Gretchen Carlson....has no social redeeming value
HarrySwift
believe she and Michele Bachmann are Minnesotans. Makes you wonder
how those mutants came out of the progressive MN state. Actually it
is no mystery. Both of them are religious nut cases. Sarah Palin is
another and stands shoulder to shoulder with these theocratic
traitors.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910260001
http://mediamatters.org/search/tag/gretchen_carlson
Message to Max Hammond.
You are in there too. Quit telling your flock to vote for the military
industrial complex Republicans. Keep politics out of your church or we
will work harder to reign more retribution on you and your network.
You religious right are the bane of this planet. You listening
Dobson?.
Dan Goodman
Stuff which belongs in mn.politics.
Or in mn.kooks.political.
Please become a conservative....
--
Dan Goodman
Journal at:
dsgood.livejournal.com
dsgood.dreamwidth.org
dsgood.insanejournal.com
catpandaddy
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:4aede6ce$0$28115$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> HarrySwift wrote:
>
> Stuff which belongs in mn.politics.
>
> Or in mn.kooks.political.
>
> Please become a conservative....
Aw, you guys. It's no different than anything else...
It's not too good to have only hot water, or only cold water. Your car
can't have just a gas pedal, or just a brake. Neither looking directly at
the sun nor trying to navigate without some form of light are going to be
all that beneficial. Your stereo would be pretty lame with the balance
slider always panned hard right or hard left, or all the equalizer bands set
to the same level.
In most things, if you don't have at least some level of access to both ends
of the spectrum, along with the ability to mix the two together as the
situation requires, you can end up with some very subpar results, or even a
huge accident waiting to happen. Better to keep it between the lines than
go down the ravine on either side.
Sorry, had to empty out the storeroom there -- it was overstuffed with mixed
metaphors today. =^..^=
Also, crossposting to tx.politics removed. The originator of the thread
seems to be trying to stir up a political fight between the two states. Not
cool.
Gandalf
Take it to MN.politics.
This is MN.general
Kill filed.
Scott Smith
But he does state the truth.
.
.
- Scott Smith: scott...@iphouse.com
MySpace: http://www.myspace.com/choppersmith
catpandaddy
"Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:0j4se5pdcipm7s3kh...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 07:09:03 -0600, HarrySwift
>><Harry...@nospam.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>You are in there too. Quit telling your flock to vote for the military
>>>industrial complex Republicans. Keep politics out of your church or we
>>>will work harder to reign more retribution on you and your network.
>>>You religious right are the bane of this planet. You listening
>>>Dobson?.
>>>
>>>
>>Take it to MN.politics.
>>
>>This is MN.general
>
>
> But he does state the truth.
The truth that people are still excessively polarized even in this day and
age? Boy, talk about being hit with the light of the blindingly obvious.
Scott Smith
wrote:
No, the truth that religious zealots are the bane of this planet.
catpandaddy
Heh. I actually heard from someone the other day who said that Mother
Theresa was a vile human being. :o)
catpandaddy
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
news:hcn1f6$i0a$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:7f1ue5h9jpveokbh7...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 17:18:19 -0600, "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net>
>> wrote:
<snipped>
Argh. BAD crossposting HarrySwift. I forgot that he had included other
newsgroups to stir up trouble. I am redirecting followups to make sure this
thread stays in its own backyard. I don't know why people like Swift feel
the need to bait arguments between states, but I'll do my part to keep the
thread from infecting those outside of the mn.general newsgroup.
Followups set.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> Heh. I actually heard from someone the other day who said that Mother
> Theresa was a vile human being. :o)
Most people who seek religious influence *are* vile. I mean, it's not
like truly good people need to find redemption in a higher power. A
budding child molester, on the other hand, might well go into the
priesthood looking for salvation . . . and fail to find it as compelling
as an endless stream of altar boys. So some of us aren't at all
surprised when the deviants eventually get exposed, saving our surprise
for the individuals who remain churchgoers afterwards in full knowledge
of an organized internal coverup of the problems. Likewise, there are a
fair number of criticisms that objectively paint MT as much less than a
saintly person.
--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, localhost, googlegroups.com, ono.com,
and probably your server, too.
catpandaddy
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-B8...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <hcn1f6$i0a$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> Heh. I actually heard from someone the other day who said that Mother
>> Theresa was a vile human being. :o)
>
> Most people who seek religious influence *are* vile. I mean, it's not
> like truly good people need to find redemption in a higher power.
Oh, go start a food shelf or something. ;-) Just kidding.
catpandaddy
>
> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-B8...@news.twtelecom.net...
>> In article <hcn1f6$i0a$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
(another accidental crossposting.)
Okay, any techheads out there, I need to find a way to automatically remove
crossposting globally, because the last two times I tried to redirect the
followups, it only appeared to work on the immediate message only. Is there
a client that will allow some kind of automated profile that will act on an
entire thread?
Sanders Kaufman
> Heh. I actually heard from someone the other day who said that Mother
> Theresa was a vile human being. :o)
I heard that too, about a week ago.
Must be some kind of sectarian thing - one group denouncing the other
group's saints... or somesuch.
The Catholics seem to have a lot of sects fighting each other over stuff
like this.
Michael Stemper
>The little ass has a bias that eliminates all objectivity. Hard to
>believe she and Michele Bachmann are Minnesotans.
If the wikipedia page on Carlson is to be believed, Bachman was one
of her nannies, so similar outlooks aren't too surprising.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
91.2% of all statistics are made up by the person quoting them.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> Oh, go start a food shelf or something. ;-) Just kidding.
You shouldn't be; a food shelf would be a lot more useful than sitting
in a pew feeling pious. I've even thought of organizing a group of
people, religious or not, who would rather go out and do productive
community services on Sunday mornings. Any takers here?
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
I can't directly help on that, but I did notice it and fix my last
response. No newsreader I'm aware of allows that kind of fine-grained
control of the response process. The best you can probably get is to
have a filter that highlights crossposted messages so that you can be
aware you need to edit the group list. Another time saver is to just
flat-out killfile anything posted to groups you have no interest in. I
do that for a lot of them, but tx.politics wasn't on that list until
today (though mn.politics and tx.guns both were :-).
AnnE
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote in message
>
> news:hcn93f$2m4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
> >news:droleary.usenet-B8...@news.twtelecom.net...
> >> In article <hcn1f6$i0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
> (another accidental crossposting.)
>
> Okay, any techheads out there, I need to find a way to automatically remove
> crossposting globally, because the last two times I tried to redirect the
> followups, it only appeared to work on the immediate message only. Is there
> a client that will allow some kind of automated profile that will act on an
> entire thread?
I just deleted the tx.politics in this reply in Google groups. Guess
that's good for somethin'. lol Now, if only I can remember to check
above a post in the Newsgroups: box to see to where I am writing.
heh, heh.
AnnE
catpandaddy
> In article <hcn93f$2m4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, go start a food shelf or something. ;-) Just kidding.
>
> You shouldn't be; a food shelf would be a lot more useful than sitting
> in a pew feeling pious. I've even thought of organizing a group of
> people, religious or not, who would rather go out and do productive
> community services on Sunday mornings. Any takers here?
I don't go to the church, but the point was that the big food shelf
operation down the road is in fact at the local church and is run by its
congregation, staff and volunteers, and it's open to nonmembers and atheists
alike. And no, they don't hand out bibles with the donations, it's not a
conscription factory.
I'm not saying that big business couldn't do things like this better, but
the unfortunate reality is that churches are needed for things like these
for the simple reason that big business tends to very much /not/ carry on
these kinds of enterprises.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> I'm not saying that big business couldn't do things like this better, but
> the unfortunate reality is that churches are needed for things like these
> for the simple reason that big business tends to very much /not/ carry on
> these kinds of enterprises.
I never once suggested a food shelf should be a business operation. The
"simple reason" churches get used is because they are fortunate enough
to get *massive* tax breaks and really have very little to do when
they're not otherwise occupied by passing the plate. I'd wager that if
you did an accounting on the entire system, there are probably much
better ways to organize a community to do good deeds.
catpandaddy
> In article <hcqccq$o0b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that big business couldn't do things like this better, but
>> the unfortunate reality is that churches are needed for things like these
>> for the simple reason that big business tends to very much /not/ carry on
>> these kinds of enterprises.
>
> I never once suggested a food shelf should be a business operation. The
> "simple reason" churches get used is because they are fortunate enough
> to get *massive* tax breaks and really have very little to do when
> they're not otherwise occupied by passing the plate.
Although I have not attended church since the onset of my adult years, I
know that my folks who do attend, don't fit the "really have little to do"
mold you describe here when it comes to this stuff. I only know this
because I have maintained regular communication with them over the years.
My old man is also an economist, which has helped a great deal.
I know you have good reason for being cynical, since we all have different
experiences with things depending on our surroundings. I just have equally
good reason to find the cynicism level a little high compared to what my own
experience has borne out, while someone who grew up in the nightmare of some
Roman Catholic church might consider both our cynicism levels to be way too
low.
Which brings it back around to square one... some churches do less good,
some do more, and some of them benefit from people who know something about
something, like the physics professor from my alma mater, or my economist
pappy, both of whom contribute and volunteer considerable time and effort.
Did I just say "pappy" there? I've never said that before in my life. Just
seemed to work well today.
Mike O'Brien
> I never once suggested a food shelf should be a business operation. The
> "simple reason" churches get used is because they are fortunate enough
> to get *massive* tax breaks and really have very little to do when
> they're not otherwise occupied by passing the plate. I'd wager that if
> you did an accounting on the entire system, there are probably much
> better ways to organize a community to do good deeds.
