who has an actual problem?
Allan Adler
some of the discussions we've been having. A lot has been said recently about
problems dealing with religious zealots, particularly creationists and
especially about the problems of arguing with them.
(1) What is the venu in which these arguments with creationists (e.g.) have
been taking place?
(2) Are they recent arguments or arguments that took place a long time ago?
(3) What was the occasion that precipitated them?
What I'm aiming at is what I think might be a helpful distinction among:
(a) having an immediate problem involving creationists (e.g.creationists
are holding you prisoner or using interventions in faith based therapy
which you didn't ask for) affecting your immediate safety and well-being;
(b) having a conflict involving creationists over political control of
something, such as a school board, the process itself being essentially
democratic;
(c) routinely having voluntary arguments with particular creationists on
particular newsgroups;
(d) having the shits over the very idea of anyone having to to deal with (b)
or (c).
It just might give me a better idea of where everyone is coming from.
--
Ignorantly,
Allan Adler <a...@zurich.csail.mit.edu>
* Disclaimer: I am a guest and *not* a member of the MIT CSAIL. My actions and
* comments do not reflect in any way on MIT. Also, I am nowhere near Boston.
liz_...@yahoo.com
I really don't think you can isolate creationism from the greater
ideological goals of the Christian right.
Creationism is a component part of a direct fundamentalist assault on
every aspect of human reason.
LizD
RonnHammonn
>
snip
> I really don't think you can isolate creationism from the greater
> ideological goals of the Christian right.
> Creationism is a component part of a direct fundamentalist assault on
> every aspect of human reason.
>
Surely you can. About one hundred years ago, fundamentalists were just
as entrenched that dinosaurs were fictional as they are now about
Creationism. A few centuries before that, it was the (Biblical) flat
Earth and/or a geocentric universe. Given time, religion MUST absorb
genuine truth, or utterly fail. It just takes several generations for
religion to shuffle around enough to embrace real truth as its own.
I've warned a Witness friend that he, and his ilk, should soften up the
anti-evolution stance. Trying to shore up that argument by making it a
sacred tenet of the religion just threatens the religion. To remain
viable, any "faith" must remain unbound by hard stances against anything
of the real world that might be acceptably true.
RonnHammonn
Allan Adler
> I really don't think you can isolate creationism from the greater
> ideological goals of the Christian right.
> Creationism is a component part of a direct fundamentalist assault on
> every aspect of human reason.
> LizD
Actually, I was trying to separate the kinds of problems people have at
a personal level. You've given what you think is a statement of fact, not
a statement of what you actually have to deal with personally. I don't
necessarily dispute this statement of fact, but it was not the point
of my question.
Care to try again?
Steve Kelley
> There are a few things I'd like to know that might clarify the context of
> some of the discussions we've been having. A lot has been said recently about
> problems dealing with religious zealots, particularly creationists and
> especially about the problems of arguing with them.
>
> (1) What is the venu in which these arguments with creationists (e.g.) have
> been taking place?
> (2) Are they recent arguments or arguments that took place a long time ago?
> (3) What was the occasion that precipitated them?
>
> What I'm aiming at is what I think might be a helpful distinction among:
> (a) having an immediate problem involving creationists (e.g.creationists
> are holding you prisoner or using interventions in faith based therapy
> which you didn't ask for) affecting your immediate safety and well-being;
> (b) having a conflict involving creationists over political control of
> something, such as a school board, the process itself being essentially
> democratic;
> (c) routinely having voluntary arguments with particular creationists on
> particular newsgroups;
> (d) having the shits over the very idea of anyone having to to deal with (b)
> or (c).
>
> It just might give me a better idea of where everyone is coming from.
I am concerned about the movement to give fetuses rights as separate
human beings. Of course this is simply a way to outlaw abortion. I do
not see how society has a vested interest in preventing abortions. I
personally think any time a woman has to face the choice it is a sad
situation but the choice is hers. In broad terms I believe any law that
can be supported by only religious arguments should be unconstitutional.
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
> Allan Adler wrote:
> > There are a few things I'd like to know that might clarify the context of
> >some of the discussions we've been having.A lot has been said recently about
> > problems dealing with religious zealots, particularly creationists and
> > especially about the problems of arguing with them.
> >
> > (1) What is the venu in which these arguments with creationists (e.g.) have
> > been taking place?
