Any comments?
Pete Dashwood
PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
By Joe Spurr, News Writer
Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs and
licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.
The decision to switch came about two years ago when officials, already
cognizant of high mainframe costs, began to realize the growth of their
company was beginning to conflict with the size of its shoes, so to speak.
But with stability a concern and the looming task of converting five million
lines of code, the pressure was on to make the right move.
"The challenge of rewriting everything -- it was a daunting task," said Mike
Grant, Simon & Schuster vice president of application development. "But we
needed to do something . We are running flat out on our machine right now.
We're almost 90% to 100% capacity all the time."
Mainframes have been around forever and know how to get things done their
own way, but, especially for smaller companies, the elegance that makes them
useful can also be unwieldy to upkeep.
More on mainframes
Integration specialists ride mainframe migration wave
Graying workforce endangers your mainframes
Advantages of the data center's elder statesman -- stability, the ability to
scale and flex in the face of server sprawl and new workloads -- can be
offset by premium hardware costs. Complicated architecture that goes back 20
years, combined with a skills base in decline, also means potentially high
labor expenses.
Grant said he was surfing for answers when he stumbled across
Tokyo-headquartered Fujitsu Software Corp., a specialist in assisting
migrations like CICS applications to .NET and mainframe batch applications
to Windows.
The latter was a crucial difference when proofs of concept were drawn and
discussed with both Fujitsu and U.K.-based Micro Focus Ltd., a similar
migration outfit, Grant said.
"We were very impressed with both, but the problem we saw with Micro
Focus -- which may have since changed -- was a lot of emulation software,"
Grant said. "We wanted to standardize our .NET environment, and the Fujitsu
model more closely aligned with our vision, in terms of running Visual
Studio and having it play well with VB [Visual Basic] and C#."
After recently transferring over its royalty system -- and working with
India-based Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. to convert its DB2 to SQL
server -- the final hulking shift comes soon for Simon & Schuster -- moving
its main order processing system. But the true test will come late summer, a
traditional season of frenzy that will test both nerves and networks as
publishers push to move product in time for schools reopening.
"Until then, we'll still be kind of nervous -- last year our mainframe was
so backed up that often systems weren't coming up until 10 the next
morning," Grant said. "But right now we're seeing jobs perform so much
better. We are really seeing some performance gains, we've been pleased, and
all the vendors are very confident."
Indeed, Andrew Mackenzie, strategic alliance manager for Fujitsu Software,
sees no gray in the environment.
"The thing about migrations is you're either a hero or a goat," Mackenzie
said. "With mission-critical apps, it can be very scary to turn off the
mainframe. But five years ago there was a lot more risk. There's been
relentless performance gains in microprocessors. It comes down to if I'm the
CIO who's got this thing that's sucking up 60% of my budget -- you're either
going to migrate or drown."
IT research firm Gartner Inc. recently predicted 80% of today's smaller
mainframe environments will move away by 2010. And though the sentiment of
that forecast is nothing new -- bashing mainframes is practically a pastime
in some circles. Detractors today predict doom in the face of the system's
recent resurgence, exemplified by double-digit revenue gains since 2003 of
the IBM's zSeries.
"If someone hasn't looked at a mainframe in a while, they should look
again," said zSeries product director Collette Martin. "There's an awful lot
of flexibility. And for the customers who are very small, with older
mainframes, those who are struggling in that respect but looking for a value
proposition to move forward, it is considerably less expensive to run
today's mainframes."
No, I didn't write it... :-) (The Author's name is on the byline)
I'm still backing 2015 for the end of COBOL... :-)
Pete.
void * clvrmnky()
> I thought the group might find the following interesting:
>
> PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
> By Joe Spurr, News Writer
>
> Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs and
> licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
> The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
> changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
> ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.
>
Well, we are seeing a lot of interest in our Java-based client-server
app from traditional mainframe shops. Many of these shops want to
minimize any further COBOL development, or control it in a manner more
conducive to implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley.
However, the usual telcos and banks we talk with are not planning this
sort of drastic change. They would rather find solutions that bridge
the mainframe and client-server world.
Peter Lacey
>
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
> > I thought the group might find the following interesting:
> >
> > PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
> > By Joe Spurr, News Writer
>
> app from traditional mainframe shops.
>"Many of these shops want to
> minimize any further COBOL development, or control it in a manner more
> conducive to implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley".
>
This is one of those all-too-common statements that make no sense at
all. What on earth has the language used got to do with Sarbox? Isn't
the act supposed to mandate accountability? Does it state that any
language is better than others? How is control of COBOL source or use
any different from any other language's when it comes to being
"conducive to implementation of Sarbanes-Oxley"?
Please explain!
PL
LX-i
> Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs and
> licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
> The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
> changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
> ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.
Those ES7000 servers rock! It's basically their mainframe-sized Intel
platform. I believe they support up to 16 processors in one box (it may
be 32 processors by now).
They're very cool - and, I believe they also run Unisys's A-series (LX)
operating system. For those folks, they can get cheaper hardware *and*
no conversion... :)
(Us 9-bit 2200 (IX) folks are out of luck on those - although the new
Dorado series boxes are very quick. I saw our production machine
running at 1,600 MIPS this week! (Of course, I also saw them adjust the
configuration down to 1,200...))
They haven't left us out in the cold, though. Now, instead of paying
for the capability of the hardware, we pay for the MIPS we actually use.
It's significantly cheaper, while allowing us to have the power on
demand if we need it. I'm waiting for us to get that on our development
boxes, so we can do system-wide rebuilds in an hour. (We did it in
about an hour and a half on a 150 MIP machine - but on our normal
development machine, it takes about 8 hours, usually done overnight.)
More than you ever wanted to know about Unisys, probably... :) I just
had to give props to the ES7000's - I wish I could get one for my house!
(although I have no idea what I'd do with it... They run Linux too -
maybe that would be my terminal server!)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
James J. Gavan
Daniel,
For first time ever, just read your byline in your footer. Still we
don't want to get into that all over again do we :-)
Patience this end - let's see what observations you come back with about
the Islamic world in terms of their concept of justice, democracy and
religion when you have finished your tour of duty. I'm going to forecast
you will probably be cynical and might use words like "Bewilderment",
"Exasperation" etc.
Jimmy
Charles Richmond
>
> I thought the group might find the following interesting:
>
> PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
> By Joe Spurr, News Writer
>
> Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs and
> licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
> The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
> changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
> ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.
>
should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
company.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
LX-i
> LX-i wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> For first time ever, just read your byline in your footer. Still we
> don't want to get into that all over again do we :-)
It was a recent addition - don't sweat your recent observation. :)
IMO, though, that's the beauty of that quote. It's doesn't even attempt
to get into "all that" - it only questions the rationality of two
comparative viewpoints. And, there's not an answer - some might feel
that the first man is less rational.
Kind of like that Robert Frost poem - "I took the road less traveled by,
and that has made all the difference." Most everyone thinks that this
means that he's happy with that decision - but, that's not what it says.
It only says that it changed his life.
(And note, too - it's not ridiculing the lack of belief in (a) God, just
inquiring as to the rationality of being *offended* by a deity that
someone doesn't believe exists.)
> Patience this end - let's see what observations you come back with about
> the Islamic world in terms of their concept of justice, democracy and
> religion when you have finished your tour of duty. I'm going to forecast
> you will probably be cynical and might use words like "Bewilderment",
> "Exasperation" etc.
Well, seeing as I'm pretty cynical of Islam from the get-go, I doubt my
time there will change that. :) But, I shall report back here.
(heh - this'll teach folks to post a thread with the subject "*Any*
comments?"... ;> )
HeyBub
> Anyone who has *anything* important running on their computers...
> should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
> should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
> company.
>
Interestingly, more people have placed their trust in the reliability of
Micros~1 than in any other company. Ever.
There was a time, not so very long ago, that on the tolling of the hour by
Big Ben, the British Ensign was being raised, at dawn, in some far-flung
part of the Empire.
Now, with every tick of the atomic clock at the National Bureau of
Standards, Micros~1 Windows is being booted thousands of times. Micros~1 IS
the empire of our age.
You can, if you want, be a modern-day Sepoy, or a Boxer, or a Boer, or a
Zulu, or even a Napolean. Enjoy.
Richard
LX-i wrote:
> IMO, though, that's the beauty of that quote. It's doesn't even attempt
> to get into "all that" - it only questions the rationality of two
> comparative viewpoints. And, there's not an answer - some might feel
> that the first man is less rational.
Well I think that it is irrational to think that there are only two
viewpoints, but then religionists typically do try to create a
dichotomy where none exists in an attempt to claim, or at least imply,
that if one is not true then the other must be.
> (And note, too - it's not ridiculing the lack of belief in (a) God, just
> inquiring as to the rationality of being *offended* by a deity that
> someone doesn't believe exists.)
Are you offended by the hundreds of deities that you don't believe in ?
Are you offended by Rastas; Scientoloist Thetans; Hindu's Brahma,
Vishnu, Shiva and the rest; the Canaanite Pantheon; Shintu Gods; and
the others ?
Actually, what I am offended by is the willfull ignorance of some
religionists: flat earthers, geocentralists, ... ummm, .. etc.
Richard
Yeah, I find that I have to boot it thousands of times, too. ;-)
In 2000 it was discovered that Win95, 98 and ME would lock up after
being up for exactly 39 days and some hours, being an integer roll over
problem. The joke was that it took 5 years before anyone had managed to
keep one up that long without having to reboot.
Charles Richmond
>
> Charles Richmond wrote:
> > Anyone who has *anything* important running on their computers...
> > should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
> > should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
> > company.
> >
>
> Interestingly, more people have placed their trust in the reliability of
> Micros~1 than in any other company. Ever.
>
whole city governments in the U.S. shut down. Mi$uck's "security" is
like a sieve: most anything can get through with little effort.
>
> There was a time, not so very long ago, that on the tolling of the hour by
> Big Ben, the British Ensign was being raised, at dawn, in some far-flung
> part of the Empire.
>
> Now, with every tick of the atomic clock at the National Bureau of
> Standards, Micros~1 Windows is being booted thousands of times. Micros~1 IS
> the empire of our age.
>
*several* times a day at my place of employment. So I guess that boosts
the Mi$uck number of daily boots. ;-) One of the guys who was running
Windows NT had to *re-install* his system a couple of times a month. It
took him *all* afternoon to accomplish a re-install.
>
> You can, if you want, be a modern-day Sepoy, or a Boxer, or a Boer, or a
> Zulu, or even a Napolean. Enjoy.
>
Linux boxes thank you very much.
Howard Brazee
>Yeah, I find that I have to boot it thousands of times, too. ;-)
>
>In 2000 it was discovered that Win95, 98 and ME would lock up after
>being up for exactly 39 days and some hours, being an integer roll over
>problem. The joke was that it took 5 years before anyone had managed to
>keep one up that long without having to reboot.
My home computer locks up more often than it reboots itself. I start
it up by turning it off with the power button.
The computer shop has replaced the hard drive, replaced the video
card, and replaced the power supply. I have removed the Iomega drive
and its drivers and replaced the monitor. Microsoft gets the big
dumps (what do they do with all the aborts that get e-mailed to it?).
Spending lots of money without solving anything reminds me of
government.
Howard Brazee
>
>"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
>a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
I've never seen someone offended by something he doesn't believe
exists. I've seen people offended by people whose beliefs are
different from theirs. Wars are fought over this.
Oliver Wong
news:441A5A58...@comcast.net...
>> > Anyone who has *anything* important running on their computers...
>> > should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
>> > should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
>> > company.
>> >
> Yes, I was forced to work on Mi$uck Windows before. We had to reboot
> *several* times a day at my place of employment. So I guess that boosts
> the Mi$uck number of daily boots. ;-) One of the guys who was running
> Windows NT had to *re-install* his system a couple of times a month. It
> took him *all* afternoon to accomplish a re-install.
> I'm *not* sure what you mean here...but I'm sticking with my Mac and
> Linux boxes thank you very much.
If your goal is to promote the adoption of Linux and Mac over Windows,
you should probably not do it by saying "*I* have had bad experiences with
Windows, that's why *YOU* should switch".
Imagine it from the perspective of the person you're preaching to.
Perhaps they have a system which is running Windows XP just fine, which they
haven't had to reinstall for maybe 2 or 3 years now, and when they did
install, it was a quick 30 minute process, in which only say 7 of those
minutes actually required user interaction. After hearing you talk about
"number of daily boots", "re-install a couple of times a month", "all
afternoon to accomplish a re-install", they might dismiss your situation as
being completely alien to theirs, and thus your advice would not be
applicable to them.
Note that I'm not saying that you're lying about having problems with
Windows; I'm saying just because YOU'VE had problems, why should that mean
OTHER people have to change their OSes?
- Oliver
James J. Gavan
I disagree with your first sentence. It occurs fairly regularly,
(perhaps a comment about every two months), in the readers' letters in
my local paper.
Jimmy
Richard
James J. Gavan wrote:
> > I've never seen someone offended by something he doesn't believe
> > exists.
> I disagree with your first sentence. It occurs fairly regularly,
> (perhaps a comment about every two months), in the readers' letters in
> my local paper.
What makes you think that the offense has been caused by some alleged
'god' rather than by the actions of people ?
But then again, perhaps your paper does carry offensive letters from
imaginary readers.
Richard
Oliver Wong wrote:
> If your goal is to promote the adoption of Linux and Mac over Windows,
> you should probably not do it by saying "*I* have had bad experiences with
> Windows, that's why *YOU* should switch".
I didn't see where he was promoting any particular syatem beyond
mentioning what he used. What he did say was that it is provvable that
millions have bad experiences with Windows systems which is why there
is such a thriving industry in anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall
add-ons to cover over the poor design and implementation.
> Imagine it from the perspective of the person you're preaching to.
> Perhaps they have a system which is running Windows XP just fine, which they
> haven't had to reinstall for maybe 2 or 3 years now,
Oh yeah ? name one ;-)
> and when they did
> install, it was a quick 30 minute process, in which only say 7 of those
> minutes actually required user interaction.
