspost to talk.origins would be fun.
> I didn't realize you're an S&M devotee.
Neither, in this case. The goal would be to get Andy
to make a post in talk.origins, thereby demonstrating
that he is a liar. As this will not in any way bother
him -- at least, it has not, in the past -- there is
no element of sadism.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com>:
>> >"David C. Fritzinger" wrote:
>> >> BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
>> >> to t.o anymore.
>
>> >A reply [in sci.physics] with a judiciously-added
>> >crosspost to talk.origins would be fun.
>
>> I didn't realize you're an S&M devotee.
>
>Neither, in this case. The goal would be to get Andy
>to make a post in talk.origins, thereby demonstrating
>that he is a liar.
....as if *that* needs re-demonstrating...
> As this will not in any way bother
>him -- at least, it has not, in the past -- there is
>no element of sadism.
Point(s) taken.
David Iain Greig
He's never emailed me to that effect.
--D.
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
Bobby D. Bryant
> BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
> to t.o anymore.
Maybe the bot evolved intelligence and free will?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Ken Cox
> David C. Fritzinger <dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
> >to t.o anymore.
> He's never emailed me to that effect.
As you may remember from Roger&Andy's original appearance,
both of them are good at saying "this is awful and should
be changed", but they don't follow-through. You may recall
that they were quite vocal at claiming that talk.origins
was censoring posts, but didn't take any active steps to
change that -- even when people metaphorically led them by
the hand, telling them everything they had to do to start
an RFD and CFV.
Andy complaining that the bot is blocking his posts, but
not telling the moderator, would be par for the course.
But I do have to wonder if they're like this in real life.
Do they wander down the street telling everyone they meet
that their cable is not working, but don't call the cable
company?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
David Fritzinger
You gotta see the crap that Andy is posting now. My 2 favorites are
that:
1) the beauty of nature disproves evolution, and
2) We will always be able to produce enough food to support the
population, thereby disproving Malthus and Darwin.
Dave Fritzinger
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dave Fritzinger
Ken Cox
> You gotta see the crap that Andy is posting now. My 2 favorites are
> that:
> 1) the beauty of nature disproves evolution, and
> 2) We will always be able to produce enough food to support the
> population, thereby disproving Malthus and Darwin.
He was doing #1 in talk.origins before he left, but I
didn't see #2 while he was here.
As always with Andy, I find it hard to follow his
reasoning for #2. It isn't even a warped sort of
scientific induction -- since we haven't always
*been* able to produce enough food [*], we can't
very well use history to conclude that we will
always be able to do so.
[*] See Revelations, Chapter 6.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Mark VandeWettering
These, misguided as they are, are postitively genius level observations
compared to some of the drek that Andy spewed here. C'mon, the idea of
floods pushing up Devil's Tower is just too priceless for words.
Mark
>Dave Fritzinger
rich hammett
> On 25 May 2001 18:02:02 -0400, David Fritzinger <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"David C. Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3B08523A...@nospam.yahoo.com>...
>>> As I mentioned before, I joined David Vizcarra's yahoo evolution
>>> evidence group, hoping to see his mathematical proof against evolution.
>>> (Still haven't seen it, by the way). Guess who showed up there today.
>>> None other than Andy Schafly. Anyone want to come over there and argue
>>> with him again? The address of the group is:
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolution-evidence
>>>
>>> BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
>>> to t.o anymore.
>>
>>You gotta see the crap that Andy is posting now. My 2 favorites are
>>that:
>>1) the beauty of nature disproves evolution, and
>>2) We will always be able to produce enough food to support the
>>population, thereby disproving Malthus and Darwin.
> These, misguided as they are, are postitively genius level observations
> compared to some of the drek that Andy spewed here. C'mon, the idea of
> floods pushing up Devil's Tower is just too priceless for words.