> > (2) Are they recent arguments or arguments that took place a long time ago?
> > (3) What was the occasion that precipitated them?
> >
> > What I'm aiming at is what I think might be a helpful distinction among:
> > (a) having an immediate problem involving creationists (e.g.creationists
> > are holding you prisoner or using interventions in faith based therapy
> > which you didn't ask for) affecting your immediate safety and well-being;
> > (b) having a conflict involving creationists over political control of
> > something, such as a school board, the process itself being essentially
> > democratic;
> > (c) routinely having voluntary arguments with particular creationists on
> > particular newsgroups;
> > (d)having the shits over the very idea of anyone having to to deal with (b)
> > or (c).
> >
> > It just might give me a better idea of where everyone is coming from.
>
> I am concerned about the movement to give fetuses rights as separate
> human beings. Of course this is simply a way to outlaw abortion. I do
> not see how society has a vested interest in preventing abortions. I
> personally think any time a woman has to face the choice it is a sad
> situation but the choice is hers. In broad terms I believe any law that
> can be supported by only religious arguments should be unconstitutional.
OK, Steve, thanks for this reply to my question. It sounds as though,
from the standpoint of actually dealing with religious zealots of
various kinds, it represents indirect contact through a third party,
such as the news media. Is that correct?
Steve Kelley
Essentially. At this moment I am not having to deal with any zealots
directly. Life is good.
--
Steve Kelley
David V.
>
> I really don't think you can isolate creationism from the
> greater ideological goals of the Christian right. Creationism
> is a component part of a direct fundamentalist assault on
> every aspect of human reason.
Since logic is not part of the creationists arguments, a logical,
rational, reply won't work. Another tactic has to be found. I
just crop out all the BS in the middle and get straight to them
having to prove their god did it.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
Gail Futoran
news:y93ejc6...@nestle.csail.mit.edu...
I haven't been involved in the discussion but I've
been following it.
I have problems with creationism/creationists both
at a personal level and a public level. I don't like
my tax dollars going to public school systems that
teach religion in place of science, which is what
ID/creationism is doing or trying to do all over
the USofA.
I have problems with an administration (Bush &
Co.) which assaults science at a number of levels.
Again, that's a gross misuse of my tax dollars.
I have problems with most of the current crop
of US presidential candidates who assert that
they don't "believe in" evolution. And I have to
vote for one of those turnips? It's sickening.
I have problems with friends who send me email
(quite recently) giving me links to creationist
websites and when I reply with links to science
websites, they go silent (which I suppose is better
than trying to engage them).
I have problems with people who are intelligent,
well-educated, who use all the benefits of
science (modern technology, medicine, etc.)
but at the same time want to castrate science. Talk
about literally biting the hand that feeds you.
I *don't* have a problem with any religious person
who understand, uses and accepts science as
science, and keeps religion separate.
I don't know where my answer fits in your
categories above, but it is my answer and it's
where I'm coming from in arguing with
creationists/creationism/ID. Mostly, though, I
avoid arguing with them because I don't
believe you can reason with such deeply held
delusions.
Gail
David V.
> I am concerned about the movement to give fetuses rights as
> separate human beings. Of course this is simply a way to
> outlaw abortion. I do not see how society has a vested
> interest in preventing abortions. I personally think any time
> a woman has to face the choice it is a sad situation but the
> choice is hers. In broad terms I believe any law that can be
> supported by only religious arguments should be
> unconstitutional.
I think society would benefit from a reduction of abortion. Not
outlawing or criminalizing or anything like that, but better sex
education and easier access to birth control for any one that
wants it.
I think that potential human deserves some respect but not to the
point where it would over ride any rights the woman has. Of
course the choice is always up to the woman and any one involved
should support whatever choice she makes. I've just made sure I
have never put a woman into the position where she had to make
that choice.
Ian Smith
>
> I really don't think you can isolate creationism from the greater
> ideological goals of the Christian right.
I'm not convinced. I think that creationism has a very special place
in that it is central to the justification of their deity.
If they concede that we could have evolved without any magical
intervention then the last "really good" argument for the very
existence of the deity goes out of the (stained glass) window.