Actually he said system. This would also include all the software that
he needed beyond the bare OS. Also he said NT which does take longer
than XP. And then you have to apply all the patches and service packs
to try to make it less vulnerable to infection by malware, turn off all
the annoyances, configure the applications, restore the backed up
files.
> After hearing you talk about
> "number of daily boots", "re-install a couple of times a month", "all
> afternoon to accomplish a re-install", they might dismiss your situation as
> being completely alien to theirs,
And those that have spent half a day getting a system back to where
they want it will be just as dismissive of your 'quick 30 minutes'.
> Note that I'm not saying that you're lying about having problems with
> Windows; I'm saying just because YOU'VE had problems, why should that mean
> OTHER people have to change their OSes?
I am sure that there are millions of people using Windows with no
problems at all, no security issues, no failures, no lock ups at all
ever. There are, however, millions (well at least 10s of thousands) of
people running Windows who are unknowingly zombies in spam remailing
networks, and/or are infected with virusses and worms.
HeyBub
>
> If your goal is to promote the adoption of Linux and Mac over
> Windows, you should probably not do it by saying "*I* have had bad
> experiences with Windows, that's why *YOU* should switch".
>
[...]
> Note that I'm not saying that you're lying about having problems
> with Windows; I'm saying just because YOU'VE had problems, why should
> that mean OTHER people have to change their OSes?
>
Common syndrome, found in religions, interventionist groups (like AA), and
more. By convincing someone of the probable truth of your claim, your own
decision is validated.
We have many computers running Windows XP. The only unscheduled re-boot I
can remember is when things got shut down during hurricane Rita. For those
of us with good experiences, as you point out, we immediately suspect the
motives and/or competence of those who bitch about Micros~1.
James J. Gavan
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>
>>>I've never seen someone offended by something he doesn't believe
>>>exists.
>
>
>>I disagree with your first sentence. It occurs fairly regularly,
>>(perhaps a comment about every two months), in the readers' letters in
>>my local paper.
>
>
> What makes you think that the offense has been caused by some alleged
> 'god' rather than by the actions of people ?
I don't think one way or the other - just a statement of fact as to what
occasionally appears.
>
> But then again, perhaps your paper does carry offensive letters from
> imaginary readers.
I made no reference to the word 'offense'. As to your imaginary readers
- the paper verifies people *do* exist before publishing - e-mail
address, telephone #, name and address.
As a point of interest, it is a Conservative themed newspaper, owned by
Canwest (Jewish Liberals) and the letters that get included are
monitored by a Jewess who definitely is a proclaimed 'Leftie'. How's
that for democracy ?
Jimmy
Peter Lacey
>
> I am sure that there are millions of people using Windows with no
> problems at all, no security issues, no failures, no lock ups at all
> ever. There are, however, millions (well at least 10s of thousands) of
> people running Windows who are unknowingly zombies in spam remailing
> networks, and/or are infected with virusses and worms.
It may be interesting to note that there is a whole computing universe
out there in which many of these problems simply don't occur. I'll
instance two machines that were absolutely bullet-proof when it came to
lockups or programs interfering with each other or memory leaks or
crashing the system. None of these ever happened, so long as the
machine was not physically malfunctioning. These were the IBM S/36, and
the various systems running PRIMOS. IBM, of course, was once the
biggest computer company in the known universe, but Prime, although it
got into the top 500 for a while, has long since vanished and never had
resources comparable to IBM. My point is that such operating systems
can and have been built. Whether the difference is in the resources, or
the ability and span of control of the people in charge of the
development, or even the architecture of the machines, doesn't matter -
if it can be done at all, it ought to be achievable by all!
I imagine that AS/400's are pretty tough, too. How about IBM or Unisys
mainframes?
(A Prime systems engineer told me that he'd heard of a couple of virus
attempts. But nothing ever came of them. I'm not claiming immunity
from viruses is possible - any system can be cracked, I imagine, if the
necessary effort is taken).
(I do most of my work under WIN98 because that's what the PC came with
and I don't want the aggravation of upgrading and new problems (that's
to say, not before I have to!) It is stable enough for what I need and
will run everything that I need. Yet it locks up every couple of days,
sometimes when switching from one app to another, sometimes after trying
to to wake up from standby. After standby, I can't print - although
that may be a driver problem, not a MS problem; still that can hardly be
a situation that wasn't anticipated. And sometimes it won't shut down!)
PL
Oliver Wong
"Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1142626524.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>> If your goal is to promote the adoption of Linux and Mac over
>> Windows,
>> you should probably not do it by saying "*I* have had bad experiences
>> with
>> Windows, that's why *YOU* should switch".
>
> I didn't see where he was promoting any particular syatem beyond
> mentioning what he used. What he did say was that it is provvable that
> millions have bad experiences with Windows systems which is why there
> is such a thriving industry in anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall
> add-ons to cover over the poor design and implementation.
From the OP's post:
<quote>
Anyone who has *anything* important running on their computers...
should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
company.
</quote>
To me, that's more than merely "I run Linux/Mac/whatever, and
incidentally, millions of people have problems with Windows." but perhaps I
misinterpreted him. At any rate, I didn't mean to say that what he is doing
is promoting Linux/Mac/whatever over Windows; just giving him advice IF that
is what (s)he was doing. If that's NOT what (s)he is doing, (s)he is free to
dismiss my advice as inapplicable.
>
>> Imagine it from the perspective of the person you're preaching to.
>> Perhaps they have a system which is running Windows XP just fine, which
>> they
>> haven't had to reinstall for maybe 2 or 3 years now,
>
> Oh yeah ? name one ;-)
My home machine is like that.
>
>> and when they did
>> install, it was a quick 30 minute process, in which only say 7 of those
>> minutes actually required user interaction.
>
> Actually he said system. This would also include all the software that
> he needed beyond the bare OS. Also he said NT which does take longer
> than XP. And then you have to apply all the patches and service packs
> to try to make it less vulnerable to infection by malware, turn off all
> the annoyances, configure the applications, restore the backed up
> files.
The same is true of Linux. More than once have I waited 2 or 3 hours for
Debian to download and install all the packages. I've played around with
different distributions, and so far I like Ubuntu the best, but I'm not
quite ready to "give up" Windows in exchange for it yet.
There was one distribution, I think it was Mandrake but I'm not sure,
where after installing, it said it was going to connect to the Internet and
update itself. So I said fine. Then it told me I needed to create a
"Mandrake Star Account" or something like that to get the updates. Okay,
fine. Then the update agent crashed. Well, no big deal, so I go to the
Mandrake website and fill in the registration, and it says it'll send an
e-mail to my account containing my password. A few moments later, I get the
password, type it in, and it says it can't find my account. I've double
checked for typos, and I've asked it to reset my password half a dozen
times, still no luck. Couldn't get my Mandrake account setup, and so I
couldn't update my software. Spent several days on the problem before giving
up.
I also find Linux to be far less forgiving when "configuring
everything". What kind of video drivers should I use? Well, my video card
manufacturer isn't listed there, so I'll just choose one randomly. Oops, big
mistake. Now I can never get a display on my monitor again, unless I
completely reformat and restart the installation process (surely there was a
keystroke combination I could have pressed upon boot-up to force linux to
boot into text-only mode, but it wasn't apparent to me at the time what that
key-combination would be, and yes, I did try googling for it).
What's your DHCP server? I don't have one. Linux won't accept that
answer. Er, how about 192.168.0.1? Fine. Linux proceeds, but my network
stack is FUBAR. Gotta re-install. Again, there was probably some command I
could have typed, but Google and the "man pages" and the find command was
not particularly helpful to me.
The are just random anecdotes, and certainly I do NOT make the claim
that this is the "average" experience of Linux users, or that this is what
kind of experiences one should expect. I'm just saying that for every
software that exists, there also exists a user who is going to, or who
already has had, problems with it.
>
>> After hearing you talk about
>> "number of daily boots", "re-install a couple of times a month", "all
>> afternoon to accomplish a re-install", they might dismiss your situation
>> as
>> being completely alien to theirs,
>
> And those that have spent half a day getting a system back to where
> they want it will be just as dismissive of your 'quick 30 minutes'.
Except I never claimed that people should, for example, switch from
Linux to Windows, so there isn't anything for them to dismiss! I suppose the
OP could dismiss my advice of "when advocating, think of perspective of the
people you're advocating to", and that's fine by me. I have no desire to see
Linux fail. In fact, I'd much rather have everyone switch to linux, as it
would increase the likely hood of me finding help on google when I search
for something, and increase the likelyhood that my favorite apps will get
ported over to Linux, and that I could finally switch and not have to pay
for my OS anymore. That'd be great for me! That's why I'm trying to give
advice on converting people.
>
>> Note that I'm not saying that you're lying about having problems with
>> Windows; I'm saying just because YOU'VE had problems, why should that
>> mean
>> OTHER people have to change their OSes?
>
> I am sure that there are millions of people using Windows with no
> problems at all, no security issues, no failures, no lock ups at all
> ever. There are, however, millions (well at least 10s of thousands) of
> people running Windows who are unknowingly zombies in spam remailing
> networks, and/or are infected with virusses and worms.
Yes, both statements can be true at the same time. No dispute here.
- Oliver
Richard
HeyBub wrote:
> Common syndrome, found in religions, interventionist groups (like AA), and
> more. By convincing someone of the probable truth of your claim, your own
> decision is validated.
Religious statements like, for example:
>> more people have placed their trust in the reliability of
>> Micros~1 than in any other company. Ever.
Actually I doubt that many trust MS, nor think it a reliable company,
they just get stuck with their products on the computers they buy.
> We have many computers running Windows XP. The only unscheduled re-boot I
> can remember is when things got shut down during hurricane Rita. For those
> of us with good experiences, as you point out, we immediately suspect the
> motives and/or competence of those who bitch about Micros~1.
Are you saying that you don't believe anything bad about MS or their
products ?
Richard
James J. Gavan wrote:
> >>>I've never seen someone offended by something he doesn't believe
> >>>exists.
> >
> >>I disagree with your first sentence. It occurs fairly regularly,
> >>(perhaps a comment about every two months), in the readers' letters in
> >>my local paper.
> >
> > What makes you think that the offense has been caused by some alleged
> > 'god' rather than by the actions of people ?
> I don't think one way or the other - just a statement of fact as to what
> occasionally appears.
So then you cannot actually say (in spite of the fact that you
disagreed) that Howard is wrong. Certainly letters appear that say the
writers are offended, the question was whether they were offended by
non-existent myths or by the actions or words of real people who
purport to follow these.
> > But then again, perhaps your paper does carry offensive letters from
> > imaginary readers.
>
> I made no reference to the word 'offense'.
You made reference to the subject of being offended.
> As to your imaginary readers
> - the paper verifies people *do* exist before publishing - e-mail
> address, telephone #, name and address.
I was obviously too subtle for you: ""offended by something he doesn't
believe exists"" --> ""readers letters"".
Richard
Oliver Wong wrote:
> > I didn't see where he was promoting any particular syatem beyond
> > mentioning what he used. What he did say was that it is provvable that
> > millions have bad experiences with Windows systems which is why there
> > is such a thriving industry in anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall
> > add-ons to cover over the poor design and implementation.
>
> From the OP's post:
> <quote>
> Anyone who has *anything* important running on their computers...
> should *never* use a program from Mi$uck to do it. Instead, they
> should get a program from a *reliable* and *trustworthy* software
> company.
> </quote>
>
> To me, that's more than merely "I run Linux/Mac/whatever, and
As I said, he was not promoting any particular system, even though he
was advocating to not use Windows.
> incidentally, millions of people have problems with Windows."
It is _not_ 'incidental' that millions have actual and serious problems
with Windows.
> times, still no luck. Couldn't get my Mandrake account setup, and so I
> couldn't update my software. Spent several days on the problem before giving
> up.
Was that a problem with the OS or the web site ?
> (surely there was a
> keystroke combination I could have pressed upon boot-up to force linux to
> boot into text-only mode, but it wasn't apparent to me at the time what that
> key-combination would be, and yes, I did try googling for it).
Yes there is, but you don't even need to do that. Usually there are 8
'consoles' available with only one started with the GUI, Use
Ctrl-Alt-Fn to switch to a text mode console and log in as root there.
The GUI is usually running on console 7 so Ctrl-Alt-F7 put you back to
KDE or Gnome or whatever.
> What's your DHCP server? I don't have one. Linux won't accept that
> answer. Er, how about 192.168.0.1? Fine. Linux proceeds, but my network
> stack is FUBAR. Gotta re-install.
If you don't run a DHCP server then, just as with Windows, you specify
a manual address for the machine and its gateway and DNS server (eg
your ISP).
And, no you don't need to reinstall, just as with Windows, you
configure the network to take a fixed IP address and set the gateway
and DNS. Unlike Windows there is no need to reboot to take the new
settings.
> Again, there was probably some command I
> could have typed, but Google and the "man pages" and the find command was
> not particularly helpful to me.
Most distros have GUI configuration for network and most other stuff,
but the command line is ifconfig if you need for scripted
reconfiguration (which I do). cf Windows ipconfig which was copied
from BSD when they used the TCP/IP stack from that OS.
> The are just random anecdotes, and certainly I do NOT make the claim
> that this is the "average" experience of Linux users, or that this is what
> kind of experiences one should expect. I'm just saying that for every
> software that exists, there also exists a user who is going to, or who
> already has had, problems with it.
Absolutely. Linux users have to know what they are doing, but Windows
users can specify the wrong video card driver too and screw up their
system. When XP came all the icons and menus changed, I had to relearn
where everything was (when I was forced to) and this was no different
from going to anther OS.
> > And those that have spent half a day getting a system back to where
> > they want it will be just as dismissive of your 'quick 30 minutes'.
>
> Except I never claimed that people should, for example, switch from
> Linux to Windows, so there isn't anything for them to dismiss!
No, but you did dismiss his 'all afternoon', and I dismiss your claim
it could be done in 30 minutes.
HeyBub
>> We have many computers running Windows XP. The only unscheduled
>> re-boot I can remember is when things got shut down during hurricane
>> Rita. For those of us with good experiences, as you point out, we
>> immediately suspect the motives and/or competence of those who bitch
>> about Micros~1.
>
> Are you saying that you don't believe anything bad about MS or their
> products ?
No, of course not. I am saying that I don't believe unsubstantiated CLAIMS
of badness. What's the rule? "Don't attribute to malovelence (on the part of
Micros~1) that which can be explained by incompetence (by the end user)." Or
maybe it's vice-versa.
On the other hand, I did get a $1,600.00 checky-poo from Micros~1 last year
as a "bonus dividend" for my piddly 2000 shares.
James J. Gavan
make this real simple for you.
Firstly full marks to the Calgary Herald and Naomi Lakritz, to whom I've
already referred. US born her father was a GP in the States - her
political ideology grew from her childhood. She saw her father turn away
patients because they couldn't pay. She, on a weekly basis writes an
interesting, easily read and provocative column on various current
topics - there's little of what she writes that I would disagree with.
The Herald and Naomi make a point of posting 'interesting' letters and
they don't balk at 'interesting' rebuttals. (I don't know - but I'd put
my money on the possibility that Naomi doesn't go near a synagogue.
Surprisingly, she has just done a book review - in the title the word
'Jesus' occurs).
Letters get posted on a variety of topics, possibly, environment,
women's rights to control their own bodies, same sex-marriages, the
legal system, (by no mean restricted to some of the controversials I
have listed). The respondents are easy to identify - whether the
original letter made inference, direct or indirect to *anything*
associated with the word 'religion'. They are from the secular world,
(people who may have been church/temple/mosque-goers as kids and have
given up on religion, agnostics or atheists - sometimes identifying
themselves as such).
In their definition of democracy the word 'religion' is an absolute
No-No. "Practice what you want, but not religion". Responses for the
most part are very often sarcastic/terse, a few have a vindictive tone.
Sometimes I check their names to confirm the authors - the letters might
just have easily been written by a Richard Plinston.
'Here endeth the lesson'. No more from me.
Jimmy
Richard
James J. Gavan wrote:
> Instead of playing word games
You mean, for example:
> >>I made no reference to the word 'offense'.
> Letters get posted on a variety of topics, possibly, environment,
> women's rights to control their own bodies, same sex-marriages, the
> legal system, (by no mean restricted to some of the controversials I
> have listed). The respondents are easy to identify - whether the
> original letter made inference, direct or indirect to *anything*
> associated with the word 'religion'. They are from the secular world,
> (people who may have been church/temple/mosque-goers as kids and have
> given up on religion, agnostics or atheists - sometimes identifying
> themselves as such).
Only 'sometimes' identifying as such, is it just a guess that the rest
are or do you have voices telling you that the rest are too ?
> In their definition of democracy the word 'religion' is an absolute
> No-No. "Practice what you want, but not religion". Responses for the
> most part are very often sarcastic/terse, a few have a vindictive tone.
> Sometimes I check their names to confirm the authors - the letters might
> just have easily been written by a Richard Plinston.
People are offended by many different things. The local Music TV
station shows South Park. The local chapter of the 'Cult of Mary'
started complaining that the episode 'Bloody Mary' was going to be
shown in a couple of months time, and it should be banned. C4 responded
by rescheduling to show it that week and had the highest ratings ever.
Not only that but many said they stayed on that channel to watch the
Pink Floyd doco and will return to see the 'classic albums series' they
didn't know about before.
What _I_ objected to was that the religionists wanted to have control
over what _I_ could watch. Not that I wanted to see South Park, but I
object to 'book burning'.
Richard
HeyBub wrote:
> > Are you saying that you don't believe anything bad about MS or their
> > products ?
>
> No, of course not. I am saying that I don't believe unsubstantiated CLAIMS
> of badness. What's the rule? "Don't attribute to malovelence (on the part of
> Micros~1) that which can be explained by incompetence (by the end user)." Or
> maybe it's vice-versa.
So it is the _users_ fault that Windows has security problems, viruses,
spyware, backdoors, design flaws, and general failures.
Actually, if you had read the original instead of knee-jerking, you
would have noticed that the claim was that the company was unreliable
and untrustworthy, as substanciated in courts of law.
> On the other hand, I did get a $1,600.00 checky-poo from Micros~1 last year
> as a "bonus dividend" for my piddly 2000 shares.
Yes, I do know why you deify Bill Gates.
Pete Dashwood
"Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1142626524.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>> If your goal is to promote the adoption of Linux and Mac over
>> Windows,
>> you should probably not do it by saying "*I* have had bad experiences
>> with
>> Windows, that's why *YOU* should switch".
>
> I didn't see where he was promoting any particular syatem beyond
> mentioning what he used. What he did say was that it is provvable that
> millions have bad experiences with Windows systems which is why there
> is such a thriving industry in anti-virus, anti-spyware and firewall
> add-ons to cover over the poor design and implementation.
>
>> Imagine it from the perspective of the person you're preaching to.
>> Perhaps they have a system which is running Windows XP just fine, which
>> they
>> haven't had to reinstall for maybe 2 or 3 years now,
>
> Oh yeah ? name one ;-)
Please Sir!...Oh Sir!... me Sir! I have NEVER had to re-install XP Pro on my
home system since buying the system with it installed (OEM) 4 years ago. I
Have had ONE BSOD in that time, and that was remedied easily by downloading
the latest video driver. This system is used every day and sometimes runs
for a week without rebooting (it is on a laptop and sometimes I leave it in
Tauranga switched on while I am away in Auckland.) I come back and do NOT
have to reboot it. It simply wakes up and continues like it should.
In the workoplace, (We are running XP) I often go for several weeks without
rebooting. My workstation has never crashed. XP Pro is a stable and useful
Operating System and the FIRST from MicroSoft that I have ever been happy
with.
The point about all this is that, as Oliver pointed out, "one swallow does
not make a Summer."
We all have our preferences and in the end, whatever works for us is fine. I
am currently looking to replace the laptop with a platform that can run
Vista. That doesn't mean I'm uninterested in Linux... it just means I have
no reason to leave MicroSoft.
(BTW, I loved your thousand boots joke, Richard... :-))
Hmmm... and none of the above would apply to people using Macs and
Unix/Linux...?
I'm one of the millions with no issues, but that doesn't mean I am a
fanatical MS supporter (or detractor...). I go with what works. If Vista
turns out to be a heapof crap I'll be on Linux or some other box faster than
you can say "fickle user".:-) It is nice to have options...
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
"Peter Lacey" <la...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:441B2A4A...@mts.net...
that I need." is it? Because it won't do it all of the time. If you need it
to work at a time when it is locking up, it isn't meeting your needs. It IS
stable enough for you to get useful work from it, but it is far from perfect
or even "pretty good".
What happens is that we all come to accept what our systems do and find
workarounds for the problems.
I understand your hesitance to upgrade (been there myself...). I often build
PCs for friends and charities where the user doesn't have much available
cash, so I scrounge old boxes and bits and pieces. Win 98 (SE, NOT ME) was a
very good OS but XP is much more stable. I used to immediately effect an
upgrade to XP until I found that some of the old boxes simply couldn't
support it. Win98 will run reasonably happily in 64MBs; XP won't. So then it
becomes a memory upgrade. (Sometimes with older boxes, the memory is very
hard to get...). Then you find that a 5 year old HD is starting to throw bad
sectors and getting nearer to its MTBF so you might want to replace that.
Even if you can acquire a smaller (say 10 GB) hard drive for a nominal sum
(I found a computer shop in Tauranga the other day who let me have one they
had removed from an old machine for $15 (when they knew I was doing it for a
worthy cause)), there are still risks.
The one I'm proudest of is a system I built for a disabled lady who wanted
to do a remote study writing course. She has a fully functioning XP system
with XP Office (all legal) that connects over broadband, and the whole
system cost $NZ104. So far it has performed flawlessly for about 3 months; I
have my fingers crossed... :-) All of the hardware was begged borrowed or
recycled from other old systems that were non-functional. It took me 30
hours to get the bits and build it. :-)
The bottom line is that if you have a machine running Win 98, you are
PROBABLY better to bite the bullet and replace the whole thing, than attempt
to upgrade.
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
Roman Catholics...:-)?
I missed the episode of Bloody Mary (probably the only person in NZ who did;
next day everyone in my team had seen it and none were offended. (I've
described elsewhere, it is a very multicultural and diversely ethnic team).
I rarely watch C4, (I'm not in their target age group and I find the noise
offputting), but I do watch South Park (and have since the first series) and
I do go to channel 4 for Beavis and Butthead and Jackass if there is nothing
else on and I can't be bothered doing anything constructive. I find both of
these mildly amusing and sometimes actually funny.
I was interested in your point about the 'Classic Albums' series. I only
found it by accident on C4 but was blown away by Fleetwood Mac 'Rumours' and
'Bat out of Hell', which have always been two of my personal favourites.
Sorry I missed the Pink Floyd one (it was on the same night as Bloody Mary'
I think?)
I really hope this series becomes available on DVD as the ones I've seen
were outstanding.
> What _I_ objected to was that the religionists wanted to have control
> over what _I_ could watch. Not that I wanted to see South Park, but I
> object to 'book burning'.
>
Yep. Me too. (Although I do enjoy South Park. It went a bit flat as they
seemed to run out of ideas a while back, but the latest ones have been
funny; I especially enjoyed the one about the vote for school mascot... some
pertinent observations there :-)).
Pete.
docd...@panix.com
Pete Dashwood <dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>The one I'm proudest of is a system I built for a disabled lady who wanted
>to do a remote study writing course. She has a fully functioning XP system
>with XP Office (all legal) that connects over broadband, and the whole
>system cost $NZ104. So far it has performed flawlessly for about 3 months; I
>have my fingers crossed... :-) All of the hardware was begged borrowed or
>recycled from other old systems that were non-functional. It took me 30
>hours to get the bits and build it. :-)
This reminds me of a put-it-together-yourself file cabinet I helped a
physician I know assemble back in the early 1990s. This stuff has
improved since then and now it's more difficult to attach part B to part D
instead of hooking it to part C, where it belongs... and we'd knock a few
pieces together, realise we'd done the wrong ones, take it apart, set it
aright...
... all in all it took us about three hours. Sipping our Pilsner Urquels
and gazing upon the finished product the doctor mused 'You know... between
the cost of your time and mine that is, per cubic inch, probably the most
expensive piece of furniture in this house.'
DD
Joe Zitzelberger
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote:
I am glad your OS of choice finally seems to be over the frequent
reboot, periodic reinstall phase of its development life cycle. But I
would also point out that it took about 18 years for Windows to get that
point of stability.
(and all the while, everyone using stable OSes was forced to listen to
the collective bitching and moaning of Windows users)
No other product in the history of humanity has such a poor track record
of "good experiences" for its users...
Pete Dashwood
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:dvgjem$aaq$1...@reader2.panix.com...
price :-)
I was very impressed to see you drank Pilsner Urquels :-) This could be
considered the "original" lager beer. Pilsen used to be part of Germany and
is where they invented what is referred to in Germany as 'Pils' and in
England as 'lager'. (Although no English lagers that I know of are brewed
according to the Reinheitsgebot (purity laws formulated in the 17th century
in Germany, and forbidding the adulteration of beer with anything other than
hops, malt, yeast and water. Sadly, 'lager' is simply chemical beer, and
contains enzymes, rice, and fillers and they brew a batch of it in around 2
days. In Germany it takes three weeks of natural fermentation.)
I have visited the town of Pilsen (now in the Czech Republic) and found it
to be very interesting.
I drink Pilsner Urquels whenever I can get my hands on it, but, in NZ, that
is not very frequently... :-(
Pete.
> DD
>
Donald Tees
drop-dead geourgeus thirty year old lady, and blew a few doobs with her
as I taught her to use it. Indeed it can be very gratifying.
Donald
Pete Dashwood
"Joe Zitzelberger" <zbe...@knology.net> wrote in message
news:zberger-25DBFE...@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
Oh, I dunno, Joe...:-)
what about:
1. The Edsel. (A monument to ugliness.)
2. The Pinto. (At least Windows doesn't blow your arse off when it
crashes...)
3. The NCR 500.(First machine I ever programmed. I still occasionally dream
about it... nightmares.)
4. Any trip with Magic Bus. (I nearly took a job driving this from Kathmandu
to London, once. It should be called "Miracle Bus", not "Magic Bus"...:-))
5. Any trip with Air France.
6. The Pol Pot regime.
7. Consultancy from Arthur Andersen.
8. Insurance from Phoenix.
9. The Starfighter. (German joke, after many of them crashed in training...
How do you get a Starfighter? Buy a field and wait...)
10. Matai beer. (This was invented by the Maori before Europeans arrived. It
is made from the fermented berries of a native tree called the matai. I
drank some once (and they weren't even holding a gun on me at the time...)
in a part of NZ called Taranaki, where men are men and women are glad... It
is certainly the foulest tasting stuff you could ever imagine. I reckon the
haka was invented to try and shake off the taste of it. It's the kind of
beer that is SO bad you don't even think: "Man, this beer is bad; I'll be
glad when I've had enough..." Best avoided.
11. The PSION II organiser. (Batteries could be relied on to fail at
absolutely the most inopportune time. You had around 20 seconds to get the
old battery out and the new one in. The pressure was immense, resulting in
dropped batteries, lost data, and, on one occasion I witnessed in Australia,
the device being hurled across the room with a string of invective.)
12. A Frank Ifield concert.
13. Women's cricket.
14. Posting code to CLC...
15. MicroFocus VISOC. (Not the product; what they did with it...)
16. Anything that happens on ice, with the possible exception of hockey, and
female 'ice dancing' solos.
17. The food in Sweden.
18. The wine in Tunisia.
19. Visiting France.
20. Any Lada car PRIOR to the takeover by Volkswagen.
All of the above are pretty much unlikely to produce a 'good experience' for
their users. Personally, I'd rather use Windows than have any of the above
inflicted on me :-)
Pete.
LX-i
> LX-i wrote:
>
>> IMO, though, that's the beauty of that quote. It's doesn't even attempt
>> to get into "all that" - it only questions the rationality of two
>> comparative viewpoints. And, there's not an answer - some might feel
>> that the first man is less rational.
>
> Well I think that it is irrational to think that there are only two
> viewpoints, but then religionists typically do try to create a
> dichotomy where none exists in an attempt to claim, or at least imply,
> that if one is not true then the other must be.
That quote doesn't claim to cover all the bases. There are plenty of
people who don't believe in the God I do, but they're not offended by
the fact that I believe He exists.
>> (And note, too - it's not ridiculing the lack of belief in (a) God, just
>> inquiring as to the rationality of being *offended* by a deity that
>> someone doesn't believe exists.)
>
> Are you offended by the hundreds of deities that you don't believe in ?
>
> Are you offended by Rastas; Scientoloist Thetans; Hindu's Brahma,
> Vishnu, Shiva and the rest; the Canaanite Pantheon; Shintu Gods; and
> the others ?
Nope.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LX-i
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 20:02:23 -0600, LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
>> a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
>
> I've never seen someone offended by something he doesn't believe
> exists.
See Newdow, Michael.
> I've seen people offended by people whose beliefs are
> different from theirs. Wars are fought over this.
And a cold war is being waged in this country over our traditions even
as we speak. Will it ever become hot? Who knows?
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
LX-i
> Firstly full marks to the Calgary Herald and Naomi Lakritz, to whom I've
> already referred. US born her father was a GP in the States - her
> political ideology grew from her childhood. She saw her father turn away
> patients because they couldn't pay. She, on a weekly basis writes an
> interesting, easily read and provocative column on various current
> topics - there's little of what she writes that I would disagree with.
>
> The Herald and Naomi make a point of posting 'interesting' letters and
> they don't balk at 'interesting' rebuttals. (I don't know - but I'd put
> my money on the possibility that Naomi doesn't go near a synagogue.
> Surprisingly, she has just done a book review - in the title the word
> 'Jesus' occurs).
Did that happen to be _Misquoting Jesus_? (That's a book that claims
that several parts of the New Testament aren't "real" - not a stretch
for some...)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
LX-i
> This reminds me of a put-it-together-yourself file cabinet I helped a
> physician I know assemble back in the early 1990s. This stuff has
> improved since then and now it's more difficult to attach part B to part D
> instead of hooking it to part C, where it belongs... and we'd knock a few
> pieces together, realise we'd done the wrong ones, take it apart, set it
> aright...
>
> ... all in all it took us about three hours. Sipping our Pilsner Urquels
> and gazing upon the finished product the doctor mused 'You know... between
> the cost of your time and mine that is, per cubic inch, probably the most
> expensive piece of furniture in this house.'
Heh - boy, I can identify with that...
I read something about time management one time that laid out a way to
determine how much one minute of your time was worth. Then, when you
had a choice between, say, buying a bike in a box and assembling it
yourself vs. paying the $10 to buy it assembled, you could compare
apples to apples. It was a pretty good concept.
(not that I've been able to implement a *lot* of the good concepts I've
read...)
HeyBub
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>>> Are you saying that you don't believe anything bad about MS or their
>>> products ?
>>
>> No, of course not. I am saying that I don't believe unsubstantiated
>> CLAIMS of badness. What's the rule? "Don't attribute to malovelence
>> (on the part of Micros~1) that which can be explained by
>> incompetence (by the end user)." Or maybe it's vice-versa.
>
> So it is the _users_ fault that Windows has security problems,
> viruses, spyware, backdoors, design flaws, and general failures.
Pretty much. Viruses, for example don't miracle themselves into a PC (in
spite of Bill Gates being, in the eyes of some, a god).
>
> Actually, if you had read the original instead of knee-jerking, you
> would have noticed that the claim was that the company was unreliable
> and untrustworthy, as substanciated in courts of law.
So, is it the company or their products (or both), you find lacking?
If you mean your post alleging Windows will only run 39 days and, since no
one had been able to keep Windows running that long, the bug was never
found, I attributed that to hyperbole. I can find no Google reference to
such a condition. Moreover, I just stepped over to two of our test machines
(one running Win98, the other running Win95). Both, I'm almost certain, have
been running for at least several months. Neither were "locked up." If you
can cite a reputable basis for your claim, I'd like to hear it. Else I'll
conclude the assertion was merely a "knee-jerk" reaction.
As for "courts of law" being unbiased arbiters of truth: bah!
>
>> On the other hand, I did get a $1,600.00 checky-poo from Micros~1
>> last year as a "bonus dividend" for my piddly 2000 shares.
>
> Yes, I do know why you deify Bill Gates.
Pretty smart of me, isn't it?
James J. Gavan
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>
>> Firstly full marks to the Calgary Herald and Naomi Lakritz, to whom
>> I've already referred. US born her father was a GP in the States - her
>> political ideology grew from her childhood. She saw her father turn
>> away patients because they couldn't pay. She, on a weekly basis writes
>> an interesting, easily read and provocative column on various current
>> topics - there's little of what she writes that I would disagree with.
>>
>> The Herald and Naomi make a point of posting 'interesting' letters and
>> they don't balk at 'interesting' rebuttals. (I don't know - but I'd
>> put my money on the possibility that Naomi doesn't go near a
>> synagogue. Surprisingly, she has just done a book review - in the
>> title the word 'Jesus' occurs).
>
>
> Did that happen to be _Misquoting Jesus_? (That's a book that claims
> that several parts of the New Testament aren't "real" - not a stretch
> for some...)
>
>
a 'sensible look' at Jesus, (still can't recall overall message of
book). What I found pleasing was that somebody who was Jewish was able
to offer a critical and favourable analysis. I suppose if I actually
wrote to her, she would respond, "Well, He *was* one of us" :-)
Jimmy
Richard
> 20. Any Lada car PRIOR to the takeover by Volkswagen.
That would be the Skoda you are thinking of.
Richard
LX-i wrote:
>> "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
>> a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
> That quote doesn't claim to cover all the bases.
I can agree that those two groups are both irrational, I am just not in
either of them ;-)
> There are plenty of
> people who don't believe in the God I do, but they're not offended by
> the fact that I believe He exists.
But that is _not_ what the quote says. As I pointed out before, that is
discussing being offended or not by _your_ actions.
> > Are you offended by the hundreds of deities that you don't believe in ?
> >
> > Are you offended by Rastas; Scientoloist Thetans; Hindu's Brahma,
> > Vishnu, Shiva and the rest; the Canaanite Pantheon; Shintu Gods; and
> > the others ?
> Nope
And would you be offended if followers of those religions attempted to
get their dogma taught to your children in schools, or tried to control
what books you could read or what TV programs could be shown ?
Clark Morris
<dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> much snipped
(Windows is the product referred to)
Curling seems to be popular here in Canada and a large number of
people seem to enjoy it.
>17. The food in Sweden.
I liked the Swedish food when I was there. What did you find
unsatisfying about it?
>18. The wine in Tunisia.
>19. Visiting France.
I have enjoyed all three of my visits to France and that is as a US
citizen with very little ability to speak French. What turned you
off?
Richard
HeyBub wrote:
> > So it is the _users_ fault that Windows has security problems,
> > viruses, spyware, backdoors, design flaws, and general failures.
>
> Pretty much. Viruses, for example don't miracle themselves into a PC
Actually, they do. Tests done with Windows XP (prior to SP2) showed
that a fresh install with all MS defaults connected to the internet
would be 'pwned' within 5 minutes or so. Granted SP2 set the firewall
on.
There were many faults in Outlook that would install viruses merely by
clicking on an email, and it was necessary to click to delete it.
Merely visiting sites would be enogh to become infected.
Servers with IIS with settings as per MS install, would propagate many
trojans and viruses.
Even playing a music CD from Sony would install a rootkit without the
user being even aware of it.
> If you mean your post alleging Windows will only run 39 days and, since no
> one had been able to keep Windows running that long, the bug was never
> found, I attributed that to hyperbole. I can find no Google reference to
> such a condition.
It was actually 49.6 days now that I check. This is when the timer tick
would overflow the size of an integer and the system would lockup. The
problem was fixed by a patch and was fixed in 98 SE.
> As for "courts of law" being unbiased arbiters of truth: bah!
Oh quite, much better to rely on Bush to tell us 'The Truth!!'. ;-)
> >> On the other hand, I did get a $1,600.00 checky-poo from Micros~1
>
> Pretty smart of me, isn't it?
But then you have probably sent them more than that amount one way or
another.
docd...@panix.com
Pete Dashwood <dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
><docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:dvgjem$aaq$1...@reader2.panix.com...
[snip]
>> Sipping our Pilsner Urquels
>> and gazing upon the finished product the doctor mused 'You know... between
>> the cost of your time and mine that is, per cubic inch, probably the most
>> expensive piece of furniture in this house.'
>>
>LOL! Very true... sometimes we have to donate our time and then it is beyond
>price :-)
>
>I was very impressed to see you drank Pilsner Urquels :-)
Shucks... you'se jes' easily impressed. Glad you enjoyed!
DD
LX-i
> LX-i wrote:
>>> "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
>>> a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
>
>> people who don't believe in the God I do, but they're not offended by
>> the fact that I believe He exists.
>
> But that is _not_ what the quote says. As I pointed out before, that is
> discussing being offended or not by _your_ actions.
But why would worshipping a non-existent deity be offensive? (IMO,
there are lots of religions that do this. :> In your opinion, they all
do!)
>>> Are you offended by the hundreds of deities that you don't believe in ?
>>>
>>> Are you offended by Rastas; Scientoloist Thetans; Hindu's Brahma,
>>> Vishnu, Shiva and the rest; the Canaanite Pantheon; Shintu Gods; and
>>> the others ?
>
>> Nope
>
> And would you be offended if followers of those religions attempted to
> get their dogma taught to your children in schools, or tried to control
> what books you could read or what TV programs could be shown ?
Depends on how it's done. First off, I don't think government should be
in the business of education, and I don't send my children to government
schools. But, I wouldn't have a problem with them learning *about*
other religions.
Books/TV are a different matter. Again, "control" is a broad term. I
don't think that the government should control those sorts of things
with an iron fist. However, the need does exist (as has been
demonstrated) for some protection for children. I'm against any books
or films being outright banned; but, reasonable controls (such as the
movie rating system we have in place here, though it's becoming useless
(every movie *can't* be PG-13)) are needed.
(I'd rather not get more detailed in that, because it would only divert
this thread into a long, long, long social issue discussion, which has
occurred here before. Of course I think my own feelings are reasonable;
but, if you don't, we'll just have to agree to disagree.)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
HeyBub
> James J. Gavan wrote:
>> Firstly full marks to the Calgary Herald and Naomi Lakritz, to whom
>> I've already referred. US born her father was a GP in the States -
>> her political ideology grew from her childhood. She saw her father
>> turn away patients because they couldn't pay. She, on a weekly basis
>> writes an interesting, easily read and provocative column on various
>> current topics - there's little of what she writes that I would
>> disagree with. The Herald and Naomi make a point of posting 'interesting'
>> letters
>> and they don't balk at 'interesting' rebuttals. (I don't know - but
>> I'd put my money on the possibility that Naomi doesn't go near a
>> synagogue. Surprisingly, she has just done a book review - in the
>> title the word 'Jesus' occurs).
>
> Did that happen to be _Misquoting Jesus_? (That's a book that claims
> that several parts of the New Testament aren't "real" - not a stretch
> for some...)
I'm almost done with "Misquoting Jesus." Nothing new there, but he does
gather into one volume the problems with early transcriptions and
translations. An observation I thought was interesting was the reverse of
Occam's Razor.
One way of stating Occam's Razor is: "When presented with two explanations,
the simpler one is usually correct." In comparing early biblical texts,
reverse the rule: the more complex text is closer to the original. It seems
as if early copyists tried to simplify complex arguments and changed the
received text to match their understandings.
As for not being "real," well there are two answers for that: In the
Catholic tradition, the New Testament is a mere artifact. The real authority
belongs with the Church as an institution and dogma is Church determined. In
the non-catholic tradition, "God would not have allowed a corruption of His
word. Any 'changes' to the received text were done with his blessing. We
have, today, exactly what He wants us to have" is the operative theory.
HeyBub
>
>> As for "courts of law" being unbiased arbiters of truth: bah!
>
> Oh quite, much better to rely on Bush to tell us 'The Truth!!'. ;-)
I figure since God couldn't be president, Bush is the next best choice.
>
>>>> On the other hand, I did get a $1,600.00 checky-poo from Micros~1
>>
>> Pretty smart of me, isn't it?
>
> But then you have probably sent them more than that amount one way or
> another.
Well, actually, since I'm a "Micros~1 Partner," they've sent me, oh, easily,
$50,000 worth of usable software. Heck, just in January alone, I got:
Business Contact Manager
CRM 3.0 Small Business Edition
Exchange Server 2003
Office Professional 2003
SQL Server 2005 Standard (10 licenses)
Visual Basic 2005 Express (10 licenses)
Visual Web Developer 2005 Express (10 licenses)
This was on top of the stuff I'd already received. XP-Pro, ISA Server 2004,
SBA 2006, XP-Pro64, and bunches of other stuff.
Richard
LX-i wrote:
> >>> "Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
> >>> a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
> > But that is _not_ what the quote says. As I pointed out before, that is
> > discussing being offended or not by _your_ actions.
>
> But why would worshipping a non-existent deity be offensive?
That is _still_ not what the quote says.
> (IMO, there are lots of religions that do this. :> In your opinion, they all
> do!)
Interesting that you think that you can state my opinion for me. In
fact I see that Rastas was a real person that was deified and
worshipped (did I mention that Ras Tafari presented my Grandfather with
a lion skin cloak in Aden in 1922), Hirihito was officially a 'god'
until the allies made him not be in 1945, Chin was a real person and a
deity.
In fact I see no reason at all why all the deities were not real
people: warlords, chiefs, ancestors, charasmatic leaders. Jehovah even
specified that the Jews must build him a house that he may dwell
amongst them. Sounds like a real person to me. Dead now of course,
just like all the others. The stories are greatly exagerated, but if
you want to believe some fantasy mythology, that's OK.
At the time, of course, they were worshipping someone who was real and
alive, or perhaps Jehovah was more of a dynasty, a succession of
'lords' (cf the House of Lords in the UK - territorial leaders with
inheretable titles).
No, I don't think that you are worshipping something that _never_
existed, just as the Rastafarians worshipped a real person, but he
doesn't exist any more, their church keeps up the pretense. The Jews,
of course, have a real reason to maintain the covenant, and thus keep
up the idea that the other party to the contract is still around: their
very nationhood and land depends on it.
> (I'd rather not get more detailed in that, because it would only divert
> this thread into a long, long, long social issue discussion, which has
Well I wasn't actually interested in your answer, only in having you
think about what would happen if, say, the muslims had a say in what
the laws were.
Pete Dashwood
"Clark Morris" <cfm...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:h7go12dh993g1au08...@4ax.com...
curling during the Winter Olympics. Some of them stayed up past their
bedtimes and some of them missed having their poultices changed... :-)
Bowls is bad enough. Having a couple of people racing down preparing the ice
in front of the oncoming stone seems to me to kind of defeat the object of
the game. (Given that the object is a match of skill on the part of the
people releasing the stones...) Could you imagine a couple of blokes with
motor mowers doing the same in Lawn Bowls... :-)
>>17. The food in Sweden.
>
> I liked the Swedish food when I was there. What did you find
> unsatisfying about it?
>
It is great if you enjoy 17 different preparations of herring and smoked
salmon. :-) I need meat and potatoes... :-)
>>18. The wine in Tunisia.
>>19. Visiting France.
>
> I have enjoyed all three of my visits to France and that is as a US
> citizen with very little ability to speak French. What turned you
> off?
>
Don't start me :-). OK, I'll give you France (you're bloody welcome to
it...:-)) Beautiful country; spoiled by being full of Frenchmen. (The girls
are OK... I had a French girlfriend for about 9 months and she was a
sweetheart.) Seriously, if you enjoyed your visits, good. I accept that my
problem with this country and these people is exactly that...my problem :-)
The roots of it and the reasons for it are far too much to go into detail
here; all I will say is that I have been antipathetic to them as a nation
(on an individual basis, I would treat them with the same respect I try to
afford all people) since I was a student in the 60s, and they tested their
bloody bombs in our backyard.
(Our entire economy in those days was based on agriculture (lamb, wool,
butter, and cheese) and it's pretty hard on farmers when they have to pour
their product down the drain because it glows in the dark...:-) (OK that was
poetic license, but the levels of Strontium 90 were such that millions of
gallons of milk DID have to be scrapped. It was pretty heartbreaking for a
small country dependent on these products.) When asked nicely to desist (not
just by us; the whole pacifc rim) and offered alternative underground
facilities by the US, they scathingly declined, contending that France must
have her own nuclear deterrent. (But of course, they wouldn't test the
weapons in France...) Shortly after that they slunk off out of NATO, and a
few years later some of their agents blew up a Greenpeace ship (Rainbow
Warrior) in Auckland harbour, killing a photographer who was sleeping on
board. They considered it was OK to commit this act of terrorism in a
friendly port, on a peaceful ship, that was moored at the dock minding its
own business, because Rainbow Warrior had sailed into the test zone and
caused delays to their nuclear program. They have never apologised, the
agents responsible were feted as heroes and decorated at the Elysee Palace,
after being surrendered to the French on the understanding they would serve
their terms in French jails rather than NZ ones, and they have done
everything possible to block NZ exports to the EU and disadvantage us
wherever possible.
Sorry, I could write a book about this... :-) One of the very few times I
have been ashamed to be a Kiwi was when we saw our Prime Minister (Helen
Clark) embracing the French President in the hope that he might let us have
better access to the EU for lamb. No apology for Rainbow Warrior, no
contingencies, or conditions, just humiliating herself (and us, as our
representative) in the hopes of a deal. Of course it never happened, and if
she had taken the trouble to study some history, she would have known it was
never going to happen.
The only thing they ever got right was champagne, and they stole that idea
from an Englishman :-)
>>20. Any Lada car PRIOR to the takeover by Volkswagen.
>>
As Richard pointed out, that should have been SKODA.
>>All of the above are pretty much unlikely to produce a 'good experience'
>>for
>>their users. Personally, I'd rather use Windows than have any of the above
>>inflicted on me :-)
>>
>>Pete.
>>
Pete.
Alistair
Richard wrote:
>
> Interesting that you think that you can state my opinion for me. In
> fact I see that Rastas was a real person that was deified and
> worshipped (did I mention that Ras Tafari presented my Grandfather with
> a lion skin cloak in Aden in 1922)
Yes, you did.
>
> At the time, of course, they were worshipping someone who was real and
> alive, or perhaps Jehovah was more of a dynasty, a succession of
> 'lords' (cf the House of Lords in the UK - territorial leaders with
> inheretable titles).
You are a bit behind the times. We have dis-established the majority of
the inherited titular lords and are left with a 'stump' House of Lords
with a mix of inherited titles and lifetime appointees.
Alistair
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> <docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:dvgjem$aaq$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> > In article <4818m5F...@individual.net>,
> > Pete Dashwood <dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
>
> considered the "original" lager beer. Pilsen used to be part of Germany and
> is where they invented what is referred to in Germany as 'Pils' and in
> England as 'lager'.
We also have pils but that seems to just denote strength rather than
method.
(Although no English lagers that I know of are brewed
> according to the Reinheitsgebot (purity laws formulated in the 17th century
> in Germany, and forbidding the adulteration of beer with anything other than
> hops, malt, yeast and water. Sadly, 'lager' is simply chemical beer, and
> contains enzymes, rice, and fillers and they brew a batch of it in around 2
> days. In Germany it takes three weeks of natural fermentation.)
Greene King used to brew Harp lager in 24 hours (no wonder it was
tasteless schlock). When I used to do home-brew, the better beers and
wines were the slow fermentation brews.
I drink lots of chemical beer when I can afford it (I am a lager-lout,
bitter-lout and a stout-lout) but prefer Czech Budweiser Budvar over
Urquell Pilsner.
Alistair
LX-i wrote:
> docd...@panix.com wrote:
> > This reminds me of a put-it-together-yourself file cabinet I helped a
> > physician I know assemble back in the early 1990s. This stuff has
> > improved since then and now it's more difficult to attach part B to part D
> > instead of hooking it to part C, where it belongs... and we'd knock a few
> > pieces together, realise we'd done the wrong ones, take it apart, set it
> > aright...
> >
> > ... all in all it took us about three hours. Sipping our Pilsner Urquels
> > and gazing upon the finished product the doctor mused 'You know... between
> > the cost of your time and mine that is, per cubic inch, probably the most
> > expensive piece of furniture in this house.'
>
> Heh - boy, I can identify with that...
>
> I read something about time management one time that laid out a way to
> determine how much one minute of your time was worth. Then, when you
> had a choice between, say, buying a bike in a box and assembling it
> yourself vs. paying the $10 to buy it assembled, you could compare
> apples to apples. It was a pretty good concept.
>
And you can get the measure of inflation by comparing an item's
purchase price in Mars bars today compared with ye golden dayse of
yore. IIRC, cars are cheaper today than in the fifties. Unfortunately,
the price of Mars bars is held steady by adjusting the weight of the
delivered product.
Alistair
If that is a reference to the French comments about British cuisine
being the second worst in Europe then you should have been referring to
Finland (the worst cuisine). I like swedish meatballs so I can not
believe that you really meant Sweden.
> 18. The wine in Tunisia.
> 19. Visiting France.
Except when passing through?
Alistair
Pete,
As a Francophobe you might enjoy these jokes:
Three guys, an Englishman, a Frenchman and a Welshman are out
walking along the beach together one day. They come across a
lantern and a genie pops out of it. "I will give you each one wish"
says the
genie.
The Welshman says, "I am a farmer, my dad was a
farmer, and my son will also farm. I want the land to be forever
fertile in
Wales."
With a blink of the genie's eye, 'FOOM' - the land
in Wales was forever made fertile for farming.
The Frenchman was amazed, so he said, "I want a
wall around France, so that no one can come into our precious country.
Again,
with a blink of the Genie's eye,'POOF' - there was a huge wall around
France.
The Englishman asks, "I'm very curious. Please tell
me more about this wall.
The Genie explains, "Well, it's about 150 feet
high, 50 feet thick and nothing can get in or out."
The Englishman says, "Fill it up with water."
Why do all French roads have trees lining them?
Because the Germans don't like marching in the sun.
An Englishman, a Dutchman and a Frenchman are all in Saudi Arabia,
sharing
a smuggled crate of booze when, all of a sudden, Saudi police rush in
and
arrest them. The mere possession of alcohol is a severe offence in
Saudi
Arabia, so for the terrible crime of actually being caught consuming
the
booze, they are all sentenced to death!
However, after many months and with the help of very good lawyers, they
are able to successfully appeal their sentences down to life
imprisonment. By
a stroke of luck, it was a Saudi national holiday the day their trial
finished, and the extremely benevolent Sheikh decided they could be
released after receiving just 20 lashes each of the whip.
As they were preparing for their punishment, the Sheikh announced:
"It's
my first wife's birthday today, and she has asked me to allow each of
you one
wish before your whipping."
The Dutchman was first in line, he thought for a while and then said:
"Please tie a pillow to my back.
This was done, but the pillow only lasted 10 lashes before the whip
went
through. When the punishment was done he had to be carried away
bleeding
and crying with pain.
The Frenchman was next up. After watching the Dutchman in horror he
said
smugly: "Please fix two pillows to my back." But even two pillows could
only take 15 lashes before the whip went through again and the
Frenchman
was soon led away whimpering loudly (as they do).
The Englishman was the last one up, but before he could say anything,
the
Sheikh turned to him and said: "You are from a most beautiful part of
the
world and your culture is one of the finest in the world. For this, you
may have two wishes!"
"Thank you, your Most Royal and Merciful highness", The Englishman
replied. "In recognition of your kindness, my first wish is that you
give me not
20, but 100 lashes."
"Not only are you an honourable, handsome and powerful man, you are
also
very brave". The Sheikh said with an admiring look on his face. "If 100
lashes is
what you desire, then so be it. And your second wish, what is it to
be?"
the Sheikh asked.
"Tie the Frenchman to my back
Five surgeons are discussing who makes the best patients to operate
upon. The first surgeon says,"I like to see accountants because
everything inside of them is numbered."
The second says, " Yeah but I like electricians. When you open them up,
everything is colour coded inside.".
The third says, " I really think that librarians are the best;
everything inside of them is in alphabetical order."
The fourth says, "I prefer construction workers because they always
understand when you have a few parts left over at the end and when the
job takes longer than it should."
The fifth says, "The French are the easiest to operate upon. There's no
guts, no heart, no balls and no spine. Plus the head and the arse are
interchangeable."
Once upon a time (allegedly) in a nice little forest, there lived an
orphaned bunny and an orphaned snake.
By a surprising coincidence, both were blind from birth.
One day, the bunny was hopping through the forest, and the snake was
slithering through the
forest, when the bunny tripped over the snake and fell down. This, of
course, knocked the snake
about quite a bit. "Oh, my," said the bunny, "I'm terribly sorry. I
didn't mean to hurt you. I've been
blind since birth, so, I can't see where I'm going. In fact, since I'm
also an orphan, I don't even know
what I am." "It's quite OK," replied the snake.
"Actually, my story is much the same as yours.
I, too, have been blind since birth, and also never knew my mother.
Tell you what, maybe I could
slither all over you, and work out what you are, so at least you'll
have that going for you." "Oh, that would be wonderful" replied the
bunny.
So the snake slithered all over the bunny, and said, "Well, you're
covered with soft fur; you have
really long ears; your nose twitches; and you have a
soft cottony tail.
I'd say that you must be a bunny rabbit."
Oh, thank you! Thank you," cried the bunny, in obvious excitement.
The bunny suggested to the snake, "Maybe I could feel you all over with
my paw, and help you the
same way that you've helped me."
So the bunny felt the snake all over, and remarked, "Well, you're
smooth and slippery, and you have
no backbone and no balls. I'd say you must be "French
Peter Lacey
> > Curling seems to be popular here in Canada and a large number of
> > people seem to enjoy it.
> >
> Yeah, right... It's 'popular' here in NZ too. Many people here watched
> curling during the Winter Olympics. Some of them stayed up past their
> bedtimes and some of them missed having their poultices changed... :-)
> Bowls is bad enough. Having a couple of people racing down preparing the ice
> in front of the oncoming stone seems to me to kind of defeat the object of
> the game. (Given that the object is a match of skill on the part of the
> people releasing the stones...) Could you imagine a couple of blokes with
> motor mowers doing the same in Lawn Bowls... :-)
>
Now do stop blathering on subjects you wot not of. Curling does appear
at first glance to be trivial and a no-talent sport. But get out there
and try it. You have to send a 41-lb rock down a sheet of ice to a spot
more than 90' away; the final position of that stone, depending on the
circumstances of the game, may have to be within a one-quarter INCH
radius of the required spot. It's almost impossible to throw a rock in
a straight line, so you have to aim to one side or the other. The air
temperature and the ice temperature change during the course of the
game, so what works at first will be over-throwing towards the end of
the game. The impetus you give to the rock when you throw it - the
"weight" - and the direction in which you direct it must be VERY exact.
Believe me - getting the weight right takes years of practice!
The sweepers do have an influence on the course of the rock. Their
sweeping temporarily warms up the ice in front of the rock a tiny but
measurable amount, which means the rock will slide faster and therefore
straighter. The National Research of Canada did experiments with a
mechanical rock thrower; they determined that sweeping can drag the rock
from 2 to 25 feet further (again depending on the circumstances).
Sweeping may also clear bits of debris from in front of the rock; but
sometimes a hair will fall off the broom and get under the rock - then
you'll see it do amazing things. I've seen rocks stop dead, then go a
completely different way - one even described a small circle and then
came back towards the thrower! The idea is that the sweepers make up
for the deficiencies of the shooter; most teams, in fact, under-throw
the rock and have the sweepers control it: you can speed up a rock but
you can't slow it down, you see.
I wouldn't want to comment on lawn bowling since I know almost nothing
about it. Those that play it can comment on the inwardness of it. But
it SEEMS to me that mowing the way in front of a ball would make things
worse, since the mowers would change the ground permanently and
unpredictably. I wot not of it!
PL
William M. Klein
check out the various threads with
"Migrating Off IBM Mainframes"
in the subject in the
bit.listserv.ibm-main
newsgroup
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"Pete Dashwood" <dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:47t5erF...@individual.net...
>I thought the group might find the following interesting:
>
> PUBLISHER SAVES A MILLION MIGRATING OFF MAINFRAME
> By Joe Spurr, News Writer
>
> Simon & Schuster Inc. plans to save $1 million a year on hardware costs and
> licensing fees as a result of migrating off its old IBM mainframes.
> The New York City-based publishing house is in the middle of a three-part
> changeover from its Cobol-crunching IBM 9672-RB5 to an Intel-based Unisys
> ES7000 running Microsoft SQL Server.
>
> The decision to switch came about two years ago when officials, already
> cognizant of high mainframe costs, began to realize the growth of their
> company was beginning to conflict with the size of its shoes, so to speak. But
> with stability a concern and the looming task of converting five million lines
> of code, the pressure was on to make the right move.
>
> "The challenge of rewriting everything -- it was a daunting task," said Mike
> Grant, Simon & Schuster vice president of application development. "But we
> needed to do something . We are running flat out on our machine right now.
> We're almost 90% to 100% capacity all the time."
>
> Mainframes have been around forever and know how to get things done their own
> way, but, especially for smaller companies, the elegance that makes them
> useful can also be unwieldy to upkeep.
>
> More on mainframes
> Integration specialists ride mainframe migration wave
>
> Graying workforce endangers your mainframes
>
> Advantages of the data center's elder statesman -- stability, the ability to
> scale and flex in the face of server sprawl and new workloads -- can be offset
> by premium hardware costs. Complicated architecture that goes back 20 years,
> combined with a skills base in decline, also means potentially high labor
> expenses.
>
> Grant said he was surfing for answers when he stumbled across
> Tokyo-headquartered Fujitsu Software Corp., a specialist in assisting
> migrations like CICS applications to .NET and mainframe batch applications to
> Windows.
>
> The latter was a crucial difference when proofs of concept were drawn and
> discussed with both Fujitsu and U.K.-based Micro Focus Ltd., a similar
> migration outfit, Grant said.
>
> "We were very impressed with both, but the problem we saw with Micro Focus --
> which may have since changed -- was a lot of emulation software," Grant said.
> "We wanted to standardize our .NET environment, and the Fujitsu model more
> closely aligned with our vision, in terms of running Visual Studio and having
> it play well with VB [Visual Basic] and C#."
>
> After recently transferring over its royalty system -- and working with
> India-based Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. to convert its DB2 to SQL server --
> the final hulking shift comes soon for Simon & Schuster -- moving its main
> order processing system. But the true test will come late summer, a
> traditional season of frenzy that will test both nerves and networks as
> publishers push to move product in time for schools reopening.
>
> "Until then, we'll still be kind of nervous -- last year our mainframe was so
> backed up that often systems weren't coming up until 10 the next morning,"
> Grant said. "But right now we're seeing jobs perform so much better. We are
> really seeing some performance gains, we've been pleased, and all the vendors
> are very confident."
>
> Indeed, Andrew Mackenzie, strategic alliance manager for Fujitsu Software,
> sees no gray in the environment.
>
> "The thing about migrations is you're either a hero or a goat," Mackenzie
> said. "With mission-critical apps, it can be very scary to turn off the
> mainframe. But five years ago there was a lot more risk. There's been
> relentless performance gains in microprocessors. It comes down to if I'm the
> CIO who's got this thing that's sucking up 60% of my budget -- you're either
> going to migrate or drown."
>
> IT research firm Gartner Inc. recently predicted 80% of today's smaller
> mainframe environments will move away by 2010. And though the sentiment of
> that forecast is nothing new -- bashing mainframes is practically a pastime in
> some circles. Detractors today predict doom in the face of the system's recent
> resurgence, exemplified by double-digit revenue gains since 2003 of the IBM's
> zSeries.
>
> "If someone hasn't looked at a mainframe in a while, they should look again,"
> said zSeries product director Collette Martin. "There's an awful lot of
> flexibility. And for the customers who are very small, with older mainframes,
> those who are struggling in that respect but looking for a value proposition
> to move forward, it is considerably less expensive to run today's mainframes."
>
>
> No, I didn't write it... :-) (The Author's name is on the byline)
>
> I'm still backing 2015 for the end of COBOL... :-)
>
> Pete.
>
>
Pete Dashwood
It was my birthday today and these just rounded it off nicely :-)
Cheers,
Pete.
TOP POST no more below...
"Alistair" <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1142784350.2...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Howard Brazee
>But why would worshipping a non-existent deity be offensive? (IMO,
>there are lots of religions that do this. :> In your opinion, they all
>do!)
Several reasons. For instance, some people worship a being that
they believe is omnipotent, but whom they believe allows the vast
majority of people to be tortured beyond all understanding forever and
ever without hope of parole - for being fooled.
How can this evil *not* be offensive?
Others use their worship as an excuse to hate (by picking and choosing
which parts of the scriptures matter to them).
Howard Brazee
>Depends on how it's done. First off, I don't think government should be
>in the business of education, and I don't send my children to government
>schools. But, I wouldn't have a problem with them learning *about*
>other religions.
That is a big problem with our policies with regards to religion in
public education today. Religions matter. We aren't educated
when we don't know about Islam in this world today. We can't
appreciate Mark Twain without a basic "Child's Picture Book of the
Bible" knowledge. We don't learn USAmerican history without knowing
the difference between Puritans and Baptists and LDS and Epispocal and
Quakers and Catholic...
But how do we become educated in the world's religions without
proselytizing?
Howard Brazee
>In fact I see no reason at all why all the deities were not real
>people: warlords, chiefs, ancestors, charasmatic leaders. Jehovah even
>specified that the Jews must build him a house that he may dwell
>amongst them.
We do see examples of made-up religions. We also see examples of
made-up stories about gods. Without anything to go on, I would bet
half of the gods started off as fiction.
Howard Brazee
<alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You are a bit behind the times. We have dis-established the majority of
>the inherited titular lords and are left with a 'stump' House of Lords
>with a mix of inherited titles and lifetime appointees.
Tony Curtis' son-in-law sat in the House of Lords. But now he's
productive and entertaining.
Howard Brazee
that, even though adults don't believe in Santa Clause - Belief is
very important.
Why is Belief in a fictional character important?
Our society says respects people with other religious beliefs. Their
right to believe the wrong mystical beliefs is important. If a Soux
says a hill is sacred, then it *is* sacred, by gum. But an atheist
doesn't have any excuse to keep his hill pristine.
Howard Brazee
>People are offended by many different things. The local Music TV
>station shows South Park. The local chapter of the 'Cult of Mary'
>started complaining that the episode 'Bloody Mary' was going to be
>shown in a couple of months time, and it should be banned.
You've read about Isaac Hayes quitting South Park. He was quoted
saying:
"Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be
respected and honored," he continued. "As a civil rights activist of
the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those
beliefs and practices."
The producers of South Park responded:
"South Park" co-creator Matt Stone responded sharply in an interview
with The Associated Press Monday, saying, "This is 100 percent having
to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem — and he's
cashed plenty of checks — with our show making fun of Christians."
Stone told The AP he and co-creator Trey Parker "never heard a peep
out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different
standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where
intolerance and bigotry begin."
Howard Brazee
<dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>I was very impressed to see you drank Pilsner Urquels :-) This could be
>considered the "original" lager beer. Pilsen used to be part of Germany and
>is where they invented what is referred to in Germany as 'Pils' and in
>England as 'lager'. (Although no English lagers that I know of are brewed
>according to the Reinheitsgebot (purity laws formulated in the 17th century
>in Germany, and forbidding the adulteration of beer with anything other than
>hops, malt, yeast and water. Sadly, 'lager' is simply chemical beer, and
>contains enzymes, rice, and fillers and they brew a batch of it in around 2
>days. In Germany it takes three weeks of natural fermentation.)
I drink ales - but am a bit confused whether to talk about the more
popular beers I don't care for as lagers or pilsners. (I did enjoy a
Porter on St. Patrick's day - even a Colorado brewed Porter is more of
an Irish brew than a green Bud).
Howard Brazee
<dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> I have enjoyed all three of my visits to France and that is as a US
>> citizen with very little ability to speak French. What turned you
>> off?
>>
>
>Don't start me :-). OK, I'll give you France (you're bloody welcome to
>it...:-)) Beautiful country; spoiled by being full of Frenchmen.
Just take the new bridge over from Spain, and enjoy the countryside!
docd...@panix.com
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>I find it interesting that most Santa Clause movies teach the lesson
>that, even though adults don't believe in Santa Clause - Belief is
>very important.
>
>Why is Belief in a fictional character important?
In the example given above - movies - it might help in selling seats in a
theatre.
'Movies are how bankers gamble on the way that teenagers will want to see
themselves next week' - (source unrecalled)
DD
Oliver Wong
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:e6ht121003qannkpb...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:46:08 -0600, LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>But why would worshipping a non-existent deity be offensive? (IMO,
>>there are lots of religions that do this. :> In your opinion, they all
>>do!)
>
> Several reasons. For instance, some people worship a being that
> they believe is omnipotent, but whom they believe allows the vast
> majority of people to be tortured beyond all understanding forever and
> ever without hope of parole - for being fooled.
>
> How can this evil *not* be offensive?
It's interesting (to me anyway) to consider what is the actual source of
the offense in the above scenario. Is the person actually being offended by
a God which they don't believe exists? Or are they offended by the fact that
someone believes in this God? Or does the offense rather come from the fact
that people believe in the teachings of this God, and it this belief of the
teachings that is offensive, regardless of whether the God actually exists
or not?
I looked up the definition of "offend", and two of the definitions I saw
seem to apply (there were a few others that didn't): "to cause dislike,
anger, or vexation" and "to cause to feel vexation or resentment usually by
violation of what is proper or fitting". Under these definitions, people
could be offended by anything. If the fact that the sky is blue angers or
vexes me, then it is said that I am offended by the blueness of the sky.
So if someone believes in something, and as a result you are vexed, what
is it exactly was it that made you vexed? The belief itself? The fact that
someone belives it? The behaviour of that person as a side effect of those
beliefs? The fact that someone convinced someone else of this belief? The
fact that you don't share this belief?
- Oliver
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> How can this evil *not* be offensive?
>
> It's interesting (to me anyway) to consider what is the actual source of
>the offense in the above scenario. Is the person actually being offended by
>a God which they don't believe exists?
No.
>Or are they offended by the fact that
>someone believes in this God? Or does the offense rather come from the fact
>that people believe in the teachings of this God, and it this belief of the
>teachings that is offensive, regardless of whether the God actually exists
>or not?
Almost. Someone can believe in an evil without being offensive.
Worshiping an omnipotent being who they believe allows the vast
majority of us to be tortured because we have been fooled is
offensive. Proclaming how good their God is who allows us to be
tortured for not being like them is offensive. Saying it's our own
fault because we believe differently and thus we deserve everlasting
torture is offensive.
Rick Smith
"Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> wrote in message
news:9IATf.7409$A4.4297@clgrps12...
[snip]
> It's interesting (to me anyway) to consider what is the actual source
of
> the offense in the above scenario. Is the person actually being offended
by
> a God which they don't believe exists? Or are they offended by the fact
that
> someone believes in this God? Or does the offense rather come from the
fact
> that people believe in the teachings of this God, and it this belief of
the
> teachings that is offensive, regardless of whether the God actually exists
> or not?
>
> I looked up the definition of "offend", and two of the definitions I
saw
> seem to apply (there were a few others that didn't): "to cause dislike,
> anger, or vexation" and "to cause to feel vexation or resentment usually
by
> violation of what is proper or fitting". Under these definitions, people
> could be offended by anything. If the fact that the sky is blue angers or
> vexes me, then it is said that I am offended by the blueness of the sky.
Mr Wong, I am offended by your use of "God" instead of
"god", as a "violation of what is proper and fitting". In your
first use, "a God", the indefinite article "a" implies "any one
of some class or group" (RHCD). This use, and the later
"this God" and "the God", requires lower case, while a
specific reference to the alleged Supreme Being, as God,
uses upper case. <g>
Oliver Wong
"Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1142639359.6...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> Couldn't get my Mandrake account setup, and so I
>> couldn't update my software. Spent several days on the problem before
>> giving
>> up.
>
> Was that a problem with the OS or the web site ?
Probably the web site. I had initially used Mandrake's "proprietary
client" to try to login. To try to isolate the problem, I then went back to
my WinXP machine and tried resetting my password via the website, and then
checking my e-mail for the "click here to reset your password" link, but it
never arrived.
[random anecdotes snipped]
> Absolutely. Linux users have to know what they are doing, but Windows
> users can specify the wrong video card driver too and screw up their
> system.
That's just the thing though: I think Windows user CANNOT specify the
wrong video card. Nowhere in the install process for WindowsXP am I ever
asked "What video card are you using"? Windows just "makes a guess", and so
far, it has always guessed correctly on every system I've ever built
(including those I've built for friends and family).
> When XP came all the icons and menus changed, I had to relearn
> where everything was (when I was forced to) and this was no different
> from going to anther OS.
The learning curve from 3.1 to 98 was essentially zero for me. Similarly
for 98 to 2000, and 2000 to XP. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing
happens when I go from XP to Vista.
The curve from XP to MacOSX was a bit shaky, but not too bad. There's
that moment of panic when you want to do something other than merely open
(i.e. double click), select (i.e. single click) or move (i.e. drag) an icon,
and realize that you don't have a right mouse button. But if google for it,
you'll quickly find a chart with all the keyboard shortcuts to do whatever
it is you were trying to do (e.g. create aliases, copy a file, create new
folders, change the way icons are arranged, etc.)
And for the most parts, things simply don't seem to "go wrong" in either
Windows or Mac (in my experience, anyway). When I go into the control panel
(and whatever the equivalent in OSX is called), and just randomly fiddle
around with the settings that "seem safe", I don't end up seriously mucking
up my system.
With almost every Linux distribution I've ever worked with, I'm almost
afraid to experiment, because it seems like the most innocent changes can
have system wide repercussions. There's some sort of licensing issue which
prevents mp3 players from being bundled with many linux distributions, for
example. Well, I really want to be able to listen to mp3s. So I tell the
package manager please do whatever it is you need to do to get mp3-playing
working. It asks some vaguely dangerous sounding questions (something along
the lines of "broken dependencies") but all the questions Linux asks me
sound dangerous, so I say yes anyway. So it says it has to update my
XWindow, so it's gonna switch to text mode now. Okay, fine. But now X is
completely broken and I can't get back into the GUI anymore. So I tell the
package manager to uninstall that mp3 thing it did. More warnings about
broken dependencies. Yes, yes, fine, do whatever you want. Just get rid of
that mp3 thing. Turns out I'm just digging myself into deeper and deeper
trouble, breaking more and more components.
>> > And those that have spent half a day getting a system back to where
>> > they want it will be just as dismissive of your 'quick 30 minutes'.
>>
>> Except I never claimed that people should, for example, switch from
>> Linux to Windows, so there isn't anything for them to dismiss!
>
> No, but you did dismiss his 'all afternoon', and I dismiss your claim
> it could be done in 30 minutes.
If I had a spare system, I'd try filming myself installing WinXP,
setting up an internet connection, getting firefox, and installing Office,
and optionally Apache HTTP server if there was time left, within 30 minutes.
- Oliver
Richard
Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> We do see examples of made-up religions.
Depending on what you actually mean by 'made-up', they are _all_
made-up.
Some may have been made-up over thousands of years, others much more
recently.
> We also see examples of
> made-up stories about gods. Without anything to go on, I would bet
> half of the gods started off as fiction.
Ceratinly they are fictionalised, but even characters in novels are
often based on real people. There are many examples where the link
between the fictional character and the real original are established,
such as Santa Claus is based on St. Nicolas the Bishop of Myra. People
a few thousand years ago had the same abilities, thoughts, intelligence
as us today so I don't see why they didn't have the same sort of story
telling.
Children are indoctrinated with the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Wombles,
King Arthur, Superman, or many other myths, sometimes they work out
what is fiction and sometimes they continue to believe it because it is
a 'really nice idea'.
Richard
Oliver Wong wrote:
>
> It's interesting (to me anyway) to consider what is the actual source of
> the offense in the above scenario. Is the person actually being offended by
> a God which they don't believe exists? Or are they offended by the fact that
> someone believes in this God? Or does the offense rather come from the fact
> that people believe in the teachings of this God, and it this belief of the
> teachings that is offensive, regardless of whether the God actually exists
> or not?
That was exactly the point that I was attempting to get Lxi to see, but
he didn't seem capable of noticing.
> I looked up the definition of "offend", and two of the definitions I saw
> seem to apply (there were a few others that didn't): "to cause dislike,
> anger, or vexation" and "to cause to feel vexation or resentment usually by
> violation of what is proper or fitting".
I am not sure that I was offended by it, but there is one story that I
found disburbing, though it does explain why some may prefer to believe
in some sort of religion.
In England a youth had, as often he had done, got drunk one night at a
party and then drove home. This time he smashed the car and killed his
girlfriend. His sister was a muslim and persuaded him to turn to her
'god' for help in dealing with his feelings of guilt. His
interpretation of muslim (which may or may not be true) is that 'Allah
has written everything that has been and will be', therefore the crash
was preordained and his girlfriends death was part of some master plan
and so _it_wasn't_his_fault_.
It also seems to me that Dyanetics and Scientology are, for many, also
about it not being their fault that they are failures.
LX-i
> LX-i wrote:
>
>> (IMO, there are lots of religions that do this. :> In your
opinion, they all
>> do!)
>
> Interesting that you think that you can state my opinion for me.
Just summarizing from some of your previous posts regarding religion -
my apologies if I got it wrong...
>> (I'd rather not get more detailed in that, because it would only divert
>> this thread into a long, long, long social issue discussion, which has
>
> Well I wasn't actually interested in your answer, only in having you
> think about what would happen if, say, the muslims had a say in what
> the laws were.
But that's the thing - the muslims *can* have a say in what the laws
are, just the same way as Christians, pagans, Wiccans, or Rastafarians
can - these laws just cannot violate our Constitution. Representative
government is a good thing... :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LX-i
> Thank you Alistair.
>
> It was my birthday today and these just rounded it off nicely :-)
Well, happy birthday! :)
(shamelessly swiped from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller -
http://www.nicedoggie.net)
An Army General, Air Force General, Marine General, and Navy Admiral
were all having a few drinks and started arguing who had the bravest troops.
The Army general said “I have the the bravest troops in the service and
I can prove it, watch”.
“Private! he barked to a passing solider, “Go stop that tank with your
bare hands NOW!”..”YESIR” screamed the private and ran off to intercept
the tank, needless to say the tank sqaushed the hapless man flat.
The Air Force General snorted and said “You think that’s Brave ? Watch
this... AIRMAN”! He yelled at a passing Airman “Go catch that F-15
that’s landing with your bare hands ” “YESSIR”! said the young man and
ran off, needless to say the 20 ton aircraft sqaushed him flat.
The Marine General growled... ”Why that’s nothing.. watch this…
CORPRAL... Go run and stop that speeding jeep with your bare
hands!!”...”OOHRAA!” screamed the Corporal and sped off, needless to say
the jeep sqaushed him flat.
The Admiral smiled and said “Brave men all shipmates but watch this...
Petty Officer Come here.” “YESSIR!” said the sailor, “I want you to
climb to the top of that aircraft carrier and jump off” The Sailor
looked at him for a moment and said... ”Whaadaya, f*****g stupid sir?!?”
The admiral tuned to his cohorts smiled and said, “NOW That shipmates is
bravery....”
LX-i
> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 20:46:08 -0600, LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>> Depends on how it's done. First off, I don't think government should be
>> in the business of education, and I don't send my children to government
>> schools. But, I wouldn't have a problem with them learning *about*
>> other religions.
>
> That is a big problem with our policies with regards to religion in
> public education today. Religions matter. We aren't educated
> when we don't know about Islam in this world today.
I think we can get a pretty good picture... Did you hear that in the
new liberated, democratic Afghanistan, they've sentenced a man to die
for converting to Christianity? Never mind that he did it years ago in
another country - in fact, his conversion predated the law by several
years. None of that seems to matter though...
http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-03-18-voa7.cfm
Funny, I can't remember the last time a court in this country actually
sentenced someone to die because they converted to Islam...
> We can't
> appreciate Mark Twain without a basic "Child's Picture Book of the
> Bible" knowledge.
As well we shouldn't. The Bible contains the basis for many of the most
important precepts in our founding documents, as well as our culture and
entertainment (which covers Twain).
> We don't learn USAmerican history without knowing
> the difference between Puritans and Baptists and LDS and Epispocal and
> Quakers and Catholic...
Again, central to the founding and the history of our country. Islam's
most notable contribution to our country's history? 9/11.
> But how do we become educated in the world's religions without
> proselytizing?
Study them, of course! :) There are many texts that describe the
tenets of various religions, easily available for perusal online. Some
of these may contain proselytizing, but a studios soul could discern
what is fact and what is proselytizing.
Many denominations base their religion on the same Bible in which I
believe. That bible contains John 14:6, in which Jesus says "I am the
Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me."
Is that proselytizing, or is that a basic tenet of the Christian faith?
docd...@panix.com
LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Many denominations base their religion on the same Bible in which I
>believe. That bible contains John 14:6, in which Jesus says "I am the
>Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me."
>Is that proselytizing, or is that a basic tenet of the Christian faith?
It does not matter whence it comes, what matters is where it is kept out
of... like the laws of the United States of America.
(The basic tenets of the Constitution are 'to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity'... not bring anyone to anybody's parent.
The fact that neither the Christ nor the abovementioned Father are
mentioned in this earliest of legal documents - the Declaration, while
lovely rhetoric, is not a precedent - should be, in and of it'sself,
sufficiently telling.)
DD
LX-i
> In article <f2d84$441f4c20$45491d7a$24...@KNOLOGY.NET>,
> LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Many denominations base their religion on the same Bible in which I
>> believe. That bible contains John 14:6, in which Jesus says "I am the
>> Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me."
>> Is that proselytizing, or is that a basic tenet of the Christian faith?
>
> It does not matter whence it comes, what matters is where it is kept out
> of... like the laws of the United States of America.
Feeling a little defensive? The discussion was on how to study
religions, not writing the laws of this nation.
> (The basic tenets of the Constitution are 'to form a more perfect union,
> establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
> defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
> to ourselves and our posterity'... not bring anyone to anybody's parent.
> The fact that neither the Christ nor the abovementioned Father are
> mentioned in this earliest of legal documents - the Declaration, while
> lovely rhetoric, is not a precedent - should be, in and of it'sself,
> sufficiently telling.)
And your point is? Are you saying that we should abolish all of our
laws that have companion "rules", per se, in the Bible?
This nation is nowhere near as secular are you, and those who believe as
you do, would like to think. Continue being defensive if you wish -
that's your right. :)
PradeepR
> I find it interesting that most Santa Clause movies teach the lesson
> that, even though adults don't believe in Santa Clause - Belief is
> very important.
>
> Why is Belief in a fictional character important?
Interesting one. As per lot of old texts in Hindu religion this world
is 'maya' (illusion). Whatever mind thinks and believes, he sees the
world in that way, and it has real effect on this world. The story of
Santa distributing gifts to children, I think is to put hope and joy in
children so that they see the world as better place.
IMO, the world can be manipulated individually upto a certain extent(in
mind). To take it further, if human mind gets attached, then there are
reactions (cause and effect). Some of my (is it truly me) thoughts on
the subject...
PNR
docd...@panix.com
LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>docd...@panix.com wrote:
>> In article <f2d84$441f4c20$45491d7a$24...@KNOLOGY.NET>,
>> LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Many denominations base their religion on the same Bible in which I
>>> believe. That bible contains John 14:6, in which Jesus says "I am the
>>> Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me."
>>> Is that proselytizing, or is that a basic tenet of the Christian faith?
>>
>> It does not matter whence it comes, what matters is where it is kept out
>> of... like the laws of the United States of America.
>
>Feeling a little defensive? The discussion was on how to study
>religions, not writing the laws of this nation.
I'd say that I feel no more defensive than you'd say that you feel
projective, Mr Summers... which is why, for the most part, such diagnoses
are left to The Experts. The discussion is what the participants make of
it, no more, no less.
>
>> (The basic tenets of the Constitution are 'to form a more perfect union,
>> establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
>> defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty
>> to ourselves and our posterity'... not bring anyone to anybody's parent.
>> The fact that neither the Christ nor the abovementioned Father are
>> mentioned in this earliest of legal documents - the Declaration, while
>> lovely rhetoric, is not a precedent - should be, in and of it'sself,
>> sufficiently telling.)
>
>And your point is?
My points are usually well within the grasp of a decent, honest,
forthright and intelligent person, Mr Summers... or so some have told me.
>Are you saying that we should abolish all of our
>laws that have companion "rules", per se, in the Bible?
No more and no less than you might say, Mr Summers, that since paedophiles
have worn pants that such clothing should abandoned by those of differing
activities.
>
>This nation is nowhere near as secular are you, and those who believe as
>you do, would like to think.
*I* barely know how I believe, Mr Summers, let alone anyone else... and
that there's still work to be done might serve to fuel ardor more than
anything else.
>Continue being defensive if you wish -
>that's your right. :)
I attempt to continue the work of the Founders, Mr Summers, against all
enemies, domestic and foreign... do you and your ilk know that one of them
said something about eternal vigilance being the cost liberty?
(... or was it the cost of freedom? Ah well, neither comes cheaply.)
DD
Pete Dashwood
<docd...@panix.com> wrote in message news:dvnltl$l45$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Religion and politics are far too explosive a mixture to be condoned.
The state should guarantee freedom of religion, insofar as that religion
DOES NO HARM to the people who do not ascribe to it. As soon as they start
burning heretics (or even threatening to), close it down. Extreme behaviour
in the name of religion should be grounds for banning the practise of said
religion. In other words, practice your faith gently and personally, with
respect for the rights of others to agree or disagree.
I cannot see a case for laws based on ANY religion, whether Islamic,
Christian, Dervish, or whatever.
Laws should be about the welfare and protection of citizens, not concerned
with their morals.
And Religion has no monopoly on morality, anyway. Yet I have had people say
to me (on finding I am an atheist): "How can you behave right? How do you
know what is right and what is wrong? How can you be moral if you don't
believe in God?"
I can do it because I have senses to perceive with and a brain to process
the information. My common sense tells me that right behaviour will make
society a better place and wrong behaviour won't.
It isn't rocket science... If you want to live in a better world, try to be
a better person. No divine inspiration required, just some taking of
responsibility and the desire to be better than you were. Growth, if you
like.
"For the sin that ye do by two and by two
Ye must pay for one by one.
And the God that you took from a printed book
Be with you, Tomlinson."
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
>I find it interesting that most Santa Clause movies teach the lesson
> that, even though adults don't believe in Santa Clause - Belief is
> very important.
>
> Why is Belief in a fictional character important?
It isn't.
>
> Our society says respects people with other religious beliefs. Their
> right to believe the wrong mystical beliefs is important. If a Soux
> says a hill is sacred, then it *is* sacred, by gum. But an atheist
> doesn't have any excuse to keep his hill pristine.
Speaking for this atheist, he needs no excuse to defend the environment. See
previous post regarding common sense, responsibility, and desire for a
better world.
Pete. (Who lives in one of the most beautiful places on the planet, along
with around 4 million other people, many of them atheists, who intend to
keep it that way...Not because of mystical belief, but because it makes
sense.)
Pete Dashwood
"PradeepR" <pradee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142932687....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Thanks for that.
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
there are people who get helped physically by healing crystals, and little
multicoloured pills...
The point is, if people are prepared to give you money to make them feel
better, and part of making them feel better is to tell them it isn't their
fault they feel bad, then where's the harm?
They come out with less cash, but feeling much better. Isn't that what
happens when you go to a standard doctor? (If you're lucky.... :-))
If I was bothered by this, I'd campaign to ban Scientology. Or I'd become
one. :-) As I have done neither, it obviously doesn't offend me. (See
Oliver's post regarding meaning of 'Offend')
Pete.
Howard Brazee
>> We do see examples of made-up religions.
>
>Depending on what you actually mean by 'made-up', they are _all_
>made-up.
There is disagreement here. Many people believe all but one religion
is made-up. But even those who believe most religions are true
(which is hard to understand), believe that some are made-up.
>Some may have been made-up over thousands of years, others much more
>recently.
>
>> We also see examples of
>> made-up stories about gods. Without anything to go on, I would bet
>> half of the gods started off as fiction.
>
>Ceratinly they are fictionalised, but even characters in novels are
>often based on real people.
Still, I would bet that half of the gods started off not based upon
real people. Something like the Coyote god would be an avatar of
coyotes.
>There are many examples where the link
>between the fictional character and the real original are established,
>such as Santa Claus is based on St. Nicolas the Bishop of Myra. People
>a few thousand years ago had the same abilities, thoughts, intelligence
>as us today so I don't see why they didn't have the same sort of story
>telling.
That happens too.
>Children are indoctrinated with the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, Wombles,
>King Arthur, Superman, or many other myths, sometimes they work out
>what is fiction and sometimes they continue to believe it because it is
>a 'really nice idea'.
I don't believe Superman is based upon a real person.
I suspect fiction and movies are a big factor in secularizing the
world. Movies that tell kids how important Belief in Santa is
backfire when they learn that they have been fooled.
When I saw _The Right Stuff_, my son sat in the front of the theatre.
Driving home, talking about it we discovered that he assumed it was
all fiction.
Howard Brazee
<dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>The state should guarantee freedom of religion, insofar as that religion
>DOES NO HARM to the people who do not ascribe to it. As soon as they start
>burning heretics (or even threatening to), close it down. Extreme behaviour
>in the name of religion should be grounds for banning the practise of said
>religion. In other words, practice your faith gently and personally, with
>respect for the rights of others to agree or disagree.
I strongly suspect that that extreme behavior would still be practiced
- in the name of something else, such as Patriotism. Religion is
used as an excuse to avoid personal responsibility for such actions.
Richard
PradeepR wrote:
> The story of
> Santa distributing gifts to children, I think is to put hope and joy in
> children so that they see the world as better place.
Actually, Santa and the tooth fairy, and in fact all religions, are
social control mechanisms:
"Don't cry about your tooth hurting, you will scare away the tooth
fairy, be good and you will be rewarded."
"Santa only brings presents to children who are good and he knows when
you are bad."
"Obey these rules, confess your sins, do as I (the church) tell you,
and you will be rewarded later (or at least not burned on a stake by
us)."
The mystical bit is that the deity, or helpers, can see you whereever
you are, these days CCTV is required.
Chuck Stevens
news:e6ht121003qannkpb...@4ax.com...
> Others use their worship as an excuse to hate (by picking and choosing
> which parts of the scriptures matter to them).
With specific relevance to the issues of religious perspective and the US
military, see for example, the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church of
Topeka, KS (whose main website name I won't dignify by reproducing here;
it's easy to find).
According to a flier on said website, they are planning to preach the Gospel
As God Has Delivered It To Them, specifically as it applies to the
fundamental perversion of both the US in general and the US military in
particular, outside the funeral of a military casualty of the war in Iraq in
Asheville, NC, in about an hour.
As for me, I side (and have ridden) with the Patriot Guard Riders on this
issue (see www.patriotguard.org ). They began staging about an hour ago for
this funeral at the invitation of the family, and if the Uninvited Guests
from the WBC do indeed keep their word as published on their website, the
PGR members will do all they can to shield the family and friends of this
fallen hero from their signs and their rantings.
-Chuck Stevens
Chuck Stevens
"LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:f2d84$441f4c20$45491d7a$24...@KNOLOGY.NET...
> That bible contains John 14:6, in which Jesus says "I am the Way, the
> Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me." Is that
> proselytizing, or is that a basic tenet of the Christian faith?
I'd question the accuracy of "by" as a good *modern* English translation of
the Greek "dia" (actually, the last vowel is elided because of proximity to
the opening vowel of "emou" in the Textus Receptus at hand).
I'd prefer "through", with the same ambiguity in Greek as exists in English,
as a better translation of this word.
Many take "by" in this context to imply Jesus is acting as the Cosmic
Bouncer, and you gotta get by him to get to the Father. I don't think
that's supportable from the Greek.
My understanding of the passage is that Jesus is indicating *His role* in
*facilitating* such communications -- whether we as individuals recognize it
or not.
All this, of course, depends on what one means by "the Bible". Is the KJV
"The Bible"?
And if you're quoting the KJV as "the Bible", I note with some interest that
"way", "truth", "life" and "me" are not capitalized in the version at
www.kingjamesbible.com . By convention the capitalization of these words
includes an implication that isn't present in the text you're citing (you
also left out a comma before "but", but I don't believe that has the
theological import that those initial capitals do). I don't object to
quoting scripture; what does tend to bother me is *mis*quoting it in ways
that can be viewed as supporting your point!
-Chuck Stevens
Richard
> ... worshipping a non-existent deity ... (IMO,
> there are lots of religions that do this.
Perhaps when you realise why you dismiss those as folowing the archaic
myths of a bunch of ignorant goat-herders, you may see why others
dismiss yours as ...
Chuck Stevens
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:121pkt9...@news.supernews.com...
> As for not being "real," well there are two answers for that: In the
> Catholic tradition, the New Testament is a mere artifact. The real
> authority belongs with the Church as an institution and dogma is Church
> determined. In the non-catholic tradition, "God would not have allowed a
> corruption of His word. Any 'changes' to the received text were done with
> his blessing. We have, today, exactly what He wants us to have" is the
> operative theory.
I'm afraid it's a lot more complicated than that.
The Roman Catholic Church does not dismiss Scripture, Old or New Testament,
as a mere artifact; what it does is accept the tradition of the Church, as
having equal value with it. It also accepts the ability of the Pope and the
body of Bishops to speak inerrantly in matters of doctrine and dogma.
The "received text" -- by which I presume you mean the "Textus Receptus" as
originally collected by Erasmus in 1516 from the available Greek
manuscripts, being the first Greek text published using movable type -- was
so named in the publisher's foreword to the 1633 edition and is used to
refer to that edition by Elzevir and to the predecessor 1550 edition by
Stephanus.
It is *by no means* a universal perception among non-Catholics that the TR
specifically, or the latest manuscripts in general, are more definitive than
the earliest ones. The various editions of the National Bible Society and
the Nestle-Aland work are fundamentally non-Catholic exercises, and various
Nestle-Aland editions underlie a number of the modern English translations.
Acceptance of the Textus Receptus recension of the New Testament as
"received from God" is a minority position among Protestants, and the
Orthodox tradition tends to accept the Septuagint recension of the Old
Testament, older than the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament accepted by
Judaism and by most Protestants.
Many Catholic and non-Catholic scholars prefer working back toward the most
likely *earliest* Greek text of the New Testament, sometimes using datable
examples in other languages when those examples predate the extant Greek
manuscripts. If I recall correctly, the "shortest text" philosophy
underlies the Jerusalem Bible, accepted by some Catholics and Protestants
alike, which includes a number of cases in which *no* Greek text actually
matches the translation.
And while Catholics and Protestants agree as to what books the New Testament
includes and what it does not, Luther himself rejected several
hitherto-accepted books, and some parts of the Orthodox tradition delete
some books and add others that the West does not accept.
-Chuck Stevens
Chuck Stevens
my previous. The Greek NT texts in the Nestle-Aland 27th Edition and the
UBS 4th edition are identical.
-Chuck Stevens
"Chuck Stevens" <charles...@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:dvps4j$11b8$1...@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
Richard
Howard Brazee wrote:
> There is disagreement here. Many people believe all but one religion
> is made-up. But even those who believe most religions are true
> (which is hard to understand), believe that some are made-up.
There is no doubt that many religions are made up. Especially
Scientology which is based on ElRon's rather poor SciFi books.
> Still, I would bet that half of the gods started off not based upon
> real people. Something like the Coyote god would be an avatar of
> coyotes.
Yes, you are quite correct. Many may be completely fictional.
> I don't believe Superman is based upon a real person.
:-O That just ruined my day.
> I suspect fiction and movies are a big factor in secularizing the
> world.
_Knowing_ that it _is_ fiction does, yes.
I know that Scientology was started on a $10 bet at a SciFi conference
according to Van Voght (or was it Arthur C) who took the other half,
and was just the SciFi stories made mystical.
To many the fiction is much more attractive than reality and the more
you know about anything the more interesting it is. I do find that the
more I learn about all the various religions the more I see how all of
them may have come about.
For example the Canaanites had their El and a pantheon of other gods
that were the 'Elohim' - the family or house of El. This was most
likely a ruling class of lords (or warlords) and spun off two sub
groups under Jehovah and the family of Baal (Baalim), one of which was
Baal Zebub.
Jehovah managed to get a ready made population contracted to him for
his new territory and formed a new nation by overruning his neibours.
Nothing new there, happed all the time.
LX-i
> "Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
> news:e6ht121003qannkpb...@4ax.com...
>
>> Others use their worship as an excuse to hate (by picking and choosing
>> which parts of the scriptures matter to them).
>
> With specific relevance to the issues of religious perspective and the US
> military, see for example, the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church of
> Topeka, KS (whose main website name I won't dignify by reproducing here;
> it's easy to find).
And, let me state here unequivocally that I disagree whole-heartedly
with those folks. I could come up with 3-5 Scriptures to disprove their
views from the very Bible they claim to be following.
> As for me, I side (and have ridden) with the Patriot Guard Riders on this
> issue (see www.patriotguard.org ). They began staging about an hour ago for
> this funeral at the invitation of the family, and if the Uninvited Guests
> from the WBC do indeed keep their word as published on their website, the
> PGR members will do all they can to shield the family and friends of this
> fallen hero from their signs and their rantings.
These guys do good work - thanks to you and all those who volunteer for
that very honorable task.
LX-i
> "LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:f2d84$441f4c20$45491d7a$24...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
>> That bible contains John 14:6, in which Jesus says "I am the Way, the
>> Truth and the Life. No man cometh to the Father but by Me." Is that
>> proselytizing, or is that a basic tenet of the Christian faith?
>
> I'd question the accuracy of "by" as a good *modern* English translation of
> the Greek "dia" (actually, the last vowel is elided because of proximity to
> the opening vowel of "emou" in the Textus Receptus at hand).
>
> I'd prefer "through", with the same ambiguity in Greek as exists in English,
> as a better translation of this word.
That works, and is how I viewed this particular passage even before your
reply. In fact, the NIV says "except through Me."
> Many take "by" in this context to imply Jesus is acting as the Cosmic
> Bouncer, and you gotta get by him to get to the Father. I don't think
> that's supportable from the Greek.
Heh... The "Cosmic Bouncer" - sounds like a wrestler! (In fact, if I
ever start wrestling, I think that'll be my name...)
> My understanding of the passage is that Jesus is indicating *His role* in
> *facilitating* such communications -- whether we as individuals recognize it
> or not.
Right - and, whether you think of "by" as the bouncer or the "through",
the point of the passage is pretty much the same.
> All this, of course, depends on what one means by "the Bible". Is the KJV
> "The Bible"?
>
> And if you're quoting the KJV as "the Bible", I note with some interest that
> "way", "truth", "life" and "me" are not capitalized in the version at
> www.kingjamesbible.com . By convention the capitalization of these words
> includes an implication that isn't present in the text you're citing (you
> also left out a comma before "but", but I don't believe that has the
> theological import that those initial capitals do).
I was taught that nouns and pronouns that refer to God are to be
capitalized. Do you contend that "way", "truth", "life", and "me" do
not fit that categorization?
(FWIW - the New American Standard and the Holman Christian Standard
Bible capitalize the "Me"; The Message capitalizes all the words I did
(although "way" becomes "road"); and the 21st Century KJV [my personal
favorite] is identical to my quote (minus the missing comma).)
> I don't object to
> quoting scripture; what does tend to bother me is *mis*quoting it in ways
> that can be viewed as supporting your point!
My *point*, if you read the original thread, was about whether it's
possible to "study" a religion without being proselytized by it. I
listed that verse more as a discussion point - is it possible to read
that as part of a study, and not feel that one is being proselytized?
(Personally, I think it is. I have yet to see Mr. Brazee's reply, though.)
Pete Dashwood
I believe it is possible to study anything new and keep an open mind, but it
isn't easy. (We see people here measuring new information against what they
know already, before they have really looked at or used the new information.
It's one reason I'm not so keen to respond to posts about OO and
components.)
The classic example, I think, is people studying philosophical logic for the
first time and encountering Aristotle. The awesome simplicity of a two
valued logic system is very attractive to most people and the majority of
students (self included, when I first encountered it) measure the remainder
of the course by applying Aristotlean reasoning to it. We see it in everyday
life, where people who are proud of their logical reasoning ability often
mean that they have a good grasp of Aristotlean logic and rhetoric. Later,
when one encounters completely different systems (some of which are multi or
even infinity valued) Aristotle, despite the great brilliance of this
ancient mind, pales into insignificance. (That doesn't mean he is worthless;
far from it...:-) it just means that different logic systems may deal with
different types of problem... differently.
I spent over 20 years studying comparative religions, both by reading and
conversing, and visiting important sites. I'm an atheist. If I was
proselytized, it certainly didn't work very well... :-)
Pete.
Howard Brazee
<dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>I believe it is possible to study anything new and keep an open mind, but it
>isn't easy. (We see people here measuring new information against what they
>know already, before they have really looked at or used the new information.
>It's one reason I'm not so keen to respond to posts about OO and
>components.)
The "not easy" part is critical, as education is a universal
phenomenon. Teaching *my* religion on an equal basis with *your*
religion implies that they both have equal value, when in fact, *my*
religion is the Truth, and yours is an artifact of Statan.