You paint with quite a large brush. When we lived down in the cities the
church we attended was very socially active. Delivered "Meals on Wheels" the
elderly. Participated in "Feed the Children" by packaging meals that went to
third world counties. Had a contingency fund for people needing short term
assistance. Part time daycare on a free or sliding scale and the list goes
on. I suggest you check out your local churches to get a better picture.
Regards,
Mike O'Brien
life is full of choices. choices have consequences
osmium
>> I never once suggested a food shelf should be a business operation. The
>> "simple reason" churches get used is because they are fortunate enough
>> to get *massive* tax breaks and really have very little to do when
>> they're not otherwise occupied by passing the plate.
>
> Although I have not attended church since the onset of my adult years, I
> know that my folks who do attend, don't fit the "really have little to do"
> mold you describe here when it comes to this stuff. I only know this
> because I have maintained regular communication with them over the years.
> My old man is also an economist, which has helped a great deal.
>
> I know you have good reason for being cynical, since we all have different
> experiences with things depending on our surroundings. I just have
> equally good reason to find the cynicism level a little high compared to
> what my own experience has borne out, while someone who grew up in the
> nightmare of some Roman Catholic church might consider both our cynicism
> levels to be way too low.
>
> Which brings it back around to square one... some churches do less good,
> some do more, and some of them benefit from people who know something
> about something, like the physics professor from my alma mater, or my
> economist pappy, both of whom contribute and volunteer considerable time
> and effort.
This froup, mn.general, is a hotbed of anti-religion, anti-Christian,
sentiments. I probably had a typical exposure to Christianity when I was a
child, but I never seriously considered that religion could make any sense;
but the big bang makes no sense either, so what are you going to do? So I
remain an agnostic but even so, I feel that religion gets a bad rap on this
group. When the religious people do what they sometimes do, is called
"proselytizing", I don't have a neat one-word summary for what goes on here.
But note that it only takes two or three people to establish the tenor for
the group.
catpandaddy
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcsgsl$ub0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
When I talk to other light-on-church friends, I find they fall predominantly
into two categories. (A) "Churches are corrupt, don't volunteer with them
or enlist their assistance", and (B) "Check your premise/Check your head;
whatever your opinion of the faith itself, churches can be great places to
volunteer and/or get help."
catpandaddy
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7ldvk4F...@mid.individual.net...
> "catpandaddy" wrote:
>
.>
> This froup, mn.general, is a hotbed of anti-religion, anti-Christian,
> sentiments.
What is a "froup"? :o)
Scott Smith
wrote:
There was a recent "news' story on WCCO that claimed that 92% of
Minnesotans believe in "god". I seriously have to wonder where they
got that data from, because most people I know (and several in this
group alone) seem to be saying that they don't (either agnostic or
atheist) believe in "god", or that they question organized religions.
I don't think this group is hostile "anti-religion" / "anti-christian.
I just think that the anonymity of Usenet makes it easier for
some to say what they really believe, without fear of repercussions
for their views.
Scott Smith
Scott Smith
wrote:
I think a lot of American churches do good things for their respective
communities, however misguided their reasons for doing so may be.
A lot of people in this country (and this world) need help, both
literally and figuratively, and churches can be very good at filling
that void for many people. I just wish religion wasn't also part
of our political process in this country (e.g. abortion, gay marriage,
etc.). It should remain a personal choice and practice, and not
seep it's way into our politics, IMO.
Michael Stemper
Google is your friend:
<http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/newsfroup>
For extra credit, report back on "cow-orkers".
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
A bad day sailing is better than a good day at the office.
WDS
> I think a lot of American churches do good things for their respective
> communities, however misguided their reasons for doing so may be.
>
> A lot of people in this country (and this world) need help, both
> literally and figuratively, and churches can be very good at filling
> that void for many people. I just wish religion wasn't also part
> of our political process in this country (e.g. abortion, gay marriage,
> etc.). It should remain a personal choice and practice, and not
> seep it's way into our politics, IMO.
Actually, it's the other way around that scares me.
(paraphrasing something I heard once) Mixing religion and politics is
like mixing ice cream and manure. The ice cream is ruined but the
manure doesn't change much.
Some would argue that the "religious right"'s takeover of the Republican
party goes against this but I actually think it's the republican party
that's trying to take over the "religious right". The big name
republicans don't personally care anything about religion other than it
gets them some votes.
catpandaddy
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:31:31 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> There was a recent "news' story on WCCO that claimed that 92% of
> Minnesotans believe in "god". I seriously have to wonder where they
> got that data from, because most people I know (and several in this
> group alone) seem to be saying that they don't (either agnostic or
> atheist) believe in "god", or that they question organized religions.
That's the problem with "people-who" statistics. We don't all know the same
people, and so each of us have distinctly different groups of "people-who"
represent the ways and beliefs of the world around them.
There is a particularly brainy older gal I correspond with who freelances
her own IT services, and her view of the world is influenced by where she
has spent a lot of her time, such as gentlemans clubs (she was able to dance
tables for money back in the day). What she observes in human interactions
is so far removed from what my own family observes, that I just can't see
any way that the two could converse and be on the same page were they to
ever meet.
osmium
> A lot of people in this country (and this world) need help, both
> literally and figuratively, and churches can be very good at filling
> that void for many people. I just wish religion wasn't also part
> of our political process in this country (e.g. abortion, gay marriage,
> etc.). It should remain a personal choice and practice, and not
> seep it's way into our politics, IMO.
I am strongly opposed to gay "marriage" and it has nothing whatever to do
with religion. I am opposed to the idea of several hundred thousand people
increasing the amount they get from social security payouts, and also
getting what amounts to a free life insurance policy and a new reduced tax
rate. Anyone with the tiniest background in logical thinking knows that you
define the words before you start using them, not afterwards. And certainly
not 70 years afterwards. Those guys writing laws in the 1930s thought
marriage was something that *only* happened between a man and a woman. And
the huge and irrational preferences for married people are reflected in laws
out the kazoo, not just the few examples I noted above.
Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
government encourage abnormal behavior? If 90% of the people are not gay,
then the 10% minority is certainly abnormal, you can draw a curve and see
that. There is nothing pejorative about "abnormal", it just *is*.
And I think the 10% is grossly inflated by a few people making a lot of
noise and getting a lot of attention. Who were these 50 people in my high
school graduating class? I couldn't identify a single one of them.
catpandaddy
>
> Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
> government encourage abnormal behavior? If 90% of the people are not gay,
> then the 10% minority is certainly abnormal, you can draw a curve and see
> that. There is nothing pejorative about "abnormal", it just *is*.
>
> And I think the 10% is grossly inflated by a few people making a lot of
> noise and getting a lot of attention. Who were these 50 people in my high
> school graduating class? I couldn't identify a single one of them.
The term "in hiding" ring a bell?
Scott Smith
(Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <hcshil$5mp$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> writes:
>>"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:7ldvk4F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> "catpandaddy" wrote:
>
>>> This froup, mn.general, is a hotbed of anti-religion, anti-Christian,
>>> sentiments.
>>
>>What is a "froup"? :o)
>
>Google is your friend:
><http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/newsfroup>
So mn.general has now 'officially' entered the lunatic-fringe? ;)
Scott Smith
wrote:
>"Scott Smith" wrote:
>
>> A lot of people in this country (and this world) need help, both
>> literally and figuratively, and churches can be very good at filling
>> that void for many people. I just wish religion wasn't also part
>> of our political process in this country (e.g. abortion, gay marriage,
>> etc.). It should remain a personal choice and practice, and not
>> seep it's way into our politics, IMO.
>
>I am strongly opposed to gay "marriage" and it has nothing whatever to do
>with religion. I am opposed to the idea of several hundred thousand people
>increasing the amount they get from social security payouts, and also
>getting what amounts to a free life insurance policy and a new reduced tax
>rate.
As a married person with no kids, I don't see any real tax benefit to
being married. Quite the opposite in many cases.
I don't see the insurance benefits as being a very legitimate
reason for denying gay couples the right to be married and
recognized as a married couple.
>Anyone with the tiniest background in logical thinking knows that you
>define the words before you start using them, not afterwards. And certainly
>not 70 years afterwards. Those guys writing laws in the 1930s thought
>marriage was something that *only* happened between a man and a woman. And
>the huge and irrational preferences for married people are reflected in laws
>out the kazoo, not just the few examples I noted above.
I don't see that as the real driving force behind most of those
opposing gay marriage. I think that's just a convenient excuse
to look down on behavior they see as "abnormal" according
to their personal moral barometer.
>Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
>government encourage abnormal behavior?
I don't think there is anything "abnormal" about homosexuality vs.
heterosexuality in terms of marriage. It's just a personal lifestyle
preference.
As some comedian once said: "Why should gays be denied the misery
of marriage that the rest of us are subjected to?" ;-)
>And I think the 10% is grossly inflated by a few people making a lot of
>noise and getting a lot of attention. Who were these 50 people in my high
>school graduating class? I couldn't identify a single one of them.
They were probably there. Most gays (especially in high school)
choose not to broadcast their sexuality for fear of ostracization.
And rightly so, high school can be very tough on kids that are
deemed "weird" by their fellow students.
I knew several gays in high school, and have known many more in
life since. Most have been very nice, and "normal", people, IMO.
WDS
> As a married person with no kids, I don't see any real tax benefit to
> being married. Quite the opposite in many cases.
The tax "benefit" (if any) varies depending on your incomes.