The need for a deity to perform the creation is a real anchor point
for their thinking. That is why is is such a big issue for them, and
why evolution has to be challenged at every stage.
regards, Ian
Steve Kelley
> Steve Kelley wrote:
>> I am concerned about the movement to give fetuses rights as separate
>> human beings. Of course this is simply a way to outlaw abortion. I do
>> not see how society has a vested interest in preventing abortions. I
>> personally think any time a woman has to face the choice it is a sad
>> situation but the choice is hers. In broad terms I believe any law
>> that can be supported by only religious arguments should be
>> unconstitutional.
>
> I think society would benefit from a reduction of abortion. Not
> outlawing or criminalizing or anything like that, but better sex
> education and easier access to birth control for any one that
> wants it.
>
> I think that potential human deserves some respect but not to the
> point where it would over ride any rights the woman has. Of
> course the choice is always up to the woman and any one involved
> should support whatever choice she makes. I've just made sure I
> have never put a woman into the position where she had to make
> that choice.
>
I agree with your statement completely and I don't think there is
anything in my post that is contrary to the sentiments you express.
--
Steve Kelley
Steve Kelley
our existence is accurate but that God made it happen. These people do
believe in evolution, just not that it happened spontaneously.
--
Steve Kelley
Allan Adler
> I have problems with creationism/creationists both at a personal level
> and a public level.
OK
> I don't like my tax dollars going to public school systems that teach
> religion in place of science, which is what ID/creationism is doing or
> trying to do all over the USofA. I have problems with an administration
> (Bush & Co.) which assaults science at a number of levels. Again, that's
> a gross misuse of my tax dollars. I have problems with most of the current
> crop of US presidential candidates who assert that they don't "believe in"
> evolution. And I have to vote for one of those turnips? It's sickening.
These are basically indirect contacts with the faithful via news media?
> I have problems with friends who send me email (quite recently) giving me
> links to creationist websites and when I reply with links to science
> websites, they go silent (which I suppose is better than trying to engage
> them).
That sounds like pretty direct contact. In what sense are you friends with
them? For example, have you known them for years, socialized with them outside
the internet, and it came as a complete surprise to you to find out they
were creationists?
> I have problems with people who are intelligent, well-educated, who use all
> the benefits of science (modern technology, medicine, etc.) but at the same
> time want to castrate science. Talk about literally biting the hand that
> feeds you.
Just to be clear, do you mean with the idea of such people or do you mean
that you routinely meet such people?
> I *don't* have a problem with any religious person who understand, uses and
> accepts science as science, and keeps religion separate.
OK. It sounds as though you do socialize with religious people and they
mostly don't make an issue of religion. If that is correct, I'm wondering
whether the friends who send you links to creationist websites also send
the links to your religious friends who don't make an issue of religion
and, if so, how those religious friends feel about getting that stuff
and how they deal with it. Do they ever talk to you about that?
> I don't know where my answer fits in your categories above, but it is my
> answer and it's where I'm coming from in arguing with
> creationists/creationism/ID. Mostly, though, I avoid arguing with them
> because I don't believe you can reason with such deeply held delusions.
> Gail
Thanks for your comments about this, Gail.
Allan Adler
> Since logic is not part of the creationists arguments, a logical,
> rational, reply won't work. Another tactic has to be found. I
> just crop out all the BS in the middle and get straight to them
> having to prove their god did it.
What are the circumstances in which you have these discussions with
creationists?
Gail Futoran
> "Gail Futoran" <fut...@NOSPAMworldnet.att.net> writes:
>> I have problems with creationism/creationists both at a personal
>> level
>> and a public level.
>
> OK
>> I don't like my tax dollars going to public school systems that
>> teach
>> religion in place of science, which is what ID/creationism is doing
>> or
>> trying to do all over the USofA. I have problems with an
>> administration
>> (Bush & Co.) which assaults science at a number of levels. Again,
>> that's
>> a gross misuse of my tax dollars. I have problems with most of the
>> current
>> crop of US presidential candidates who assert that they don't
>> "believe in"
>> evolution. And I have to vote for one of those turnips? It's
>> sickening.
>
> These are basically indirect contacts with the faithful via news
> media?