But Mark, everyone knows that that much water is _heavy_!
rich
> Mark
>>Dave Fritzinger
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
Larry Handlin
>David Iain Greig wrote:
>> David C. Fritzinger <dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >BTW, he claimed that the talk.origins bot is preventing him from posting
>> >to t.o anymore.
>
>> He's never emailed me to that effect.
>
>As you may remember from Roger&Andy's original appearance,
>both of them are good at saying "this is awful and should
>be changed", but they don't follow-through. You may recall
>that they were quite vocal at claiming that talk.origins
>was censoring posts, but didn't take any active steps to
>change that -- even when people metaphorically led them by
>the hand, telling them everything they had to do to start
>an RFD and CFV.
>
>Andy complaining that the bot is blocking his posts, but
>not telling the moderator, would be par for the course.
>But I do have to wonder if they're like this in real life.
>Do they wander down the street telling everyone they meet
>that their cable is not working, but don't call the cable
>company?
Given that the cable company is a conspiracy, what do you expect them
to do--complain to the conspirators at the Cable company?
Sheesh....think man.
"Morris is saying that it is not possible to be a ("consistent") Christian if you don't accept
his conclusion that Genesis 1-2 (and everything else) is true in a literal, non-poetic, unimaginative
sense. I say that it is not worth being a Christian if you don't believe that God has a better
imagination than Henry Morris."
--Paul Neubauer
"If clear thinking created sparks, we could safely store dynamite in James Watt's office.
--Wayne Shannon, KRON-TV
Matt Silberstein
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com>:
>Mark E. Miller <memi...@net-link.net> wrote in message
>news:3b086b59$0$62152$bbae...@news.net-link.net...
>> On 20 May 2001 19:24:51 -0400, "David C. Fritzinger"
>> <dfri...@nospam.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >As I mentioned before, I joined David Vizcarra's yahoo evolution
>>
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> ..something singularly appropriate about that juxtaposition..
>>
>> >evidence group, hoping to see his mathematical proof against evolution.
>> >(Still haven't seen it, by the way). Guess who showed up there today.
>> >None other than Andy Schlafly. Anyone want to come over there and argue
>>
>> Schlafly... that's an unusual name.. any relation to the infamous
>> Phyllis Schlafly?
>
>He's her son, isn't he? I don't think he's ever explicitly said so, but the
>connections are obvious.
If you write to the Eagle Forum about Phyllis's lies and distortion
about evolution Andy writes back. At least he did when I wrote them.
That pretty much confirms it for me.
BTW, regarding Andy and such, did I miss the charter vote? Hey, DIG,
what's up?
--
Matt Silberstein
Pardon me whilst I adjust my accoutrements.
D.D.
Dave Horn
news:i2tvhto851klepd7t...@4ax.com...
>
> In talk.origins I read <9ea41u$aiu$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net> from
> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com>:
[Snip]
> BTW, regarding Andy and such, did I miss the charter vote?
> Hey, DIG, what's up?
To borrow and paraphrase from "Star Trek III,"
"That's what you get for missing staff meetings, doctor."
;)
Matt Silberstein
<IGST6.71040$qs3.33...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com> from "Dave Horn"
<dave...@ns.home.com>:
That was how Opus became the V.P. candidate.
Dave Horn
>
> In talk.origins I read
> <IGST6.71040$qs3.33...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com> from "Dave Horn"
> <dave...@ns.home.com>:
>
> >"Matt Silberstein" <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:i2tvhto851klepd7t...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> In talk.origins I read <9ea41u$aiu$1...@node21.cwnet.roc.gblx.net> from
> >> "Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@excite.com>:
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> BTW, regarding Andy and such, did I miss the charter
> >> vote? Hey, DIG, what's up?
> >
> >To borrow and paraphrase from "Star Trek III,"
> >
> >"That's what you get for missing staff meetings, doctor."
> >
> >;)
>
> That was how Opus became the V.P. candidate.
Right...and look what happened to *him*.
Welcome back, Matt.
(BigDiscusser)
lawyer who was one os the leaders in traditional women`s victorious
defeat of the "feminazi`s who tried to pas s ERA. Boy, you guys are
really fierce against possible c reationists! God had to help me
tosay: God bless, Jo Jean
I am an 80 year old Christian lady. I am interested in a wide variety of
topics and am a retired RN.
http://community.webtv.net/JOJOYD/BigDiscusser
Jesus loves you.
wf...@ptd.net
>Dear Matt, I`ve met Phyllis Schalfly twice --she`s really a lovely lady
>lawyer who was one os the leaders in traditional women`s victorious
>defeat of the "feminazi`s who tried to pas s ERA. Boy, you guys are
>really fierce against possible c reationists! God had to help me
>tosay: God bless, Jo Jean
no, she's not a nice woman at all. she doesnt accept the idea that
spouse abuse exists, and she called the H bomb a 'great gift from a
wise and wonderful god'. she's a whore for the far right wing.
Thomas S. McDonald
<wf...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:3b217573....@news.ptdprolog.net...
Dear all,
I have to agree with wf; Phyllis Schlaffley may be a
charming and warm and loving individual in some alternate
reality (as, perhaps, among her family); but her public
persona has, ironically, shown that women can be the equal
of men in the gonzo-rabid-radical-right spouting of hate and
division as truth and light. I realize that reasonable
people can disagree about such things, but Ms. Schlaffley
has, to my recollection, never said a public word that was
anything but Buchannenesque in content and presentation.
And, as was said about Buchannen's speech to the Republican
National Convention a couple of elections ago, "it sounded
better in the original German."
I usually don't like personal attacks and ad hominems,
but I fear that Ms. Schlaffley has always stirred the
irrational and reacitve part of me. And, in my defense, I
think that's just the effect she's usually going for.
Peace,
Tom McDonald
Adam Marczyk
You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those godless
Communists.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
Nantko Schanssema
>You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those godless
>Communists.
Must've been the devil. :)
regards,
Nantko
--
Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again.
(Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love)
(BigDiscusser)
leaders--is it their Catholicism or what? I know and like Pat Buchanan.
Brother!!! It looks like the wholesale persequetions of Christians is
not far off. ( You know I used to be one of the nicest people in
California, and now at 80 I seem to have turned into something
unpalatable--you figure!)
Thomas S. McDonald
"(BigDiscusser)" <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10893-3B...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Dear Tom McDonald , you`ve made an ad hominen attactk on
two good
> leaders--is it their Catholicism or what? I know and like
Pat Buchanan.
> Brother!!! It looks like the wholesale persequetions of
Christians is
> not far off
<snip bio info>
Dear Ms. Discusser,
As I said, I usually don't go in for ad hominems; but
folks like Pat Buchanan (thanks for the spelling correction)
and Phyliss Schlaffley (sp?) get my goat with their extreme
right-wing and reactionary rhetoric. I am an Episcopalian,
so I'm not part of any persecution of Christians in general,
or Catholic Christians in particular. I am liberal, so I
have a philosophical difference with conservative folks in
many things. However, Schlaffley and Buchanan go that extra
mile into politically reactionary positions, and do so with
self-righteous gusto. That they then invite opposition with
similar gusto should not be a surprise, and certainly cannot
be seen as persecution or oppression of them. To the extent
that they, or others on their behalf, cry "persecution" when
people oppose them, to that extent they, or the others on
their behalf, don't understand the Bill of Rights that they
purport to champion. You see those two as good leaders.
I see them as political opponants with whom I disagree, and
whom I find personally disagreeable. I suspect that the
reverse would be true if they were aware of me, and if I had
any real political clout. It's good old American
give-and-take. Don't read anything more into it without
evidence.
BTW, my mom was an RN, a solid moderate to liberal
Christian, and a quite well respected person in our city. I
suspect she would have enjoyed lively discussions with you
about lots of things, and more than likely would not have
found you unpalatable at all. I suspect I would find you
the same.
Peace,
Tom McDonald
(BigDiscusser)
your Mother, as I do believe that love and prayer are the strongest
forces in the world. I often wonder if anybody at all has read my
poem on love on my web page that my adopted granddaughter ( high tech
lady at Intel put together for me after I got webtv. I really feel God
gave me this short but wonderful poem years ago the night after I got
home from the hospital ( the biopsy showed no cancer in my breast--in
those days the patient never knew if she would wake up with a breast or
not) I couldn`t sleep in the middle of the night, and was so
grateful I got up and wrote this poem in a very short time. I`m very
big on love , and I still love this poem. I forgot to end my last
communique with God bless so here are two of them this time: God bless,
God bless, Jo Jean PS some here have criticized me for my calling
myself "Bi gDiscusser because they say I never discuss any thing, just
talk abut Jesus, but my grand daughter says it fits me to a tee,because
just like my mother I`ve been a "world watcher " all of my life and
have "been in some big towns and heard me some big talk " so I have a
lot to discuss.Troubleis ,I am so slow I can`t keep up with all of you,
besides I have my own spread here to run all by myself, so I have to get
it done or else depart myself to a convalescent hospital which I
would hope not to do to my worst enemy!
rich hammett
> "(BigDiscusser)" <JOJ...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:10893-3B...@storefull-121.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>> Dear Tom McDonald , you`ve made an ad hominen attactk on
> two good
>> leaders--is it their Catholicism or what? I know and like
> Pat Buchanan.
>> Brother!!! It looks like the wholesale persequetions of
> Christians is
>> not far off
> <snip bio info>
> Dear Ms. Discusser,
> As I said, I usually don't go in for ad hominems; but
I didn't notice any ad hominem arguments.
rich
wf...@ptd.net
>Dear Tom McDonald , you`ve made an ad hominen attactk on two good
>leaders--is it their Catholicism or what?
no, i made the intial attack. phyllis schlafly is evil..and pat
buchanan hates jews. while catholic teaching has, in the past,
advocated hatred of jews, it does not do so today.
I know and like Pat Buchanan.
>Brother!!! It looks like the wholesale persequetions of Christians is
>not far off.
oh brother...perhaps people object to being persecuted BY some
christians...not everything right wing christians do is correct...
Ken Cox
> You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those godless
> Communists.
Wasn't that the Rosenbergs? Or have I misremembered the
right-wing version of history?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Derek Stevenson
> I often wonder if anybody at all has read my
> poem on love on my web page that my adopted granddaughter ( high tech
> lady at Intel put together for me after I got webtv. I really feel God
> gave me this short but wonderful poem years ago the night after I got
> home from the hospital ( the biopsy showed no cancer in my breast--in
> those days the patient never knew if she would wake up with a breast or
> not) I couldn`t sleep in the middle of the night, and was so
> grateful I got up and wrote this poem in a very short time.
Yes, my first thought when someone threatens to kill me and then doesn't
follow through is amazement at how much they must love me.
(By the way, if you're really interested in carrying on a discussion, you
should give up on WebTV's built-in newsreader and start posting from a site
such as Google that lets you quote properly.)
[snip]
Mitchell Coffey
> Adam Marczyk wrote:
> > <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
> > > she called the H bomb a 'great gift from a wise and wonderful god'.
>
> > You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those godless
> > Communists.
>
> Wasn't that the Rosenbergs? Or have I misremembered the
> right-wing version of history?
As it turns out, the Rosenbergs were as guilty as hell. Just not
guilty of what they were convicted of.
Mitchell Coffey
Bigdakine
>From: Ken Cox k...@lucent.com
>Date: 6/11/01 4:52 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <3B24DB36...@research.bell-labs.com>
>
>Adam Marczyk wrote:
>> <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
>> > she called the H bomb a 'great gift from a wise and wonderful god'.
>
>> You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those godless
>> Communists.
>
>Wasn't that the Rosenbergs? Or have I misremembered the
>right-wing version of history?
>
Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
Jonathan Stone
Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
>Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:<3B24DB36...@research.bell-labs.com>...
>> Adam Marczyk wrote:
>> > <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
>> > > she called the H bomb a 'great gift from a wise and wonderful god'.
>>
>> > You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those godless
>> > Communists.
>>
>> Wasn't that the Rosenbergs? Or have I misremembered the
>> right-wing version of history?
In *that* case it doesn't matter; Sakharov was Jewish anyway.
Why not try it out on Roger and Andy if they ever return?
>As it turns out, the Rosenbergs were as guilty as hell. Just not
>guilty of what they were convicted of.
Uh.. Ethel was justly executed for failure to rat on her husband?
I thought it was the Commies who pulled stunts like that.
Jonathan Stone
Bigdakine <bigd...@aol.comGetaGrip> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Andy Schlafly is back!!!
>>From: Ken Cox k...@lucent.com
>>Date: 6/11/01 4:52 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>>Message-id: <3B24DB36...@research.bell-labs.com>
>>
>>Adam Marczyk wrote:
>>> <wf...@ptd.net> wrote:
>>> > she called the H bomb a 'great gift from a wise and wonderful god'.
>>
>>> You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those godless
>>> Communists.
>>
>>Wasn't that the Rosenbergs? Or have I misremembered the
>>right-wing version of history?
>>
>Hey now, that was the atomic bomb. Lets keep the bommbs straight..
I thought that was Klaus Fuchs?
Not that the Soviets needed that much help, of course; any more than
the French or the British (those who weren't already in Los Alamos
working on the joint A-bomb project, the one the USA was going to
share after the war, remember *that*?).
ISTR that Penney worked out a conceptual Teller-Ulam-style design so
quickly (after the monster near-megaton layer-cake test) that the US
decided to just share designs with the UK and be done with it.
Mitchell Coffey
I didn't say that Ethel was justly executed for anything - or Julius,
for that matter. In fact, by writting that the two were not guilty of
what they were convicted of doing, I'd meant to make it clear that I
didn't thing they were justly executed.
Ethel evidently knew that her husband was spying for the Soviets, and
assisted him knowingly. She didn't, it appears, know what her husband
was passing on to the Soviets. On reflection, this makes me wrong in
calling her "as guilty as hell."
According to the secret, decoded transcripts released by our
government a few years ago, Julius was not guilty of what he was
conficted of doing: giving the Soviets the secrets to the A-bomb. He
was a witting spy, though.
And you are wrong: Nazis also pulled sunts like that...
Mitchell Coffey
Robert Parson
Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>According to the secret, decoded transcripts released by our
>government a few years ago, Julius was not guilty of what he was
>conficted of doing: giving the Soviets the secrets to the A-bomb.
This is wrong. While the Venona decrypts may not by themselves
suffice to demonstrate that Julius gave atomic secrets to the Soviets,
they do provide convincing corroboration. The Rosenbergs were convicted
on the basis of the testimony of David and Ruth Greenglass and Harry
Gold, and this testimony is confirmed by the Venona cables at a number of
of crucial points. For example, one cable reports that Julius
had been designated as the liason between the New York office and
Greenglass, another notes that Julius had requested assistance in
debriefing Greenglass on his upcoming visit to New York, while a third
confirms that when Greenglass did visit NY, he reported on his work
with the implosion detonator and made arrangements for the delivery of
material in the future. It's hard to see how Julius could have been
so closely involved in the passing of secrets from Greenglass to Moscow
without being aware of what those secrets were, particularly given that
Julius had recruited Greenglass in the first place.
As you say, though, Ethel Rosenberg was probably no more than a
passive accessory.
Haynes and Klehr (_Venona_, Yale University Press 1999, p. 310) say:
"The Venona cable greatly assisted the FBI's investigation by providing
a documentary basis against which interrogators could check Fuchs', Gold's
and Greenglass' confessions and the statments made by others...Because
of the policy decision not to reveal the Venona secret, prosecutors
could not use the cables as evidence in court. Nonetheless, they provided
the FBI and other Justice Department officials with the sure knowledge
that they were prosecuting the right people."
-------
Robert
Robert Parson
Fuchs and Ted Hall were the important ones. Greenglass, Rosenberg,
et al. were bit players.
>Not that the Soviets needed that much help, of course; any more than
>the French or the British (those who weren't already in Los Alamos
>working on the joint A-bomb project, the one the USA was going to
>share after the war, remember *that*?).
My recollection from Rhodes' books is that the espionage was most useful
in telling the Soviets what avenues _not_ to pursue. General Groves'
typical response, when given a list of alternatives, was to try them
all; the Manhattan Project thus learned a lot about How Not To Build The
A-Bomb. This saved the Soviets a lot of time, particularly since they
had only the industrial resources of the post-war USSR to draw on.
------
Robert
wf...@ptd.net
Parson) wrote:
>In article <a766a589.01061...@posting.google.com>,
>Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>According to the secret, decoded transcripts released by our
>>government a few years ago, Julius was not guilty of what he was
>>conficted of doing: giving the Soviets the secrets to the A-bomb.
>
> This is wrong. While the Venona decrypts may not by themselves
> suffice to demonstrate that Julius gave atomic secrets to the Soviets,
> they do provide convincing corroboration.
there are also the mitrokhin archives which indicate the rosenbergs
ran a ring that recruited agents to work for the USSR.
Bobby D. Bryant
<ebon...@excite.com> wrote:
> You've just got to wonder why God also gave the H-bomb to those
> godless Communists.
Maybe their version just evolved?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Mitchell Coffey
I'm running on memories of news stories, and you seem to have gone so
far as to have read at least one book on Venona. Lurkers must use
their own judgement and weigh which of us is the more reliable
authority.
Mitchell Coffey
Jonathan Stone
Robert Parson <rpa...@spotNOSPAMColorado.edu> wrote:
>In article <9g48j6$s6q$1...@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU>,
>Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
[...]
>>Not that the Soviets needed that much help, of course; any more than
>>the French or the British (those who weren't already in Los Alamos
>>working on the joint A-bomb project, the one the USA was going to
>>share after the war, remember *that*?).
>
> My recollection from Rhodes' books is that the espionage was most useful
> in telling the Soviets what avenues _not_ to pursue. General Groves'
> typical response, when given a list of alternatives, was to try them
> all; the Manhattan Project thus learned a lot about How Not To Build The
> A-Bomb. This saved the Soviets a lot of time, particularly since they
> had only the industrial resources of the post-war USSR to draw on.
I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I was thinking of the H-bomb
development -- the orignial , which Sakharov et al. were quite capable
of working out for themselves.
I have a very conceret recollection of referring to Penney, the
British detonation of a layer-cake device and the British PM at the
time announcing that Britain had an H-bomb; meanwhile Penney working
on, and came up with a conceptual deisgn for, a true Teller-Ulam
staged-radiation implosion device -- to the point where, when Penney
showed his sketches to the Americans, they deecided to pool resources
and share H-bomb designs (letting the UK augment the total western
H-bomb pool).
OTOH, the Russians working on RDS-1 knew of, and wanted to try,
improvements-- I recall a levitated-pit design -- but Beria insisted
on as close a copy of the Gadget design as possible.
The biggest single secret about atomic bombs was that a deliverable
fission weapon was practical. Hiroshima let that out of the bag.
After that, all the rest is engineering. :) :) ;)
David Iain Greig
However, be aware the books on Venona are not free of viewpoints.
On the matter of the Rosenbergs I don't think there's any real
disagreement they were spying.
--D.
>
>Mitchell Coffey
>
Mitchell Coffey
Certainly. I'd thought, though, that the evidence from Venona
suggested that Julius was not as responsible for knowingly giving the
Soviets A-bomb secrets as had been asserted by the prosecution at his
trial.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
As I recall there was a pamphlet on the Manhattan Project, published
openly by the Pentagon c. 1946, that the Soviets found most useful in
deciding which separation schemes not to follow. I remember reading
it about 15 years-ago and being amazed that the Pentagon could be so
stu####candid.
Mitchell Coffey
Paul J. Gans
All true. But to me the main disclosure of the secret came
at Hiroshima. We made public the fact that an atomic
bomb *could* be built.
At that moment the problem of building one moved from theory
to engineering. No sensible person can argue that any nation
with reasonable technology could not duplicate the bomb from
that point on.
Parson's point about resources is important as well. Duplicating
the bomb on the cheap has many real-world advantages.
----- Paul J. Gans
Paul J. Gans
That was because you were 15. I assume that you are much
better educated now.
------ Paul J. Gans
Robert Parson
Jonathan Stone <jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> My recollection from Rhodes' books is that the espionage was most useful
>> in telling the Soviets what avenues _not_ to pursue. General Groves'
>> typical response, when given a list of alternatives, was to try them
>> all; the Manhattan Project thus learned a lot about How Not To Build The
>> A-Bomb. This saved the Soviets a lot of time, particularly since they
>> had only the industrial resources of the post-war USSR to draw on.
>
>I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I was thinking of the H-bomb
>development -- the orignial , which Sakharov et al. were quite capable
>of working out for themselves.
Sorry, I misunderstood you then - I agree completely about the H-Bomb.
While the first Soviet A-Bomb was practically a carbon-copy of Fat Man,
the H-Bomb was an independent development.
-----
Robert
Robert Parson
David Iain Greig <gr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
>However, be aware the books on Venona are not free of viewpoints.
Agreed. I've seen it claimed that Venona shows that Oppenheimer
was a Soviet Agent (actually, the decrypts just show that the
Soviets _attempted_ to recruit him, which we already knew),
that Harry Hopkins was passing information to the soviets,
that Joe McCarthy was right after all, etc. etc. Haynes and Klehr
are responsible scholars, though, and are very careful to separate
the evidence from their own inferences.
Basically, Haynes and Klehr conclude that Julius Rosenberg, Alger Hiss,
Harry Dexter White (#2 man at Treasury in the Roosevelt Administration),
Lauchlin Currie (White House Senior Administrative Assistant), and
a number of lower-level government types were guilty as charged. The evidence
against Harry Hopkins is extremely tenuous - there is an unidentified
"Source Number 19" in one cable who _might_ be Hopkins, but even if he is
it is unclear whether this "source number 19" is doing anything covert. As for
Oppenheimer, they sensibly conclude that if he _had_ been a Soviet agent,
the Soviets would have been a lot further ahead in their program than they
were - Oppenheimer carried practically the entire Manhattan Project
around in his head.
------
Robert
Mitchell Coffey
Bizarre assumption... Oh, I get it: you think that because I've been
to college since I was 15 I'm better educated now! Heh, Heh, what a
hoot...
Mitchell Coffey
Matt Silberstein
<a766a589.01061...@posting.google.com> from
MitC...@aol.com (Mitchell Coffey):
[snip]
>As I recall there was a pamphlet on the Manhattan Project, published
>openly by the Pentagon c. 1946, that the Soviets found most useful in
>deciding which separation schemes not to follow. I remember reading
>it about 15 years-ago and being amazed that the Pentagon could be so
>stu####candid.
According to an NPR report I heard a few years ago (nothing like
precise references) the U.S. released the blueprints and other design
documents for the V2. This is most of the design knowledge needed for
a SCUD. The trick is how to get them accurate. So, in a real sense, we
gave away much of the technology that we are going to spend scores of
billions (more) on to (partially) defend against.
--
Matt Silberstein
Pardon me whilst I adjust my accoutrements.
D.D.