Single Filing Status (Tax Rate Schedule X)
* 10% on income between $0 and $8,350
* 15% on the income between $8,350 and $33,950; plus $835
* 25% on the income between $33,950 and $82,250; plus $4,675
* 28% on the income between $82,250 and $171,550; plus $16,750
* 33% on the income between $171,550 and $372,950; plus $41,754
* 35% on the income over $372,950; plus $108,216
Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widow(er) Filing Status (Tax Rate
Schedule Y-1)
* 10% on the income between $0 and $16,700
* 15% on the income between $16,700 and $67,900; plus $1,670
* 25% on the income between $67,900 and $137,050; plus $9,350
* 28% on the income between $137,050 and $208,850; plus $26,637.50
* 33% on the income between $208,850 and $372,950; plus $46,741.50
* 35% on the income over $372,950; plus $100,894.50
So if a single person had $50,000 of taxable income they'd pay
.25x(50,000-33,950)+$4,675 or $8,687.
If that person gets married and their spouse has no income they will pay
.15x(50,000-16,700)+$1,670 or $6,665.
(hoping I got those calculations right)
dr...@bin.sh
> So if a single person had $50,000 of taxable income they'd pay
> .25x(50,000-33,950)+$4,675 or $8,687.
>
> If that person gets married and their spouse has no income they will pay
> .15x(50,000-16,700)+$1,670 or $6,665.
i'm pretty sure that upkeep on a spouse is much greater than the tax
benefit, though.
--
\^\ // dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // --------------------------------------------------------------------
// \ X-Windows: A mistake carried out to perfection.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
Scott Smith
>Alien mind control rays made WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> write:
>>
>> So if a single person had $50,000 of taxable income they'd pay
>> .25x(50,000-33,950)+$4,675 or $8,687.
>>
>> If that person gets married and their spouse has no income they will pay
>> .15x(50,000-16,700)+$1,670 or $6,665.
>
>i'm pretty sure that upkeep on a spouse is much greater than the tax
>benefit, though.
Yes, even when considering depreciation and normal wear-and-tear. ;)
osmium
They teach what normal means in most good schools. Maybe you missed it.
> As some comedian once said: "Why should gays be denied the misery
> of marriage that the rest of us are subjected to?" ;-)
>
>>And I think the 10% is grossly inflated by a few people making a lot of
>>noise and getting a lot of attention. Who were these 50 people in my high
>>school graduating class? I couldn't identify a single one of them.
>
> They were probably there. Most gays (especially in high school)
> choose not to broadcast their sexuality for fear of ostracization.
> And rightly so, high school can be very tough on kids that are
> deemed "weird" by their fellow students.
>
> I knew several gays in high school, and have known many more in
> life since. Most have been very nice, and "normal", people, IMO.
I didn't see the part where you explained why the government should
encourage people to live together. Why should the government be involved?
They passed these bills, probably hundreds of them, over a period of many
many years with several
thousand pages of text encouraging a certain lifestyle, and then suddenly
decide, no that is not what we meant at all. We didn't mean a male and a
female, we meant two people. Why two? Why not 3 or 17? What is the magic
of two?
Introduce a new word to describe two people who really like each other, at
least for now. Call it a civil union. A government approved person can
certify that two people have become "unionized". Such people can do things
like have special visiting privileges in hospitals, pulling the plug on
their
mate, entering their mate into a nursing home and all that other good stuff.
But no tax or other government benefits.
Scott Smith
wrote:
>"Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>news:9ai3f5pr904ld748s...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:31:31 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There was a recent "news' story on WCCO that claimed that 92% of
>> Minnesotans believe in "god". I seriously have to wonder where they
>> got that data from, because most people I know (and several in this
>> group alone) seem to be saying that they don't (either agnostic or
>> atheist) believe in "god", or that they question organized religions.
>
>That's the problem with "people-who" statistics. We don't all know the same
>people, and so each of us have distinctly different groups of "people-who"
>represent the ways and beliefs of the world around them.
I'd just like to know how they gathered this "data".
Did they poll people leaving churches?
Did they do a random call to 1000 people in the suburbs or rural
areas?
Did they post an enigmatic poll question on their Web site? (e.g. "Do
you consider yourself a spiritual person?")
How did they come by these numbers?
>There is a particularly brainy older gal I correspond with who freelances
>her own IT services, and her view of the world is influenced by where she
>has spent a lot of her time, such as gentlemans clubs (she was able to dance
>tables for money back in the day). What she observes in human interactions
>is so far removed from what my own family observes, that I just can't see
>any way that the two could converse and be on the same page were they to
>ever meet.
She sounds like an interesting person who could engage in some
interesting discussions/observations.
Isn't it great that not everyone thinks alike? ;-)
Scott Smith
wrote:
>>"Scott Smith" wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:22:00 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
>>>government encourage abnormal behavior?
>>
>> I don't think there is anything "abnormal" about homosexuality vs.
>> heterosexuality in terms of marriage. It's just a personal lifestyle
>> preference.
>
>They teach what normal means in most good schools. Maybe you missed it.
Or maybe I don't agree with many of the outdated textbook definitions
of some things, especially sexuality.
catpandaddy
> "Scott Smith" wrote:
>
>>
>>>Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
>>>government encourage abnormal behavior?
>>
>> I don't think there is anything "abnormal" about homosexuality vs.
>> heterosexuality in terms of marriage. It's just a personal lifestyle
>> preference.
>
> They teach what normal means in most good schools. Maybe you missed it.
If you grew up in a country where your race was in the minority, that would
make you abnormal, if we took you at the letter of your definition.
osmium
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:00:47 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>"Scott Smith" wrote:
>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:22:00 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
>>>>government encourage abnormal behavior?
>>>
>>> I don't think there is anything "abnormal" about homosexuality vs.
>>> heterosexuality in terms of marriage. It's just a personal lifestyle
>>> preference.
>>
>>They teach what normal means in most good schools. Maybe you missed it.
>
>
> Or maybe I don't agree with many of the outdated textbook definitions
> of some things, especially sexuality.
Normal has nothing to do with sexuality or with goodness or badness. It is
just .... normal, and being abnormal is not a bad trait. A lot of male
movie actors are abnormally tall, yet despite this they can lead what appear
to be happy lives.
I happen to prefer abnormally thin women. And so it goes. Being gay is
abnormal. Being celibate is abnormal too.
I don't really know whether being married is normal or not, I know it used
to be normal.
Scott Smith
>"Scott Smith" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:00:47 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>"Scott Smith" wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:22:00 -0600, "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
>>>>>government encourage abnormal behavior?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there is anything "abnormal" about homosexuality vs.
>>>> heterosexuality in terms of marriage. It's just a personal lifestyle
>>>> preference.
>>>
>>>They teach what normal means in most good schools. Maybe you missed it.
>>
>>
>> Or maybe I don't agree with many of the outdated textbook definitions
>> of some things, especially sexuality.
>
>Normal has nothing to do with sexuality or with goodness or badness. It is
>just .... normal, and being abnormal is not a bad trait. A lot of male
>movie actors are abnormally tall, yet despite this they can lead what appear
>to be happy lives.
>
>I happen to prefer abnormally thin women. And so it goes. Being gay is
>abnormal. Being celibate is abnormal too.
Being gay is not so "abnormal" anymore, now that more people
in the world can, and will, admit to it, IMO.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-50...@news.twtelecom.net...
> > In article <hcqccq$o0b$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm not saying that big business couldn't do things like this better, but
> >> the unfortunate reality is that churches are needed for things like these
> >> for the simple reason that big business tends to very much /not/ carry on
> >> these kinds of enterprises.
> >
> > I never once suggested a food shelf should be a business operation. The
> > "simple reason" churches get used is because they are fortunate enough
> > to get *massive* tax breaks and really have very little to do when
> > they're not otherwise occupied by passing the plate.
>
> Although I have not attended church since the onset of my adult years, I
> know that my folks who do attend, don't fit the "really have little to do"
> mold you describe here when it comes to this stuff. I only know this
> because I have maintained regular communication with them over the years.
> My old man is also an economist, which has helped a great deal.
Then you are again failing to read what I have actually written. I was
talking about the churches themselves and the people who run them. If
your folks want to volunteer to do good deeds, they don't need a church
for that. You have not made the case that superstitious woo-woo is
doing a better job at helping people than any other organization that is
shown similar favoritism.
> I know you have good reason for being cynical, since we all have different
> experiences with things depending on our surroundings. I just have equally
> good reason to find the cynicism level a little high compared to what my own
> experience has borne out, while someone who grew up in the nightmare of some
> Roman Catholic church might consider both our cynicism levels to be way too
> low.
I'm not cynical, I'm critical. I don't presuppose that something is
better or "good" just because it claims it is. This whole sub-thread
started because of Mother Teresa seemingly being above reproach. It's
not cynical to say she was a terrible person, because hanging on to that
sacred cow of a lie prevents you from finding *truly* good people in the
world.
> Which brings it back around to square one... some churches do less good,
> some do more, and some of them benefit from people who know something about
> something, like the physics professor from my alma mater, or my economist
> pappy, both of whom contribute and volunteer considerable time and effort.
Good for them. But they could have done just as much good, perhaps even
*more* good, if they volunteered without the trappings of organized
religion.
Doc O'Leary
Scott Smith <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> There was a recent "news' story on WCCO that claimed that 92% of
> Minnesotans believe in "god". I seriously have to wonder where they
> got that data from, because most people I know (and several in this
> group alone) seem to be saying that they don't (either agnostic or
> atheist) believe in "god", or that they question organized religions.