Huh? We - humans - interact with people at the
individual level, at the group level, and at the
societal level, at a minimum. Some of the information
we have about other people comes from the news
media. For example, if my local paper reports that
some State senator or congressperson is pushing a
"required prayer in school" law, I have no reason to
assume the newspaper is lying about it. There is
the idea of straight reporting of facts that can be
checked. You have to distinguish that from opinions
expressed in newspapers, and even factual errors.
If your problem is with my source(s) of information,
you need to take up your issues with the nearest
Martian visitor because, honestly, there is no other
reasonable way to get information about our very
complex world than by various news media. Of
course we can get some information "directly" -
face-to-face or by telephone or telegraph or fax
or letter or email - but most information is not
reasonably accessible directly.
>> I have problems with friends who send me email (quite recently)
>> giving me
>> links to creationist websites and when I reply with links to
>> science
>> websites, they go silent (which I suppose is better than trying to
>> engage
>> them).
>
> That sounds like pretty direct contact.
Yeah.... Most people would think so. But you
seem to hesitate to conclude that. Why?
In what sense are you friends with
> them? For example, have you known them for years, socialized with
> them outside
> the internet, and it came as a complete surprise to you to find out
> they
> were creationists?
In excess of 35 years (which predates the Internet,
by the way). And no real surprise, since the individual
is an evangelical Christian, although I do recognize
that some evangelical Christians are not anti-science.
I suppose I thought this person was one of those.
>> I have problems with people who are intelligent, well-educated, who
>> use all
>> the benefits of science (modern technology, medicine, etc.) but at
>> the same
>> time want to castrate science. Talk about literally biting the
>> hand that
>> feeds you.
>
> Just to be clear, do you mean with the idea of such people or do you
> mean
> that you routinely meet such people?
I live in the real world. I talk with people face-to-face.
I talk with people on the telephone. I watch television
and listen to the radio (mostly NPR, admittedly). I read
newspapers, I read news and science magazines. My
sources of information are various. As an atheist in a
very Christian, very conservative State, I get hit with
religious including creationist references almost every
day from numerous sources, both immediate
(acquaintances, neighbors, people at stores, etc.) and
at a distance (radio, newspapers, TV, etc.)
I see the threats to science almost every day. You
want me to catalog each and every instance? Please...
>> I *don't* have a problem with any religious person who understand,
>> uses and
>> accepts science as science, and keeps religion separate.
>
> OK. It sounds as though you do socialize with religious people and
> they
> mostly don't make an issue of religion.
The people I consider friends (all but one of whom
are religious, and most of those are Christian, the rest
mostly Jewish) don't make an issue of their religion.
They don't hide their religious beliefs and religious
activities, but they're not constantly going on about it.
As far as I know, none has a problem with science.
But then we haven't actually discussed creationism.
Nor have we discussed alchemy. Nor have we
discussed astrology. Nor have we discussed
faith healing. Nor have we discussed UFOs. Nor
have we discussed the possibilities of faeries in
the garden or Little Green Men on the moon. Do
you see where I'm going with this?
If that is correct, I'm wondering
> whether the friends who send you links to creationist websites also
> send
> the links to your religious friends who don't make an issue of
> religion
> and, if so, how those religious friends feel about getting that
> stuff
> and how they deal with it. Do they ever talk to you about that?
Different social circles.
I almost never send links to people about anything.
When I do, I carefully consider the individual. If
the link is to something controversial, I'm extremely
careful about whom I send it to. Most people I get
links from take the same approach I do.
Gail
Allan Adler
> "Allan Adler" <a...@nestle.csail.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:y93y79y...@nestle.csail.mit.edu...
> > These are basically indirect contacts with the faithful via news
> > media?
>
> Huh? We - humans - interact with people at the individual level, at the
> group level, and at the societal level, at a minimum. Some of the
> information we have about other people comes from the news media. For
> example, if my local paper reports that some State senator or
> congressperson is pushing a "required prayer in school" law, I have no
> reason to assume the newspaper is lying about it. There is the idea of
> straight reporting of facts that can be checked. You have to distinguish
> that from opinions expressed in newspapers, and even factual errors.
> If your problem is with my source(s) of information, you need to take up
> your issues with the nearest Martian visitor because, honestly, there is no
> other reasonable way to get information about our very complex world than
> by various news media. Of course we can get some information "directly" -
> face-to-face or by telephone or telegraph or fax or letter or email - but
> most information is not reasonably accessible directly.
I think you are misunderstanding my intentions. I am not casting doubt on
the accuracy of your information, either in its own right or as a consequence
of the source of it. I'm just trying to get a sense of the different ways
that people on this news group actually deal with creationists and the like.
I'm not attaching any judgements to it. More about my intentions below.
In particular, I don't have a problem with anything you've written about
your experiences. I think your comments are good and helpful. If you've
been following this thread from the beginning, you know that I asked at
the outset about venues, so you shouldn't be surprised that I keep asking
about venues.
If I happen to express myself differently from you or if I happen to be
focused on details you don't happen to think are interesting, it doesn't
make me any less human. I would describe your sentence, "We -- humans -- ..."
as gratuitous sniping. If you could manage to just provide information
without at the same time attacking the person who asks for it, it would
do a lot to improve at least one reader's perception of your personality.
> >> I have problems with friends who send me email (quite recently) giving
> >> me links to creationist websites and when I reply with links to science
> >> websites, they go silent (which I suppose is better than trying to
> >> engage them).
> >
> > That sounds like pretty direct contact.
> Yeah.... Most people would think so. But you seem to hesitate to conclude
> that. Why?
You seem to be assuming that when I make a positive statement, such as,
"That sounds like pretty direct contact", I must somehow be saying the
opposite by not sounding positive enough. You are reading nuances into
it that simply aren't there.
It happens that I believe you. But no matter much I believe you, I would
express myself the same way. If someone were to ask me what your contacts
with creationists are, I would preface it with, "According to Gail, her
contacts are ....". That wouldn't mean I don't believe you. It would mean
I was quoting my source, since I don't have first hand knowledge. If I
say that a certain dictionary has a certain definition of a certain word,
it wouldn't mean I didn't believe the dictionary.
Maybe you are being overly sensitive. Let me quote a somewhat relevant passage
from Finnegans Wake, p.189: "Sniffer of carrion, premature gravedigger,
seeker of the nest of evil in the bosom of a good word ...".
> > In what sense are you friends with them? For example, have you known
> > them for years, socialized with them outside the internet, and it came
> > as a complete surprise to you to find out they were creationists?
>
> In excess of 35 years (which predates the Internet, by the way). And no
> real surprise, since the individual is an evangelical Christian, although
> I do recognize that some evangelical Christians are not anti-science.
> I suppose I thought this person was one of those.
OK
> >> I have problems with people who are intelligent, well-educated, who
> >> use all the benefits of science (modern technology, medicine, etc.) but
> >> at the same time want to castrate science. Talk about literally biting
> >> the hand that feeds you.
> >
> > Just to be clear, do you mean with the idea of such people or do you
> > mean that you routinely meet such people?
>
> I live in the real world. I talk with people face-to-face. I talk with
> people on the telephone. I watch television and listen to the radio
> (mostly NPR, admittedly). I read newspapers, I read news and science
> magazines. My sources of information are various. As an atheist in a
> very Christian, very conservative State, I get hit with religious including
> creationist references almost every day from numerous sources, both immediate
> (acquaintances, neighbors, people at stores, etc.) and at a distance (radio,
> newspapers, TV, etc.)
OK
> I see the threats to science almost every day. You want me to catalog each
> and every instance? Please...
I didn't ask for the level of detail that you provided above, although
I'm glad to have it. Your description of it fits well with the categories
I outlined in my original posting and I can't imagine what else you think
I might be asking you to do.
Maybe you should make more of an effort to find out whether someone is
actually causing you a problem before blaming them for doing so, and here
I'm referring to me, not to the creationists. It seems that you are doing
extra work to anticipate questions I might ask and then blaming me for making
you do too much work. In any case, no one is forcing you to do anything.
> The people I consider friends (all but one of whom are religious, and most
> of those are Christian, the rest mostly Jewish) don't make an issue of their
> religion. They don't hide their religious beliefs and religious activities,
> but they're not constantly going on about it. As far as I know, none has a
> problem with science.
Thanks for explaining that.
> But then we haven't actually discussed creationism. Nor have we discussed
> alchemy. Nor have we discussed astrology. Nor have we discussed faith
> healing. Nor have we discussed UFOs. Nor have we discussed the
> possibilities of faeries in the garden or Little Green Men on the moon.
> Do you see where I'm going with this?