Keep in mind, too, that some of us draw a distinction between deism and
theism. That means I'd also question what they meant by having a belief
in God. And, of course, there is the good possibility that people would
lie because they don't want to be thought of as a "bad" person for not
following the herd. It's possible that they're even lying to themselves
because, as I've noted before, most people I run into who claim to be
religious are certainly behaving like atheists.
> I don't think this group is hostile "anti-religion" / "anti-christian.
> I just think that the anonymity of Usenet makes it easier for
> some to say what they really believe, without fear of repercussions
> for their views.
It could also be that we have a lot of reasonable people around here. I
don't consider that to be a bad thing.
catpandaddy
>
> Good for them. But they could have done just as much good, perhaps even
> *more* good, if they volunteered without the trappings of organized
> religion.
They might. Might not. I don't know how to prove it to myself either way,
but since this is mostly an intellectual limberness exercise for me, I
should stop treating it so seriously. I've been making it sound like I'm on
some crusade, so I'm gonna shut my yap so as not to make that impression any
worse than it already is.
Doc O'Leary
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You paint with quite a large brush.
Thank you.
> When we lived down in the cities the
> church we attended was very socially active.
And? If you are a good person, would you not have been just as socially
conscious without someone telling you exactly *how* to behave?
> Delivered "Meals on Wheels" the elderly.
Explain to me how that is relatively a good program. Sure, you can put
the feather in your cap, but I'm not convinced that the most benefit is
in such a shallow effort.
> Participated in "Feed the Children" by packaging meals that went to
> third world counties.
Just a rotten, rotten way to manage the logistics of food transport.
> Had a contingency fund for people needing short term
> assistance. Part time daycare on a free or sliding scale and the list goes
> on.
I'm failing to see the religious nature of those things.
WDS
> In article <hcsgsl$ub0$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When we lived down in the cities the
>> church we attended was very socially active.
>
> And? If you are a good person, would you not have been just as socially
> conscious without someone telling you exactly *how* to behave?
OK, then why DON'T they? Seriously. I've been involved in volunteer
work through my church, my kids' schools, and through work and the
people who are active in their churches do much more volunteering than
those who aren't.
Michael Stemper
>I am strongly opposed to gay "marriage" and it has nothing whatever to do
>with religion. I am opposed to the idea of several hundred thousand people
>increasing the amount they get from social security payouts,
Funny, I thought that the monthly amount paid out be SS was "reduced"
in the case of a married person, to account for the risk of having to
continue paying benefits to their spouse.
If married people (of whatever sexual persuasion) get *more* money
than us single folks do, I think that there's a problem here. All
of these folks getting married to increase SS! Time to ban marriage!
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
91.2% of all statistics are made up by the person quoting them.
Doc O'Leary
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I am strongly opposed to gay "marriage" and it has nothing whatever to do
> with religion.
Please, then, define what "marriage" is supposed to be and/or accomplish
at the social and/or governmental level. That is to say, what is the
point of recognizing a marriage between two people outside of religion.
> I am opposed to the idea of several hundred thousand people
> increasing the amount they get from social security payouts, and also
> getting what amounts to a free life insurance policy and a new reduced tax
> rate.
So you are against married people getting those benefits, too? What
about other people getting in on those benefits, like children? More to
the point, why do you have a problem with people getting benefits
they're entitled to?
> Anyone with the tiniest background in logical thinking knows that you
> define the words before you start using them, not afterwards. And certainly
> not 70 years afterwards.
Then you had best define what "marriage" is with respect to the
*purpose* of providing additional benefits to the parties involved, gay,
straight, or other.
> Those guys writing laws in the 1930s thought
> marriage was something that *only* happened between a man and a woman.
. . . of the same race. Please don't try to idealize the past. People
were misguided 75 years ago, downright moronic 2000 years ago, and no
doubt in 25 years *we* will be looked at as being stupid for even having
this discussion.
> Marriage was thought to be a good thing and encouraged, why should the
> government encourage abnormal behavior? If 90% of the people are not gay,
> then the 10% minority is certainly abnormal, you can draw a curve and see
> that. There is nothing pejorative about "abnormal", it just *is*.
I'm sorry, but what does that have to do with equal benefits? Let's
just take the whole "gay" part off the table. Why shouldn't *any* two
people be able to enter into an arrangement that gives them the same
rights that two people current can get by being married? If I have
great health coverage and it would cover my wife, why *not* allow me to
extend that coverage to my brother or mother or someone I've been
friends with for 20 years? If the plan covers two people, the burden is
on *you* to explain what magical connection marriage imparts. The same
goes for, as far as I can tell, all the other objects to gay marriage.
> And I think the 10% is grossly inflated by a few people making a lot of
> noise and getting a lot of attention. Who were these 50 people in my high
> school graduating class? I couldn't identify a single one of them.
Probably says more about you than the people around you.
Mike O'Brien
>> You paint with quite a large brush.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> When we lived down in the cities the
>> church we attended was very socially active.
>
> And? If you are a good person, would you not have been just as socially
> conscious without someone telling you exactly *how* to behave?
they never told us "how to behave"
>> Delivered "Meals on Wheels" the elderly.
>
> Explain to me how that is relatively a good program. Sure, you can put
> the feather in your cap, but I'm not convinced that the most benefit is
> in such a shallow effort.
maybe you have no friends or relatives that are home bound. This program
means a lot to them.
>> Participated in "Feed the Children" by packaging meals that went to
>> third world counties.
>
> Just a rotten, rotten way to manage the logistics of food transport.
what??
>> Had a contingency fund for people needing short term
>> assistance. Part time daycare on a free or sliding scale and the list
>> goes
>> on.
> I'm failing to see the religious nature of those things.
that would be my point. churches do more than try to get new members.
Scott Smith
>Doc O'Leary wrote:
>> And? If you are a good person, would you not have been just as socially
>> conscious without someone telling you exactly *how* to behave?
>
>OK, then why DON'T they? Seriously. I've been involved in volunteer
>work through my church, my kids' schools, and through work and the
>people who are active in their churches do much more volunteering than
>those who aren't.
Some people choose to give money rather than volunteer. Some people
choose to help others in non-organized ways, others may choose to
help others more directly, etc., etc.
There are many ways to be socially conscious that don't require the
following of hive-mind organizations or churches.
Doc O'Leary
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote i
>
> >> You paint with quite a large brush.
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >> When we lived down in the cities the
> >> church we attended was very socially active.
> >
> > And? If you are a good person, would you not have been just as socially
> > conscious without someone telling you exactly *how* to behave?
>
> they never told us "how to behave"
Really? What religion *doesn't* preach to you on what is proper moral
behavior. Worse, because of their hostility towards science, the stance
they take is often *wrong* on issues that really matter. An excellent
example is how so many of them remain silent as God's creation is raped
by lifestyles that are unsustainable.
> >> Delivered "Meals on Wheels" the elderly.
> >
> > Explain to me how that is relatively a good program. Sure, you can put
> > the feather in your cap, but I'm not convinced that the most benefit is
> > in such a shallow effort.
>
> maybe you have no friends or relatives that are home bound. This program
> means a lot to them.
Yet you still did not explain how it is better than any other effort to
accomplish the same goals. Hell, you didn't even *state the goal* that
you're working towards! You have no measure of success if you fail to
do that. It is about the food? There are better ways to organize
delivery than gassing up a van to drop off a TV dinner. Is it about the
companionship? There are better technologies that would give seniors
*meaningful* ties to their community. Or is it just about you feeling
good about *yourself* rather than doing good for others? Or maybe it's
about the church looking for a payday in someone's will.
> >> Participated in "Feed the Children" by packaging meals that went to
> >> third world counties.
> >
> > Just a rotten, rotten way to manage the logistics of food transport.
>
> what??
Clearly I have to spell it out, because if you employed critical
thinking in the first place you never would have tried puffing up your
ego by mentioning your charity work. Here's how reality functions:
food comes from somewhere and goes to somewhere. The shortest distance
between those points is a straight line, and a stopover in Minnesota is
not likely on that path. Further, "packaging meals" likely leads to
inefficiencies compared to bulk shipping. I see no indication that
checks were in place to ensure that needy people got the aid rather than
warlords (or corrupt charity officials), nor do you describe what you
did to ensure that your effort was part of a plan that lead to a
sustainable solution.
> >> Had a contingency fund for people needing short term
> >> assistance. Part time daycare on a free or sliding scale and the list
> >> goes
> >> on.
>
> > I'm failing to see the religious nature of those things.
>
> that would be my point. churches do more than try to get new members.
And my point would be that those services might be better provided
without the religious woo-woo, if only other organizations got the same
benefits that churches got. You have at no point made the case that
churches have done a good job at being good.
Doc O'Leary
WDS <Bi...@seurer.net> wrote:
Working more actively doesn't mean you're doing more. Norman Borlaug
alone has done more to "Feed the Children" than probably all religious
efforts through the ages. Oh, but he's one of those awful *science*
people!
Another thing to consider is that not everyone needs to be as
self-righteous about their volunteering as you. People who volunteer
for the right reasons don't need it as a bragging point. There are also
some people who follow the principle of "generous, not charitable" and
naturally do good things for others without even thinking twice about it.
If anything, all you're doing is further exposing how terribly
incestuous having a church-run volunteer program is. The problem is
that you are working with a limited data set. Until you start being a
good person *independent* of religious influence, you probably aren't
helping your community as much as you think.
Mike O'Brien
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote \
>> > I'm failing to see the religious nature of those things.
>> that would be my point. churches do more than try to get new members.
> And my point would be that those services might be better provided
> without the religious woo-woo, if only other organizations got the same
> benefits that churches got. You have at no point made the case that
> churches have done a good job at being good.
I have never experienced this religious "woo-woo" when volunteering
(whatever that is). In fact, they have all been non-denominational. Have
worked besides Jewish, Catholic, Lutherans and who knows what. The point is
people are there to assist those less fortunate not to convert people to
their personal beliefs. It must be hard to be so cynical and bitter that you
cannot see that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
catpandaddy
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-36...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <hcvdk8$1tg$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> >> Delivered "Meals on Wheels" the elderly.
>> >
>> > Explain to me how that is relatively a good program. Sure, you can put
>> > the feather in your cap, but I'm not convinced that the most benefit is
>> > in such a shallow effort.
>>
>> maybe you have no friends or relatives that are home bound. This program
>> means a lot to them.
>
>
> thinking in the first place you never would have tried puffing up your
> ego by mentioning your charity work. Here's how reality functions:
> food comes from somewhere and goes to somewhere. The shortest distance
> between those points is a straight line, and a stopover in Minnesota is
> not likely on that path. Further, "packaging meals" likely leads to
> inefficiencies compared to bulk shipping. I see no indication that
> checks were in place to ensure that needy people got the aid rather than
> warlords (or corrupt charity officials), nor do you describe what you
> did to ensure that your effort was part of a plan that lead to a
> sustainable solution.
Meals on Wheels programs are NOT church-run programs or inventions. The
first program originated in Great Britain during the Blitz, when many people
lost their homes and therefore the ability to cook their own food. The
Women's Volunteer Service would provide meals to servicemen and it all
evolved fom there, with many variations throughout the world.
The local chapter was put together by the Lake Elmo Inn staff and their
meals were very tasty during the years that they were still involved.
In short I'm just saying, lets not tar MoW with the Bad Religion brush and
feathers. Any of its ineffiencies are entirely its own. Actually, the
participation of churches or churchgoers is so incidental that I'm still on
the fence about whether or not churchgoers are "more likely" to volunteer.
I'd say it could go either way from the people I know, but it's too small a
sample to be anything other than anecdotal.
If there are any questions that get to me before my next shift starts, I
will run them by my supervisor next week.
**Clarifying Note: This reply is in regard to Meals on Wheels, and any
opinions on churches or religion are nonfactors. I couldn't care less about
being drawn into a trumped up war between "those bad scientists" and "those
bad religimonists", mostly because of the people I know who belong in both
sets at the same time, therefore I don't see the two groups as
non-overlapping or mutually exclusive. Any future arguments between the two
militantly exclusive fringes of both camps will be trimmed out as
irrelevant, not to mention aggravating. Both sides need to learn to
frakking get along. Beyond that, I can't be bothered to care any further.
Rant mode off.**
catpandaddy
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd29p3$hfo$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
What about the fact that church participation in the program is INCIDENTAL?
My first introduction to this program was something I stumbled upon while at
the Oakdale HSI (HSI = Human Services Inc) which is not based on religion at
all.
Mike O'Brien
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote
> What about the fact that church participation in the program is
> INCIDENTAL? My first introduction to this program was something I stumbled
> upon while at the Oakdale HSI (HSI = Human Services Inc) which is not
> based on religion at all.
True. But Timothy, I mean "Doc" keeps trying to make it something else
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> Meals on Wheels programs are NOT church-run programs or inventions.
Then why bring it up in the context of what benefit churches provide?
> The
> first program originated in Great Britain during the Blitz, when many people
> lost their homes and therefore the ability to cook their own food. The
> Women's Volunteer Service would provide meals to servicemen and it all
> evolved fom there, with many variations throughout the world.
If only that were the problem that most people in the US were facing
today, it might be a worthwhile cause. The problem is that driving
around hot meals to seniors is inefficient, so anybody who is looking to
scale that up to a system that helps the general population is going to
have problems. Perhaps *that* is why you find other people aren't as
willing to volunteer for it; it just doesn't make sense as the way to
expend further efforts.
> Both sides need to learn to frakking get along.
No, only religion needs to learn that, but it was formulated in a way
that it cannot. Religion preaches absolute truth from the basis of
ignorance, whereas science records provisional truth from the basis of
evidence. Science has *never* spoken with authority on matters that are
unknowable or a mystery and, in fact, *only* science has formalized
concepts such as uncertainty and incompleteness. Religion, on the other
hand, *always* thinks it can declare how the world works without any
foundation in reality. When you claim to talk directly to God, you kind
of paint yourself into a corner when simple observation proves you
wrong. So the only way for both sides to get along is for churches to
stop lying to their congregations. But what religion is doing that?
catpandaddy
> In article <hd2bto$2hq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> Meals on Wheels programs are NOT church-run programs or inventions.
>
> Then why bring it up in the context of what benefit churches provide?
I didn't. I think that was Mikey. As for me, I do the best I can not to
conflate disparate entities. I don't always succeed, but I try mightily.
>
>> Both sides need to learn to frakking get along.
>
> No, only religion needs to learn that, but it was formulated in a way
[snipped] Not interested in such discussions, as previously stated.
catpandaddy
> In article <hd2bto$2hq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>
>> The
>> first program originated in Great Britain during the Blitz, when many
>> people
>> lost their homes and therefore the ability to cook their own food. The
>> Women's Volunteer Service would provide meals to servicemen and it all
>> evolved fom there, with many variations throughout the world.
>
> If only that were the problem that most people in the US were facing
> today, it might be a worthwhile cause. The problem is that driving
> around hot meals to seniors is inefficient, so anybody who is looking to
> scale that up to a system that helps the general population is going to
> have problems.
Not looking to do such a thing.
> Perhaps *that* is why you find other people aren't as
> willing to volunteer for it; it just doesn't make sense as the way to
> expend further efforts.
Again, that was Mikey. I said before that I am entirely on the fence as to
who does more volunteering. Apart from clarifying the particulars of the
MoW program for participants and readers of this thread on BOTH sides, this
is not my argument, it's between you and Hey Mikey.
catpandaddy
> In article <hd2bto$2hq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
> foundation in reality. When you claim to talk directly to God
Not me. Mikey.
"No soap. RADIO."
Etc etc.
osmium
> In article <hd2bto$2hq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> Meals on Wheels programs are NOT church-run programs or inventions.
>
> Then why bring it up in the context of what benefit churches provide?
>
>> The
>> first program originated in Great Britain during the Blitz, when many
>> people
>> lost their homes and therefore the ability to cook their own food. The
>> Women's Volunteer Service would provide meals to servicemen and it all
>> evolved fom there, with many variations throughout the world.
>
> If only that were the problem that most people in the US were facing
> today, it might be a worthwhile cause. The problem is that driving
> around hot meals to seniors is inefficient, so anybody who is looking to
> scale that up to a system that helps the general population is going to
> have problems. Perhaps *that* is why you find other people aren't as
> willing to volunteer for it; it just doesn't make sense as the way to
> expend further efforts.
The most efficient way to feed these pathetic wretches is to put them in a
"camp" of some sort. The driving is reduced from five or more days a week,
for years on end, to a one time trip, say on the 70th birthday. I'm sure
Congress could choose an appropriate age. There, they could get the care
they need, provided by Professionals, not by a bunch of looney, misguided
amateurs.
Doc O'Leary
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote \
>
> >> > I'm failing to see the religious nature of those things.
>
> >> that would be my point. churches do more than try to get new members.
>
> > And my point would be that those services might be better provided
> > without the religious woo-woo, if only other organizations got the same
> > benefits that churches got. You have at no point made the case that
> > churches have done a good job at being good.
>
> I have never experienced this religious "woo-woo" when volunteering
> (whatever that is).
The indoctrinated seldom see what is plainly in front of them. But,
again, I don't see why you're forwarding those things in the context of
what good a church does when you freely admit that having religion
involved adds nothing but the *potential* for spreading hogwash.
> In fact, they have all been non-denominational. Have
> worked besides Jewish, Catholic, Lutherans and who knows what.
But why isn't it *always* "who knows what"? I can't think of a single
time I've volunteered that I've known or cared to know what religion
anybody involved was. The fact that it comes up for you at all is
off-putting.
> The point is
> people are there to assist those less fortunate not to convert people to
> their personal beliefs. It must be hard to be so cynical and bitter that you
> cannot see that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
The thing is, I'm not as cynical as you are gullible. Religion targets
the "less fortunate" as a way of getting money from the more fortunate,
which they mostly keep for themselves. That is the *real* story of
Mother Teresa, which started this whole tangent, and that is the story
of local churches. If they really wanted to do good, they'd be doing
things vastly different.
Here's a little experiment to try: ask your church to close its parking
lot and turn it into a garden. All evidence has shown that global
climate change is a direct threat to God's creation, and cars are mostly
powered by fossil fuels that must be the work of the Devil because such
things are *impossible* based on the Bible. Encouraging people to walk
or bike to church makes them more healthy and more engaged with their
local community. A garden feeds people locally. It's the right thing
to do if your interest is something other than draining the wallets of
the lazy masses. What are the interests of your church?
Doc O'Leary
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> True. But Timothy, I mean "Doc" keeps trying to make it something else
I don't get this. Is it some kind of passive-aggressive insult to call
me "Timothy"? Or is this just more evidence of the mindset that
proclaims to know things that are demonstrably wrong?
catpandaddy
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-65...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <hd2t9p$ubb$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> True. But Timothy, I mean "Doc" keeps trying to make it something else
>
> I don't get this. Is it some kind of passive-aggressive insult to call
> me "Timothy"? Or is this just more evidence of the mindset that
> proclaims to know things that are demonstrably wrong?
I saw that too. I have no idea who "Timothy" is supposed to be, but it did
have that passive-aggressive sound about it, didn't it. Just call him Mikey
and make a Life Cereal reference. :)
Scott Smith
wrote:
>"Doc O'Leary" wrote:
Senior Citizen concentration camps? Really?!?!?
Even YOU can't be that heartless and cold, can you?
catpandaddy
"Scott Smith" <scott...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:fdhbf5lc2hqsfpp7t...@4ax.com...
I believe it was meant as a satire ala 'A Modest Proposal' and its treatment
of the Irish Potato Famine.
Scott Smith
wrote:
Yes, well Jonathon Swift was at least clever and humorous with his
proposal. Based on some of the other things "osmium" has posted in
this group (homosexuals are "abnormal" and don't deserve equal rights,
etc.) , it was hard to tell if this was his idea of satire, or what he
really believes.
osmium
> Yes, well Jonathon Swift was at least clever and humorous with his
> proposal. Based on some of the other things "osmium" has posted in
> this group (homosexuals are "abnormal" and don't deserve equal rights,
> etc.) , it was hard to tell if this was his idea of satire, or what he
> really believes.
Please post where I said that homosexuals shouldn't have equal rights. What
I tried to make clear is that I was opposed to giving them preferential
treatment, treatment better than I get. I have no idea what your mention of
"etc.", includes, if you could be specific I might be able to clarify that
too. Yes, homosexuality is abnormal, you seem to have the idea stuck in
your head that abnormal means bad. Perhaps the word you are thinking of is
aberrant, which often carries a connotation of badness. And you have not
given any reason the government should encourage homosexuality any more than
they should give a tax credit to beer can collectors.
catpandaddy
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:7lm3f4F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Scott Smith" wrote:
>
>> Yes, well Jonathon Swift was at least clever and humorous with his
>> proposal. Based on some of the other things "osmium" has posted in
>> this group (homosexuals are "abnormal" and don't deserve equal rights,
>> etc.) , it was hard to tell if this was his idea of satire, or what he
>> really believes.
>
[snipped for focus]
> abnormal, you seem to have the idea stuck in your head that abnormal means
> bad.
The word "abnormal" is one of those loaded terms. It's also very similar in
form to the term "aberrant", and it's just not as neutral as... well heck,
I'm not a professor of English, so take this as my strictly speaking as a
non-expert. But anyway, there are more neutral sounding terms that get the
idea across without the baggage of sounding perjorative. One could say for
example, that some aspect of something is in the minority, which is more of
a quantitative statement and sounds less like a value or moral judgment.
catpandaddy
What I took away from it was that it was a rebuttal against the idea of
efficiency uber alles, that the mere efficiency of something is no guarantee
of its overall quality. I tend to agree. Relating this back to the Meals
on Wheels operation specifically, perhaps today's arrangments are more
"efficient" than having the chefs at the Lake Elmo Inn cater the Meals on
Wheels programs for their county, but it was sure tastier than what is
offered today, and arguably more sustaining than the fare that area offers
today. If I had lived in the southeast suburbs back when their staff was
involved, it would have been cool to deliver for them.
We now return you to this weeks brouhaha about which volunteers are wasting
their time vs which volunteers are trumpeting their own horns. I'll be the
one saying who the frak cares, a volunteer is a volunteer is a volunteer.
Or something about the teeth of gift horses. Or whatever.
Mike O'Brien
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote
>> I don't get this. Is it some kind of passive-aggressive insult to call
>> me "Timothy"? Or is this just more evidence of the mindset that
>> proclaims to know things that are demonstrably wrong?
> I saw that too. I have no idea who "Timothy" is supposed to be, but it
> did have that passive-aggressive sound about it, didn't it. Just call him
> Mikey and make a Life Cereal reference. :)
In a poor attempt at humour referencing to Timothy O'Leary (early proponent
of LSD and dropping out.) As to "Mikey" was it "He won't eat anything" or
"Give it to Mikey-he'll eat anything?" As to the "discussion" on
volunteering and what part churches play in them. The point I was trying to
make was that for some people getting exposed to volunteering is through
churches that provide opportunities to do so. Not that they want to join a
church or that the church is out to get new members and increase their
funds. Thus my comment that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Done.
catpandaddy
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd4tkh$5mc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote
>
>>> I don't get this. Is it some kind of passive-aggressive insult to call
>>> me "Timothy"? Or is this just more evidence of the mindset that
>>> proclaims to know things that are demonstrably wrong?
>
>> I saw that too. I have no idea who "Timothy" is supposed to be, but it
>> did have that passive-aggressive sound about it, didn't it. Just call
>> him Mikey and make a Life Cereal reference. :)
>
> In a poor attempt at humour referencing to Timothy O'Leary (early
> proponent of LSD and dropping out.) As to "Mikey" was it "He won't eat
> anything" or "Give it to Mikey-he'll eat anything?"
The audio in that commercial is so far from perfect. I had to read it in
print before I knew this is how it went:
"Let's get Mikey!"
"[No]... he won't eat it -- he hates everything!"
Then the Mikey character tries it and for once is happy to eat something.
With his reputation as a finicky eater, the other kids are astonished:
"Hey.... he LIKES it! Hey, Mikey!!!!!"
catpandaddy
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hd4tkh$5mc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> As to the "discussion" on volunteering and what part churches play in
> them. The point I was trying to make was that for some people getting
> exposed to volunteering is through churches that provide opportunities to
> do so. Not that they want to join a church or that the church is out to
> get new members and increase their funds. Thus my comment that sometimes a
> cigar is just a cigar. Done.
>
What really took me by surprise was how difficult it has been to adequately
convey I was trying to take a middle ground. I have no problem with anyone
who wants to start up some additional operations. Everyone brings something
different to it, and it's not a zero-sum game: One volunteer group does not
drive another "out of business" in the traditional sense. There's room for
everyone. "Efficient" or "inefficient" is a side issue in non-commerce
endeavors.
And on a related note, a group that hectors another volunteer group for
being less efficient -- that's at /least/ as aggrandizing or pious as
bragging about hours spent on volunteering is.** Pot Kettle Black and all
that. Just give of your time and/or your organizational skills as you can
and as you will. That's all there is to it!
(**Or for that matter, me with my "I'm a moderate -- death to all
extremists!!!" schtick. I'm aware that probably wears thin too, so I'll try
to... erm... 'moderate' it some.)
Scott Smith
>(**Or for that matter, me with my "I'm a moderate -- death to all
>extremists!!!" schtick. I'm aware that probably wears thin too, so I'll try
>to... erm... 'moderate' it some.)
As someone once said:
"Being moderate means never having to say you're sorry." ;-)
catpandaddy
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 17:23:52 -0600, "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>>(**Or for that matter, me with my "I'm a moderate -- death to all
>>extremists!!!" schtick. I'm aware that probably wears thin too, so I'll
>>try
>>to... erm... 'moderate' it some.)
>
> As someone once said:
>
> "Being moderate means never having to say you're sorry." ;-)
You might be surprised how often the reverse is true. Though that is more
specific to news stations. The stations that broadcast with a sharp slant
rarely alienate their own target audience. But stations that mix liberal
and conservative perspectives evenly end up offending everybody half the
time.
Doc O'Leary
"Mike O'Brien" <mikeo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In a poor attempt at humour referencing to Timothy O'Leary (early proponent
> of LSD and dropping out.)
Close, but no cigar:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary
For the record, I don't do drugs but I do favor drug legalization. I
don't even drink, except in the winter when I'm biking (or otherwise
physically active) in very cold weather, where I find a moderate amount
(usually half a glass) helps equalize my body temperature by combating
the vasoconstriction effect. Sorry to break out the science; feel free
to keep drinking wine yourself because you think it gets turned into the
blood of a zombie, or whatever other nonsense gets told at your church.
> The point I was trying to
> make was that for some people getting exposed to volunteering is through
> churches that provide opportunities to do so.
And my point was that those efforts, like so many others that are not
based on scientific principles, seem to be ones that don't actually
accomplish much good for the time and money invested. And, again, the
church directs you to opportunities that fit the church's agenda. You
could feed a hungry child on the other side of town a lot more easily
than a hungry child on the other side of the world, but the child on the
other side of the world is a more captive audience for the story of
*your* particular invisible sky giant.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> One volunteer group does not
> drive another "out of business" in the traditional sense. There's room for
> everyone. "Efficient" or "inefficient" is a side issue in non-commerce
> endeavors.
Absolutely backwards (again!). It is vastly *more* important to be
efficient when there is no profit in an endeavor. If you're donating
time or money to a good cause and 90% of it is wasted on administrative
overhead, they absolutely *should* be kicked to the curb in favor of one
with 80% overhead, because that means you're doing twice as much
*actual* good for the same expenditure! And *they* should be dropped
for a method that reduces overhead to 70%, and so on. It speaks volumes
that these are not prime issues when choosing your charities.
> And on a related note, a group that hectors another volunteer group for
> being less efficient -- that's at /least/ as aggrandizing or pious as
> bragging about hours spent on volunteering is.** Pot Kettle Black and all
> that.
Pointing out something is done wrong is *not* "aggrandizing", it is
merely acknowledging reality. It is not the fault of science that
religion still thinks it can proclaim things about reality that simply
are not true.
> Just give of your time and/or your organizational skills as you can
> and as you will. That's all there is to it!
Just shut your eyes and ignore the systematic coverup of child
molestation. That's all there is to it! Ignore the overwhelming
evidence of an ancient planet where life evolves. That's all there is
to it! Imprison people who demonstrate the Earth is not the center of
the Universe. That's all there is to it!
Doc O'Leary
wrote:
Third person "you". In this case, referring to religious leaders of all
stripes. Anybody with a direct line to the blueprint of creation should
not be wrong most of the time, as most religions seem to be. A single
error invalidates the notion of infallibility.
Doc O'Leary
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" wrote:
> >
> > If only that were the problem that most people in the US were facing
> > today, it might be a worthwhile cause. The problem is that driving
> > around hot meals to seniors is inefficient, so anybody who is looking to
> > scale that up to a system that helps the general population is going to
> > have problems. Perhaps *that* is why you find other people aren't as
> > willing to volunteer for it; it just doesn't make sense as the way to
> > expend further efforts.
>
> The most efficient way to feed these pathetic wretches is to put them in a
> "camp" of some sort.
Incorrect. The most efficient way to benefit *everyone* in these
matters is to tackle the problems of "last mile" distribution from a
scientific perspective. In my experience, that often means doing
something fractal so that can be scaled to the appropriate size. As I
noted, it is likely the inability to scale that turns off many
enlightened people to the kinds of volunteering efforts that concern the
narrow thinking of churches.
osmium
I think I am beginning to see the path to Enlightenment here.
Fractals - good
religion - bad
Christianity - really bad
Just for kicks I googled fractal nutcase and got lots of hits, 123,000 of
them. Then I googled Scientology nutcase and got even more. 147,000 hits.
I realize that is not a scientific thing to do, but it is harmless
entertainment.
I too, think fractals are often pretty, but your ideas to apply them to the
food distribution problem seem a little sketchy on details. And I am not
sure that your interest applies only to the food distribution problem or to
an even larger problem, unequal distribution of world wealth or world
resources or something. You do realize that there are not many resources
people want in the Sahara desert, for example, do you not? Do you have a
message beyond "fractals are scientific and good"? You seem fascinated with
scaling. Do you scale down to a married couple as Obama(1) does or to an
individual or to molecules, or what. Where do you stop and why did you stop
there? ----
(1) We will pay for health care "reform" by taxing wealthy *families* with
incomes over $250,000. He never mentions taxes on people, only families.
Sometimes the words mean something, as in this case. Sometimes they don't,
as in marriage.
catpandaddy
Jeebus Krusty the Frakking Damn Clown, but aint you and Mikey just flip
sides of the same coin. Get off the dingdang Script*, you guys! Me* is not
interested in this scene of the play.
* Where:
Script = Insisting on directing comments toward me regarding
this tired religion vs science war you've got going on with Mikey;
Me = Not going to discuss religion vs science since:
SELECT
- It is irrelevant to Meals on Wheels ( /* which I've
done more than enough to clarify */ )
- I don't have a dog in that fight ( /* as a scientist
who doesn't obsess about such things */ )
DO:
Action=Wave paw and say "Bah." /* ala Dogbert in the Scott
Adams "Dilbert" cartoon. */
RUN PROGRAM:
... [wave]
.................. "Bah."
Thank yew, thank yew very much. I'ma gonna get a jelly doughnut. And a
seafood salad, hold the herrings (esp where color = red).
--
Why yes, I am in an unusually glib mood today. Snapple?
catpandaddy
> In article <hd4e3o$5h4$1...@aioe.org>, "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net>
> wrote:
>
>> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
>> news:droleary.usenet-62...@news.twtelecom.net...
>> > In article <hd2bto$2hq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > foundation in reality. When you claim to talk directly to God
>>
>> Not me. Mikey.
>
> Third person "you". In this case, referring to religious leaders of all
> stripes. Anybody with a direct line to the blueprint of creation should
> not be wrong most of the time, as most religions seem to be. A single
> error invalidates the notion of infallibility.
Like I give a damn about the Catholics and their notions of infallibility.
catpandaddy
Quick show of hands, what persons here (besides Mikey and Doc) are
approaching this discussion as a referendum on the comparitive superiority /
inferiority of volunteer programs tainted by church involvment?
Anyone?
I'll start: put me down in the "no" category. Lets please just talk about
finding the best way to do such things, and then get together and DO
something with it. I'll sign on with such an effort. I'll bring whatever
skills I have to the table, and I will learn new skills both for the benefit
of the endeavor and also for the sake of developing the skills themselves.
Who will step up first? About a week back you proposed putting something
together if there were enough takers. Well count me in, if you want to put
something together. I'll try to find other takers as well.
catpandaddy
> In article <hcn93f$2m4$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, go start a food shelf or something. ;-) Just kidding.
>
> You shouldn't be; a food shelf would be a lot more useful than sitting
> in a pew feeling pious. I've even thought of organizing a group of
> people, religious or not, who would rather go out and do productive
> community services on Sunday mornings. Any takers here?
This thread jogged my memory today... I never answered this one directly.
Count me in. Especially if it means I can develop my organizational skills.
Doesn't even have to be limited to one day a week.
Mike O'Brien
>> In a poor attempt at humour referencing to Timothy O'Leary (early
>> proponent
>> of LSD and dropping out.)
> Close, but no cigar:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Leary
Ooops! Confusing Mrs' O'Leary's cow with Timothy Leary. Well, you know the
60's and all that. (Now you gotta ask was he referring to his age or the
times...hmmm)
Doc O'Leary
"osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I think I am beginning to see the path to Enlightenment here.
>
> Fractals - good
> religion - bad
> Christianity - really bad
Your vision needs to be checked if that is what you're seeing. All
religions *are* bad when they try to impose a reality that is observably
a lie. Science is good because it provides essentially the *only* way
for us lowly humans to validate our observations against reality.
Fractals are a scientific discipline, and as such have many good
applications as well as many bad misapplications. I often bring them up
because they are a relatively new way to look at managing complexity and
do a good job to address scaling issues that have increasing relevance
to our global society.
> I too, think fractals are often pretty, but your ideas to apply them to the
> food distribution problem seem a little sketchy on details.
Only because it sounds like you don't think of fractals beyond "pretty",
so I'm not sure the details really concern you. There is plenty of
information online if you care enough to search for it properly and read
through what you find. No need to wait for me to bring you up to speed.
> You do realize that there are not many resources
> people want in the Sahara desert, for example, do you not?
No, I have no idea what people want in the Sahara desert. You seem to
suggest they don't want anything. Sounds idyllic. You should move
there.
> Do you have a
> message beyond "fractals are scientific and good"?
To the topic at hand, yes. Part of that message is that programs like
Meals on Wheels are misguided because they don't break down the problem
in a manageable way. For example, the distribution network is
essentially *independent* of what you're moving with it, yet
organizations have tied the two together. Why *wouldn't* you want to
provide seniors as many things as possible "on wheels"? Why limit it to
meals? Why even limit it to seniors? If the system doesn't scale up,
it likely doesn't make sense.
> You seem fascinated with
> scaling. Do you scale down to a married couple as Obama(1) does or to an
> individual or to molecules, or what. Where do you stop and why did you stop
> there?
You "stop" when you're operating at the right scale. As I noted here:
http://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/10
it is not obvious to me that the federal government is operating at the
right scale for its size. What you scale down (or up) to depends on the
problem you're dealing with, but with fractals it is possible to set
things up so that the *same* rules apply at multiple level, which leads
to a complex system that is built on a fundamental simplicity.
So the simplest way to treat married couples is not to give a damn about
90% of the things that people get into a twist over, but fundamentally
don't matter. The basic rule is that when any two people want to
legally share certain rights, you provide them with an way to accomplish
that. Man and woman, man and man, brother and sister, grandmother and
granddaughter; who cares? Seems like that should be possible without
fabricating a moral outrage.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> Quick show of hands, what persons here (besides Mikey and Doc) are
> approaching this discussion as a referendum on the comparitive superiority /
> inferiority of volunteer programs tainted by church involvment?
>
> Anyone?
Hell, even I'm not raising my hand to that. All I started with was
challenging the assumption that Mother Teresa was a good person.
Tangents flew.
> Who will step up first? About a week back you proposed putting something
> together if there were enough takers. Well count me in, if you want to put
> something together. I'll try to find other takers as well.
I'm going to re-thread this back with your other response to my earlier
message. Please hold while I transfer you . . .
catpandaddy
"Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
news:droleary.usenet-DE...@news.twtelecom.net...
> In article <7logu1F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "osmium" <r124c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You seem fascinated with
>> scaling. Do you scale down to a married couple as Obama(1) does or to an
>> individual or to molecules, or what. Where do you stop and why did you
>> stop
>> there?
>
> You "stop" when you're operating at the right scale. As I noted here:
>
> http://www.impossiblystupid.com/node/10
>
> it is not obvious to me that the federal government is operating at the
> right scale for its size.
>
[.....]
>
> So the simplest way to treat married couples is not to give a damn about
> 90% of the things that people get into a twist over, but fundamentally
> don't matter. The basic rule is that when any two people want to
> legally share certain rights, you provide them with an way to accomplish
> that. Man and woman, man and man, brother and sister, grandmother and
> granddaughter; who cares? Seems like that should be possible without
> fabricating a moral outrage.
Bingo. This is the perfect example of church and government teaming up to
make much ado about nothing, and I wish they would stop encouraging each
other.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-6A...@news.twtelecom.net...
> > In article <hd4e3o$5h4$1...@aioe.org>, "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
> >> news:droleary.usenet-62...@news.twtelecom.net...
> >> > In article <hd2bto$2hq$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > foundation in reality. When you claim to talk directly to God
> >>
> >> Not me. Mikey.
> >
> > Third person "you". In this case, referring to religious leaders of all
> > stripes. Anybody with a direct line to the blueprint of creation should
> > not be wrong most of the time, as most religions seem to be. A single
> > error invalidates the notion of infallibility.
>
> Like I give a damn about the Catholics and their notions of infallibility.
Yes, because it's all those *other* stories that are craaaaaazy, but the
dogma you get sold on *must* be true. It does not amaze me that people
can be an atheist when it comes to Catholicism and an atheist to the
*thousands* of other major and minor religious movements around the
world. What amazes me is that they don't have room for one more.
catpandaddy
> In article <hd73r9$ha$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> Quick show of hands, what persons here (besides Mikey and Doc) are
>> approaching this discussion as a referendum on the comparitive
>> superiority /
>> inferiority of volunteer programs tainted by church involvment?
>>
>> Anyone?
>
> Hell, even I'm not raising my hand to that. All I started with was
> challenging the assumption that Mother Teresa was a good person.
Well, she /was/ a Catholic after all. Meticulous following of a
horrendously flawed doctrine usually makes for horrendous flaws in the
person.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
> news:droleary.usenet-69...@news.twtelecom.net...
> > In article <hd4vic$kbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Just give of your time and/or your organizational skills as you can
> >> and as you will. That's all there is to it!
> >
> > Just shut your eyes and ignore the systematic coverup of child
> > molestation. That's all there is to it! Ignore the overwhelming
> > evidence of an ancient planet where life evolves. That's all there is
> > to it! Imprison people who demonstrate the Earth is not the center of
> > the Universe. That's all there is to it!
>
> Jeebus Krusty the Frakking Damn Clown, but aint you and Mikey just flip
> sides of the same coin. Get off the dingdang Script*, you guys! Me* is not
> interested in this scene of the play.
Then stop acting. You keep posting general stuff like the above in the
context of religious influence and it is fair game to call you on it.
People need to be mindful if they hope accomplish something constructive.
catpandaddy
I'm not sold on any dogma. You brought up infallibility, I echoed your
distaste for it. I mentioned Catholics in particular because they actually
go and canonize the notion by electing a Pope to make "infallible" decrees.
That's just beyond the pale.
Looks like I'm always going to leave a stone unturned somewhere, so just put
together an exhaustive and complete list of all craaaaaazy things for me and
I'll sign off on it.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
Alright, that's two. Although I'd agree efforts need not be limited to
one day, part of my *point* in starting a dedicated program would be to
help people when other "good" people won't. I'm personally not
interested in being a do-gooder, I'm interested in solving problems in
my community. In that respect, it's less about what people we can get
together and more about people who have a common need.
For example, a few years ago a submitted a proposal of a free bicycle
delivery service for a Wedge Share grant (I live it Uptown; where you're
at might change what can be coordinated). The specific problem for the
Wedge I had noted was that customers had written to complain that the
parking lot was too small. I noted that traffic/parking in the whole
area is generally pretty bad, but the Wedge isn't in the parking
business! I further noted that gas prices were on the rise, and that
there are plenty of recreational riders that might want to do more than
tool around the paths. I proposed that free delivery could be offer to
*anyone* (and *any* business) in roughly a 5 mile radius of some central
location. They didn't even offer it up to the member vote.
That might be more than the sort of thing you're interested in, but it
still fundamentally comes down to listing the problems that remain to be
solved. Only then will it become clear how to best set up an
organization to deal with them. I'd love to hear from anyone that has
problems that aren't being addressed by whatever powers-that-be are
supposed to be getting things done.
catpandaddy
> In article <hd732q$pf2$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>
>> "Doc O'Leary" <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote in message
>> news:droleary.usenet-69...@news.twtelecom.net...
>> > In article <hd4vic$kbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > "catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> Just give of your time and/or your organizational skills as you can
>> >> and as you will. That's all there is to it!
>> >
>> > Just shut your eyes and ignore the systematic coverup of child
>> > molestation. That's all there is to it! Ignore the overwhelming
>> > evidence of an ancient planet where life evolves. That's all there is
>> > to it! Imprison people who demonstrate the Earth is not the center of
>> > the Universe. That's all there is to it!
>>
>> Jeebus Krusty the Frakking Damn Clown, but aint you and Mikey just flip
>> sides of the same coin. Get off the dingdang Script*, you guys! Me* is
>> not
>> interested in this scene of the play.
>
> Then stop acting. You keep posting general stuff like the above in the
> context of religious influence
Once again, the person who made a connection between Meals on Wheels and
churches here was Hey Mikey.
Time to review:
- I'm the one trying to take religion /OUT/ of it.
- When I make the effort to explain that MoW (or some other program) is NOT
church-related, I should get hit with either pro-church or anti-church
lecturing.
Why should just saying the two are not related provoke such lectures? And
why was it considered "posting in the context of religious influence" to say
that people should just give of their time or abilities in whatever way they
choose?
I've run out of ways to make that clear, so I'm going to try some
analogies...
If someone thought MoW was organized by PETA, or by OPEC, or thought it was
slapped together by the rock group SoundGarden, or by tropical penguins or
whatever, I would correct those errors as well. Should that provoke a round
of lectures for or against PETA, OPEC, Soundgarden or tropical penguins in
reply to it? I would hope not!
As I said above: Just give of your time and skills as you can or as you
will.
And just as I am trying to do, lets all leave lectures for or against
religion out of it -- along with the hypothetical lectures about PETA, OPEC,
Soundgarden and tropical penguins. :-)
Melba's Jammin'
Doc O'Leary <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:
> To the topic at hand, yes. Part of that message is that programs like
> Meals on Wheels are misguided because they don't break down the problem
> in a manageable way. For example, the distribution network is
> essentially *independent* of what you're moving with it, yet
> organizations have tied the two together. Why *wouldn't* you want to
> provide seniors as many things as possible "on wheels"? Why limit it to
> meals?
People can make do without a lot of stuff. Hunger catches up with you
fast.
> Why even limit it to seniors?
Seniors utilize the program far more than others, but it is not limited
to seniors. From the MoW FAQ file: "Generally, if someone is unable to
prepare a nutritious meal, and they are elderly, homebound, or disabled,
they qualify."
http://meals-on-wheels.com/FAQs
> If the system doesn't scale up, it likely doesn't make sense.
Deliveries are made by volunteers, Doc. MoW isn't designed to solve
every problem in a needy person's life, Doc; it's available to provide a
nutritious meal, at a reasonable cost, to those unable to prepare one
for themselves.
Churches are often affiliated with the program because churches often
have the facilities and equipment for preparing meals � a licensed
kitchen that meets health department rules and standards.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller - Who Said Chickens Have Fingers?
10-30-2009
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
All doctrines are flawed. One big difference between science and
religion is that science actively seeks to correct any flaws it finds,
whereas religion starts with the dangerous assumption of omnipotence at
square one.
Doc O'Leary
Melba's Jammin' <barbsc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <droleary.usenet-DE...@news.twtelecom.net>,
> Doc O'Leary <drolear...@4q2009.subsume.com> wrote:
>
> > To the topic at hand, yes. Part of that message is that programs like
> > Meals on Wheels are misguided because they don't break down the problem
> > in a manageable way. For example, the distribution network is
> > essentially *independent* of what you're moving with it, yet
> > organizations have tied the two together. Why *wouldn't* you want to
> > provide seniors as many things as possible "on wheels"? Why limit it to
> > meals?
>
> People can make do without a lot of stuff. Hunger catches up with you
> fast.
Which is all the more reason to make the whole operation efficient.
Seniors need toilet paper and medicine and all sorts of other things
that are important to have. A distribution system that covers more
things than just meals is able to take advantage of economies of scale
that aren't available to narrow solutions that Meals on Wheels provides.
Same is true in just the food arena for things like pizza delivery. In
theory, a restaurant is in the food business, not the delivery business.
It should be possible to provide better services for food delivery when
you're not stuck with each business having to provide its own
distribution infrastructure.
> > Why even limit it to seniors?
>
> Seniors utilize the program far more than others, but it is not limited
> to seniors. From the MoW FAQ file: "Generally, if someone is unable to
> prepare a nutritious meal, and they are elderly, homebound, or disabled,
> they qualify."
>
> http://meals-on-wheels.com/FAQs
Side steps the issue. It starts with the assumption of exclusion. Why
not deliver diapers to new mothers? Why not deliver healthy groceries
to neighborhoods that only have fast food restaurants and gas stations?
I'm in no way saying that seniors or the disabled shouldn't be part of,
perhaps even a priority for, a delivery system, but I do have to ask if
we couldn't benefit *everyone* by making the system just a little better.
> > If the system doesn't scale up, it likely doesn't make sense.
>
> Deliveries are made by volunteers, Doc. MoW isn't designed to solve
> every problem in a needy person's life, Doc; it's available to provide a
> nutritious meal, at a reasonable cost, to those unable to prepare one
> for themselves.
My point is that organizing to make food and organizing to deliver food
are two *radically* different tasks. A chef is not a waiter, and a city
functions at a different scale than a restaurant.
> Churches are often affiliated with the program because churches often
> have the facilities and equipment for preparing meals � a licensed
> kitchen that meets health department rules and standards.
What is special about licensed kitchens that makes them best run by a
church? Massive tax breaks notwithstanding, of course.
Doc O'Leary
"catpandaddy" <c...@cat.pan.net> wrote:
> Looks like I'm always going to leave a stone unturned somewhere, so just put
> together an exhaustive and complete list of all craaaaaazy things for me and
> I'll sign off on it.
I don't have a full list handy, so I'll start you off with just one item:
Religion
Sign away.