I think you're saying that you don't really know whether they have problems
with science, possibly on other than religious grounds. That's fine. I'm
not concerned, in this thread, with facts about religious people, so much
as with the venues in which people interact with them, especially when those
interactions are regarded as problematic.
> > If that is correct, I'm wondering whether the friends who send you links
> > to creationist websites also send the links to your religious friends who
> > don't make an issue of religion [snip]
>
> Different social circles.
OK
> I almost never send links to people about anything. When I do, I carefully
> consider the individual. If the link is to something controversial, I'm
> extremely careful about whom I send it to. Most people I get links from
> take the same approach I do.
I often get email from friends who either sends me links or copies something
they think I and a dozen of their other friends have to see. I strongly
discourage that, but it takes a constant effort to prevent it.
Thanks, Gail, for your contributions to this thread. I don't think I will
read any more of your replies, since I think I now have a pretty good idea
of what kind of person you are, but the genuine information is genuinely
appreciated.
David V.
Good. I was supporting your position.
Gail Futoran
I used the construction "we - humans" to make it clear
I wasn't using "we" to mean, e.g. "we women", or
"we Democrats", or "we atheists" or "we Americans", or
"we Medicare-eligibles" or "we white Anglo-Saxon
Protestants", i.e. I was making it clear I was making an
assertion (which I suppose could be debated) about the
human race in general rather than some particular group
or groups to which I happen to belong which might be
different from any group or groups to which YOU might
belong because in other discussions I've had online
I have been attacked for NOT making it clear which
"we" I was referring to.
Most of the rest of your post was quite arrogant,
patronizing, and condenscending, including your
assertion that you understand my personality based
on a few newsgroup posts, and in particular your
assertion that you won't read any more of my
replies, including anything I might say to clarify
any misunderstanding due to the way I express
myself.
[snip]
Gail
Apostate
Futoran says...
<snip for the ratio-conscious>
> Most of the rest of your post was quite arrogant,
> patronizing, and condenscending, including your
> assertion that you understand my personality based
> on a few newsgroup posts, and in particular your
> assertion that you won't read any more of my
> replies, including anything I might say to clarify
> any misunderstanding due to the way I express
> myself.
>
> [snip]
>
> Gail
Not that anything much is riding on it, but I promise to read your
postings in the stead of whoever doesn't (in the same spirit as "I'll
pray for you.")
8-)
--
Apostate a.a. #1931
.sig currently undergoing maintenance
mail to X-mailto
Gail Futoran
news:EqIl-B.A....@sol01.ashbva.gweep.ca...
Blessings on you, my child. :)
Gail
Briana
> I know plenty of Christians who say that the scientific explanation of
> our existence is accurate but that God made it happen. These people do
> believe in evolution, just not that it happened spontaneously.
The term is: intelligent design.
axlq
No, the term is "theistic evolution". Intelligent Design is just
another euphemism for creationism, which doesn't seem to be the same
thing Briana is talking about.
And not even scientists say that "it happened spontaneously".
-A
Christopher A.Lee
Theistic evolution opens up another can of doctrinal worms - because
it makes their god responsible for all the failures, things like the
Ichneomon wasp that lays its egg in a living host that gets eaten
alive from the inside by the larva, all the raw, cruel competition
etc.
Hardly one who is concerned for every sparrow.
>-A
David V.
>
> Theistic evolution opens up another can of doctrinal worms -
> because it makes their god responsible for all the failures,
> things like the Ichneomon wasp that lays its egg in a living
> host that gets eaten alive from the inside by the larva, all
> the raw, cruel competition etc.
What about the wasp that lays her eggs in the eggs of the
Ichneumon wasp? A hyper parasite. Ain't nature awesome?
Christopher A.Lee
wrote:
>Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>>
>> Theistic evolution opens up another can of doctrinal worms -
>> because it makes their god responsible for all the failures,
>> things like the Ichneomon wasp that lays its egg in a living
>> host that gets eaten alive from the inside by the larva, all
>> the raw, cruel competition etc.
>
>What about the wasp that lays her eggs in the eggs of the
>Ichneumon wasp? A hyper parasite. Ain't nature awesome?
That's doG's way of pest control. Proves what a loving doG he is.
David V.
Only a loving doG would come up with a system of population
control by having them eat each other.
--
Dave
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is
putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain