Ubuntu 11.10 makes Unity compulsory
Liam Proven
http://www.webupd8.org/2011/04/ubuntu-1110-will-not-ship-with-classic.html
This is news to me. Even from the beta in a VM, I can tell you, the
Natty version of "classic GNOME" isn't. And Unity 2D is thus far so
unfinished it's not even in the repos yet, which amazes me; I'm
honestly surprised it's considered ready to ship when it doesn't fall
back if no 3D acceleration is available...
I wonder how long GNOME 2 will stay supported & updated once GNOME 3
is out? I think that's only a day or a 2 away now, isn't it?
If Ubuntu only offers Unity and Mint only offers GNOME, what are the
options going to be in 6 months' time, I wonder? I don't have the
option of 3D-accelerated desktops on my Thinkpad, and I can't afford a
new one. Also, it works absolutely fine and does all I want for now,
so I am loathe to replace it.
I am considering re-evaluating XFCE and LXDE, I must admit. Both were
OK but felt a little basic to me after GNOME 2.
Then again, I just tried the newly-released Bodhi Linux on a couple of
machines yesterday. It's /very/ pretty. It may only use 300MB of RAM
but it's not a low-end system OS - my 750MHz Thinkpad-before-last is
/way/ too slow for it - and I think the lack of hardware 3D on my
newer Thinkpad would be a significant drawback, but it is tempting. I
have no clue how to use Enlightenment, but then, I have no clue how to
use Unity or GNOME 3, either, so it's not /such/ a wrench.
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
--
sounder mailing list
sou...@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder
David Gerard
> From a listmember's Twitter (HT to Dave Gerard)...
> http://www.webupd8.org/2011/04/ubuntu-1110-will-not-ship-with-classic.html
> This is news to me. Even from the beta in a VM, I can tell you, the
> Natty version of "classic GNOME" isn't. And Unity 2D is thus far so
> unfinished it's not even in the repos yet, which amazes me; I'm
> honestly surprised it's considered ready to ship when it doesn't fall
> back if no 3D acceleration is available...
I'm seriously considering Debian Sid if Unity isn't considerably
improved by then. (And if I can get a nonfree wifi driver for this
netbook.)
I still don't understand the weird step backwards in actual usability
from UNR in 10.04 (last I used it) to Unity in 11.04.
- d.
Liam Proven
> On 3 April 2011 14:23, Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From a listmember's Twitter (HT to Dave Gerard)...
>> http://www.webupd8.org/2011/04/ubuntu-1110-will-not-ship-with-classic.html
>> This is news to me. Even from the beta in a VM, I can tell you, the
>> Natty version of "classic GNOME" isn't. And Unity 2D is thus far so
>> unfinished it's not even in the repos yet, which amazes me; I'm
>> honestly surprised it's considered ready to ship when it doesn't fall
>> back if no 3D acceleration is available...
>
> I'm seriously considering Debian Sid if Unity isn't considerably
> improved by then. (And if I can get a nonfree wifi driver for this
> netbook.)
Try Mint. It's quite nice, honestly. And personally I prefer Pidgin
and Thunderbird to Empathy and Evolution. Saves me a job.
On my current Thinkpad, Mint Debian Edition works rather well. Needed
a few minor tweaks - more than Ubuntu-based Mint - but it's OK.
On my old 2000 Thinkpad, Crunchbang 10 (Debian-based) is unusable,
whereas Crunchbang 9 (Ubuntu-based) was fine. Debian doesn't have
drivers for either my wired or wireless Ethernet cards. >_<
Thankfully, Lubuntu is fine.
I am seriously thinking of putting XP on it, in the form of TinyXP.
Real XP was too much for it & it used to run Win2000, but TinyXP Bare
might be all right...
> I still don't understand the weird step backwards in actual usability
> from UNR in 10.04 (last I used it) to Unity in 11.04.
It wasn't managing a windowing interface in the NBR - it was a
small-screen single-maximised-window interface in 10.10. That's the
key difference from the 2010 to the 2011 releases, I think.
In 10.04, it was still the full-screen Netbook Launcher, and although
it did less, it was more comprehensible, I feel. It wasn't the Unity
NotADock™ Launcher back then.
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
--
donn
> I still don't understand the weird step backwards in actual usability
> from UNR in 10.04 (last I used it) to Unity in 11.04.
Personally I am terrified of the future of the my desktop. From the
screenshots and stories I have seen, the reliable old ways are going
extinct.
I can't imagine developing on my normal PC (not a laptop etc.) without
being able to:
* have multiple desktops
* have multiple apps on one screen at different sizes.
* switch with alt-tab or via a taskbar click.
It's too horrible to imagine a one-screen-one-app kind of thing with
slow (or no) alt-tab switching. I rely on seeing 'stuff' in the
background - a terminal poking out, a bit of browser that I am reading
text from, vim in the foreground where I am working. Switch here, there,
line some stuff up. Go into Inkscape, pop a terminal down from the top,
etc.
Will the whole "power user" development flow be totally blown to hell?
Not to mention excluding everyone who has not bought a 3D card for the
last 5 years?
I ran away from KDE a few years ago. Mint Gnome has been good to me.
Whence the future?
/d
<quivering in the corner>
Cybe R. Wizard
Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Try Mint. It's quite nice, honestly.
I, for one, ran from Microsoft because of its lack of humanity, not for
its bad OS (although in retrospect it is /really/ bad).
For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the originator's
anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how many times he
retracts them they will still stand there, anti-human.
Debian will receive /me/ back into the fold if Ubuntu goes tits-up with
Unity's try to be the Mac.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
David Gerard
> For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the originator's
> anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how many times he
> retracts them they will still stand there, anti-human.
I may regret this, but - cite?
- d.
John McCabe-Dansted
> On 3 April 2011 15:33, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the originator's
>> anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how many times he
>> retracts them they will still stand there, anti-human.
>
>
> I may regret this, but - cite?
I imagine it was a reference to the comments discussed here:
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774
(The first link that came up on google for "mint linux anti-semitism")
--
John C. McCabe-Dansted
Liam Proven
> Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Try Mint. It's quite nice, honestly.
>
> I, for one, ran from Microsoft because of its lack of humanity, not for
> its bad OS (although in retrospect it is /really/ bad).
> For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the originator's
> anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how many times he
> retracts them they will still stand there, anti-human.
>
> Debian will receive /me/ back into the fold if Ubuntu goes tits-up with
> Unity's try to be the Mac.
Ahh, yes, that. Fair point.
I don't like it or endorse his view - it would not, did not and has
not put me off Mint - but I guess I can see your POV, even if it seems
like an overreaction to me.
David - refs:
http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774
http://www.pkmanoj.blogspot.com/
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
--
David Gerard
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM, David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 April 2011 15:33, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the originator's
>>> anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how many times he
>> I may regret this, but - cite?
> I imagine it was a reference to the comments discussed here:
> http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774
> (The first link that came up on google for "mint linux anti-semitism")
Ah, I was wondering if Cybe was conflating "angry with actions of
Israel" and "anti-semitic".
- d.
Basil Chupin
I have installed Ubuntu 11.04 beta 1 with its Unity and have concluded
that, at this stage, Ubuntu with Unity is the same as "opensuse's
KDE4-gate" when opensuse went KDE4. In other words, a total "cock-up"
and as a result of which apparently people switched from opensuse to
better Linux distros.
Get the bloody thing right first before foisting it (in this case
Unity!) on the users!
Using the "Classic Gnome", with or without the "effects", is neither
here nor there as far as I am concerned: it works like the normal gnome
and yet it doesn't work like the normal gnome (as we now know it, 2.3).
And at the same time, Unity is using gnome settings while at the same
not using them. In other words....it's a bloody mess at the moment :-( .
It has also been said that Ubuntu will not go with Gnome 3.xx. However,
opensuse has rejected Unity and will go with gnome 3.xx. As a result I
have downloaded the latest opensuse 11.4 to see what it looks like. (I
ran SuSE for years before switching to Ubuntu because of KDE4 in
opensuse. Now gnome 3.xx in opensuse may look alright; dunno, but it
seems that it may be better than Unity at this point in time.)
Re the bit about "Mint Gnome" above.
Mint is only a 'fiddle' of Ubuntu so that what Mint will end up with is
simply a fiddle of Ubuntu - that is Unity, no gnome. (If Ubuntu goes
down the gurgle then there would be no Mint.)
BC
--
Any experiment in life will be at your own experience.
Liam Proven
Did I miss a message there or something?
> I have installed Ubuntu 11.04 beta 1 with its Unity and have concluded that,
> at this stage, Ubuntu with Unity is the same as "opensuse's KDE4-gate" when
> opensuse went KDE4. In other words, a total "cock-up" and as a result of
> which apparently people switched from opensuse to better Linux distros.
:¬) More or less, possibly, yes.
> Get the bloody thing right first before foisting it (in this case Unity!) on
> the users!
Quite. Although this will be at least the 2nd release of Unity & the -
what? - 4th or 5th since the dawn of the NBR?
> Using the "Classic Gnome", with or without the "effects", is neither here
> nor there as far as I am concerned: it works like the normal gnome and yet
> it doesn't work like the normal gnome (as we now know it, 2.3). And at the
> same time, Unity is using gnome settings while at the same not using them.
> In other words....it's a bloody mess at the moment :-( .
Yep.
> It has also been said that Ubuntu will not go with Gnome 3.xx. However,
> opensuse has rejected Unity and will go with gnome 3.xx. As a result I have
> downloaded the latest opensuse 11.4 to see what it looks like. (I ran SuSE
> for years before switching to Ubuntu because of KDE4 in opensuse.
For *years*? I ran SuSE from 5.x to 9.x before I quit, but were there
really /years/ of KDE4?
> Now gnome
> 3.xx in opensuse may look alright; dunno, but it seems that it may be better
> than Unity at this point in time.)
>
> Re the bit about "Mint Gnome" above.
>
> Mint is only a 'fiddle' of Ubuntu so that what Mint will end up with is
> simply a fiddle of Ubuntu - that is Unity, no gnome. (If Ubuntu goes down
> the gurgle then there would be no Mint.)
Mint is a /bit/ more than that. It's its own family of distros
already. Firstly, there are versions of Mint with XFCE, LXDE, and KDE
as well GNOME already.
But I believe LeFebvre has said he will not be adopting Unity. Can't
recall where I read this. There is no Netbook Launcher version, for
instance.
What concerns me is if GNOME 2 goes out of support a while after GNOME
3 launches. Where then will the non-Unity GNOME 2.x users & distros
have left to go?
Anyone interested in helping trying to get a GNUstep or ROX Desktop
*buntu off the ground? :¬)
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
--
Avi
> I can't imagine developing on my normal PC (not a laptop etc.)
> without being able to:
> * have multiple desktops
> * have multiple apps on one screen at different sizes.
> * switch with alt-tab or via a taskbar click.
I don't think you lose any of these with Unity. I certainly didn't
notice their absence in my brief experience with 11.04, though I don't
make use of taskbars.
--
Avi
donn
> Mint is only a 'fiddle' of Ubuntu so that what Mint will end up with is
> simply a fiddle of Ubuntu - that is Unity, no gnome. (If Ubuntu goes
> down the gurgle then there would be no Mint.)
I have been using Mint for about a year. It rules, so far.
Still, I hope this mad rush to remake our fav O/S does not lose the very
people that use it to code in the first place.
\d
Alan Pope
On 3 April 2011 15:19, donn <donn....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally I am terrified of the future of the my desktop. From the
> screenshots and stories I have seen, the reliable old ways are going
> extinct.
Maybe you should try it rather than base your (incorrect) assumptions
on stories and screenshots.
> I can't imagine developing on my normal PC (not a laptop etc.) without
> being able to:
> * have multiple desktops
If you mean "screens" then I have two in unity and it works. If you
mean "workspaces" then I have four in unity, and it works.
> * have multiple apps on one screen at different sizes.
That works.
> * switch with alt-tab or via a taskbar click.
>
Both of those work. ALT+TAB works pretty much as you would expect. The
"taskbar" has been replaced by the launcher. So you can switch from
one app to another by clicking the icon in the launcher.
Al.
Michael Haney
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM, David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 April 2011 15:33, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the originator's
>>> anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how many times he
>>> retracts them they will still stand there, anti-human.
>>
>>
>> I may regret this, but - cite?
>
> I imagine it was a reference to the comments discussed here:
> http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774
> (The first link that came up on google for "mint linux anti-semitism")
>
Its really hilarious how someone who is against Israel's government
and their political decisions are automatically labeled an
Anti-Semitic. I read absolutely "no hate speech" in there directed
towards the Jewish faith. He's against what the Israeli government is
doing to the Palestinians, and I'm against what they are doing to the
people's of the Gaza Strip. But, I'm not against their religion, I'm
against their government.
Oh, but because of a man-made book pieced together in Babylon and
later the Council of Nissa, from scraps of ancient Canaanite mythology
texts and centuries of word-of-mouth folklore, they're held up on a
higher pedestal than everyone else. The Israeli government is allowed
to get away with committing acts which would otherwise prompt the UN
to call for sanctions and fierce military action.
I grew up around Jewish people, though I'm not Jewish myself, one of
our neighbors was a Rabi and he was the nicest person you could ever
meet. I have nothing at all against the Israeli people. What I am
against is their government. In fact, I'm very afraid for the Jewish
people because of what their government is doing.
The Israeli people should take a cue from Libya and Egypt and take
their government back from those who would drag them down into war.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
David Gerard
> On 3 April 2011 15:19, donn <donn....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Personally I am terrified of the future of the my desktop. From the
>> screenshots and stories I have seen, the reliable old ways are going
>> extinct.
> Maybe you should try it rather than base your (incorrect) assumptions
> on stories and screenshots.
Your marketing tone is obnoxious and odious. Everyone here knows about
computers. Stop throwing up marketing bilge. I commend to you the
wisdom of St. Bill Hicks.
>> * switch with alt-tab or via a taskbar click.
> Both of those work. ALT+TAB works pretty much as you would expect. The
> "taskbar" has been replaced by the launcher. So you can switch from
> one app to another by clicking the icon in the launcher.
If this works properly, then that happened only in the last week.
- d.
Avi
> On 3 April 2011 16:54, Alan Pope <al...@popey.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe you should try it rather than base your (incorrect)
> > assumptions on stories and screenshots.
>
> Your marketing tone is obnoxious and odious. Everyone here knows about
> computers. Stop throwing up marketing bilge. I commend to you the
> wisdom of St. Bill Hicks.
He makes a fair point. Speaking as someone with something of a dislike
of Unity myself, it's still clear from even just a quick bash around
it that most of the complaints aren't based on anything that's
actual usage of it.
Seriously, give it a go. Even if it's not pleasant and a bit buggy,
it's not the heap of fail that people keep making it out to be. It's
perfectly usable to anyone who managed to suffer using Gnome several
years ago, for example.
> > Both of those work. ALT+TAB works pretty much as you would expect.
> > The "taskbar" has been replaced by the launcher. So you can switch
> > from one app to another by clicking the icon in the launcher.
>
> If this works properly, then that happened only in the last week.
>
My VM was installed on 17th Feb, and I've definitely had alt+tab since
then.
--
Avi
Avi
> Its really hilarious how someone who is against Israel's government
> and their political decisions are automatically labeled an
> Anti-Semitic.
This happens with all sorts - if there's a readily available
sensationalist label that someone could conceivably be given, they'll
be given it by anyone looking to discredit them.
Though, yeah, this is the only one where rather than just being told
"that's not anti-X" the person instead gets a lengthy explanation of
how "some of my best friends are rabbis and I *still* dislike Israeli
foreign policy".
Of course, to some poeple supporting the non-existence of a Jewish
homeland is somewhat equivalent to being opposed to Judaism as a
society, but that's not really a subject for here, and it's entirely
possible to be opposed to the Israeli government without supporting
Hamas or the PLO or whoever.
Anyway, I don't think this is really the place for this 'discussion'.
--
Avi
donn
>> * have multiple desktops
I mean that one. I regularly use 10, I hope it scales.
>> * have multiple apps on one screen at different sizes.
> That works.
Okay, this is a big worry. I can't imagine using full-screen everything.
>> * switch with alt-tab or via a taskbar click.
> Both of those work. ALT+TAB works pretty much as you would expect.
Phew.
> The "taskbar" has been replaced by the launcher. So you can switch
> from one app to another by clicking the icon in the launcher.
The screenies I saw looked dubious, but I savvy that it's early days.
Largely relieved - but still concerned about the whole 3D driver thing.
\d
Michael Haney
11.04 was being retooled so you "could" run multiple apps at once,
have both full-screen and non-full-screen apps, and even have multiple
desktops.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
--
Robert Holtzman
>
> I grew up around Jewish people, though I'm not Jewish myself, one of
> our neighbors was a Rabi and he was the nicest person you could ever
> meet.
Another version of "some of my best friends are........".
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
Nathan Bahn
I know a Jewish Socialist; does that count?
--N.B.
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.libreoffice.org/ (Nathan Bahn)
Paul Sladen
> being able to:
> * have multiple desktops
> * have multiple apps on one screen at different sizes.
> * switch with alt-tab or via a taskbar click.
I believe one can do all of these---I do, every day with Unity,
although my main work flow is via Alt-Tab. There was a four-year-old
bug in Compiz where-by the Alt-Tab LIFO stack ordering was broken (it
was of course still there, just not with consistency):
"Compiz switcher Alt-Tab order is not predictable
- should maintain LIFO ordering in application switcher"
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/compiz/+bug/175874
(opened: 2007-12-12, fix released: 2011-04-01)
If you are trying to do any of the things specifically mentioned above
and (in a particular situation) it is not working, then that is a
bug. Please file it, along with appropriate screenshots and the
method you've found to reproduce it, at:
http://launchpad.net/unity/+filebug
Much as we'd all like, bugs don't just fix themselves, and part of
getting Unity polished takes your skills as a power-user in locating,
filing and documenting the remaining bugs. As the above shows, the
bugs may not actually be in Unity itself, but purely just from pushing
the boundaries and exposing more of the stack than
before---none-the-less, your proactive assistance is likely to be
greatly valued and appreciated.
-Paul
Michael Haney
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Robert Holtzman <hol...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 11:55:38AM -0400, Michael Haney wrote:
>> >
>> > I grew up around Jewish people, though I'm not Jewish myself, one of
>> > our neighbors was a Rabi and he was the nicest person you could ever
>> > meet.
>>
>> Another version of "some of my best friends are........".
>>
And your point is?
He was old even when I was a kid, and passed away when I was in
Arkansas attending classes at Lions World Services for the Blind. His
wife made the best damn cookies you ever tasted.
> B.H.--
> I know a Jewish Socialist; does that count?
> --N.B.
>
I know a gay British hipster, beat that! LOL
Cybe R. Wizard
Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 April 2011 15:33, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:49:00 +0100
> > Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Try Mint. It's quite nice, honestly.
> >
> > I, for one, ran from Microsoft because of its lack of humanity, not
> > for its bad OS (although in retrospect it is /really/ bad).
> > For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the
> > originator's anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how many
> > times he retracts them they will still stand there, anti-human.
> >
> > Debian will receive /me/ back into the fold if Ubuntu goes tits-up
> > with Unity's try to be the Mac.
>
> Ahh, yes, that. Fair point.
>
> I don't like it or endorse his view - it would not, did not and has
> not put me off Mint - but I guess I can see your POV, even if it seems
> like an overreaction to me.
>
> David - refs:
> http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774
> http://www.pkmanoj.blogspot.com/
>
It isn't so much an over-reaction as an acquiescence to his published
wishes. I /do/ support the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis
the Gaza strip and the Golan heights. They won 'em fair and square.
The land should absolutely be theirs to do with as they please.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Basil Chupin <blch...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Get the bloody thing right first before foisting it (in this case
> Unity!) on the users!
Absolutely +1 on that. It is too much too soon and with an
incomplete interface that just doesn't compare IMO.
Who knows, though, the final release may just be wonderful.
I can't count on it although I hope so.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Basil Chupin <blch...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> Mint is only a 'fiddle' of Ubuntu so that what Mint will end up with
> is simply a fiddle of Ubuntu - that is Unity, no gnome. (If Ubuntu
> goes down the gurgle then there would be no Mint.)
You aren't keeping up with the times. Mint also offers a
Debian-derived version, IIANM.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (I ran SuSE
> > for years before switching to Ubuntu because of KDE4 in opensuse.
>
> For *years*? I ran SuSE from 5.x to 9.x before I quit, but were there
> really /years/ of KDE4?
Ah, read again what Basil had to say. He ran it for years before
switching /because/ of...
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
John McCabe-Dansted <gma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM, David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On 3 April 2011 15:33, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> For that same reason I cannot go with Mint because of the
> >> originator's anti-Semitic comments in the past. No matter how
> >> many times he retracts them they will still stand there,
> >> anti-human.
> >
> >
> > I may regret this, but - cite?
>
> I imagine it was a reference to the comments discussed here:
> http://abriefhistory.org/?p=774
> (The first link that came up on google for "mint linux anti-semitism")
>
Thank you, John. David, yes, the site John cited is exactly why I
won't be Minting (although I liked it a lot in VM before his request).
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, I was wondering if Cybe was conflating "angry with actions of
> Israel" and "anti-semitic".
No matter how we might wish that it weren't so, they are and have
always been the very same thing as long as there has been an Israel.
Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Michael Haney <thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not against their religion, I'm
> against their government.
Certainly a discussion for another time and place, I would just like to
suggest the distinction between the Japanese government and Shinto, the
Indian government and Hinduism. I hesitate to 'conflate' The good ol'
USA with Christianity but the fruit of that conflation wouldn't fall
far from the, ahem, Tree.
All in all its quite similar to conflating purple to be a mixture of
red and blue; maybe not obvious to the innocent but plain and apparent
when you really think about it.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
David Gerard
> Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
Careful, we'll get the birther posting here again thinking
overreaching assertions like this are suddenly on-topic.
- d.
Michael Haney
<cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:05:24 +0100
> David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I was wondering if Cybe was conflating "angry with actions of
>> Israel" and "anti-semitic".
>
> No matter how we might wish that it weren't so, they are and have
> always been the very same thing as long as there has been an Israel.
>
> Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
>
People like you are a part of the problem. You'd rather label people
opposed to the Israeli government Anti-Semitic rather than actually
try to come up with intelligent excuses for their recent and past
actions. Actually, its not fair to blame you. Its the church I blame
for putting us in this situation. The church and Emperor Constantine
and their man made religion they created to control the masses.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
--
Cybe R. Wizard
David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 April 2011 00:03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
>
>
> Careful, we'll get the birther posting here again thinking
> overreaching assertions like this are suddenly on-topic.
>
>
> - d.
>
Cute, funny and oh, so right.
...but you sent it to me and Cced the list. I /read/ the list. Two
mails are redundant and waste bandwidth.
/PLEASE/ send to the list /only/ unless requested to do otherwise.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
David Gerard
> ...but you sent it to me and Cced the list. I /read/ the list. Two
> mails are redundant and waste bandwidth.
> /PLEASE/ send to the list /only/ unless requested to do otherwise.
Right you are!
- d.
Cybe R. Wizard
Michael Haney <thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> People like you are a part of the problem. You'd rather label people
> opposed to the Israeli government Anti-Semitic rather than actually
> try to come up with intelligent excuses for their recent and past
> actions.
You are so right; I /am/ part of that problem you have with people who
have a different take of world affairs than you do. Unlike you, I am
fully willing to listen to opposing viewpoints without resorting to
name-calling. I am actually quite ready for someone to show me
unequivocally how the Israeli government differs from Judaism.
Can you?
> Actually, its not fair to blame you. Its the church I blame
> for putting us in this situation. The church and Emperor Constantine
> and their man made religion they created to control the masses.
You're right there; The church, the Synagogue, the Mosque and all their
religious 'my-wayers' are definitely the main problems.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Goh Lip
<cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I /do/ support the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis
> the Gaza strip and the Golan heights. They won 'em fair and square.
> The land should absolutely be theirs to do with as they please.
As like Nazi Germany with Poland?
Cybe R. Wizard
"Goh Lip" <g....@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 06:43:25 +0800, Cybe R. Wizard
> <cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > I /do/ support the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis
> > the Gaza strip and the Golan heights. They won 'em fair and square.
> > The land should absolutely be theirs to do with as they please.
>
>
> As like Nazi Germany with Poland?
>
Not at all like that; Nazi Germany invaded Poland in an act of overt
aggression. Israel, OTOH, was the one overtly and aggressively attacked
by Egypt (with Syria and Jordan's assistance). The lands in question
were taken as buffer zones between Israel and all three of those
attacking countries, a 'solution' which has historical precedence.
No one has to like it but it is the way the world seems to work. Until
a better solution comes along I'm supporting the victor->spoils theory
of wargames in cases where the one attacked overcomes the agressor.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Goh Lip
<cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:03:07 +0800
> "Goh Lip" <g....@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 06:43:25 +0800, Cybe R. Wizard
>> <cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I /do/ support the actions of the Israeli government vis-a-vis
>> > the Gaza strip and the Golan heights. They won 'em fair and square.
>> > The land should absolutely be theirs to do with as they please.
>>
>>
>> As like Nazi Germany with Poland?
>>
> Not at all like that; Nazi Germany invaded Poland in an act of overt
> aggression. Israel, OTOH, was the one overtly and aggressively attacked
> by Egypt (with Syria and Jordan's assistance). The lands in question
> were taken as buffer zones between Israel and all three of those
> attacking countries, a 'solution' which has historical precedence.
>
> No one has to like it but it is the way the world seems to work. Until
> a better solution comes along I'm supporting the victor->spoils theory
> of wargames in cases where the one attacked overcomes the agressor.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard
Well, okay, understand what you're thinking, I think.
So if, and if history is correctly recorded, the people of Gaza are
refugees chased out of other lands in present day Israel, like from Haifa
for example, are the Gazans the attacked or the aggressors?
And if, if some Iraqis view the Americans as aggressors, would it be okay
if an attack on American or British soil be any justification as
historical precedence?
Ah well, Cybe, it's time to look beyond historical precedence,
justifications and 'solutions'. Let not history, however repugnant, tie us
down to an unending cycle of retributions and hatred. And there are many
admirable precedence for this. The stories of modern day Germany and South
Africa are just two fine examples. All it would take is honesty and
humanity.
Take care - Goh Lip
--
I used to have an open mind,
but my brains kept falling out.
Nathan Bahn
I hate to be the one to be breaking the news to you, but all governments are both ethically and morally obligated to avoid discriminating on the basis of:
- ethnicity
- religion
- gender
- sexual orientation
Cybe R. Wizard
"Goh Lip" <g....@gmx.com> wrote:
> are the Gazans the attacked or the aggressors?
Therein lies the unfairness of it all and the reasons nations can't be
held to the same moral standards as humans. They aren't human.
The inhabitants of Gaza may or may not be anti-Israel but their
position/location constitutes an unstable area for the Israeli
government. It is too bad but there it is. If they are termed,
"refugees," already, my thinking is that maybe they should become such
in actual fact and flee the turmoil.
> All it would take is honesty and humanity.
Man, ain't that the gospel truth! That's all it would ever take if
such were only available.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Nathan Bahn <natha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hate to be the one to be breaking the news to you, but all
> governments are both ethically and morally obligated to avoid
> discriminating on the basis of:
>
> - ethnicity
> - religion
> - gender
> - sexual orientation
Oh, if it were only so! Big Rock Candy Mountain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_Candy_Mountain
>
> Since Israel discriminates on the basis of ethnicity and religion
> (non-Jews need not bother applying for citizenship), it is *ipso
> facto* an ethically challenged and amoral government. Saying that
> its neighbors are even worse does not constitute any sort of
> justification for such behavior.
Justified or not, that's the way it works. Were it to work any
differently wouldn't world governments stop doing it the bad old unfair
way?
Sure, in our dreams.
We must make the best of a bad situation and any
time a government is involved it is already a bad situation.
Remember what US Pres. Ronald Reagan said about the nine words which are
the scariest in the world: "I'm from the government and I'm here to
help."
Goh Lip
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 11:32:20 +0800
> "Goh Lip"<g....@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> are the Gazans the attacked or the aggressors?
>
> Therein lies the unfairness of it all and the reasons nations can't be
> held to the same moral standards as humans. They aren't human.
> The inhabitants of Gaza may or may not be anti-Israel but their
> position/location constitutes an unstable area for the Israeli
> government. It is too bad but there it is. If they are termed,
> "refugees," already, my thinking is that maybe they should become such
> in actual fact and flee the turmoil.
>
>> All it would take is honesty and humanity.
>
> Man, ain't that the gospel truth! That's all it would ever take if
> such were only available.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard
Cybe, I don't think anybody has ever accused me of being naive and
rose-tinted. You might be the first. If anything, I am frequently being
called cynical and kafkaesque [1], maybe they should add, 'pinteresque' [2]
And no, I don't believe in the gospel; like you, I think religions are
the main cause of parochialism and tribalism, giving rise to
intolerance, demonizing and dehumanizing the 'others'.
But I suppose one cannot help if one chooses to wallow in hatred and
bitterness.
All the best. - Goh Lip
[1[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Pinter
--
Life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.
Cybe R. Wizard
Goh Lip <g....@gmx.com> wrote:
> Cybe, I don't think anybody has ever accused me of being naive and
> rose-tinted. You might be the first.
Always glad to be of service!
> If anything, I am frequently
> being called cynical and kafkaesque [1], maybe they should add,
> 'pinteresque' [2]
Pinter is an interesting character with whose thinking I seem to have a
lot in common. I hadn't heard of him.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Nathan Bahn
We must make the best of a bad situation and any
time a government is involved it is already a bad situation.
Remember what US Pres. Ronald Reagan said about the nine words which are
the scariest in the world: "I'm from the government and I'm here to
help."
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
sounder mailing list
sou...@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/sounder
cyberwizard--
Try selling that line to the folks in Japan.....
And speaking of selling in Japan: If you could sell this product over there right now, then you rather obviously have a talent for selling stuff!
Goh Lip
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 12:06:58 +0800
> Goh Lip<g....@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Cybe, I don't think anybody has ever accused me of being naive and
>> rose-tinted. You might be the first.
>
> Always glad to be of service!
>
>> If anything, I am frequently
>> being called cynical and kafkaesque [1], maybe they should add,
>> 'pinteresque' [2]
>
> Pinter is an interesting character with whose thinking I seem to have a
> lot in common. I hadn't heard of him.
>
Always glad to be of service!
There's more, lots more...
There's John le Carre' "Our kind of Traitor", probably his last book.
The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls what
they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say? ;)
Goh Lip
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Goh Lip <g....@gmx.com> wrote:
> The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
> what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
> 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say? ;)
>
> Goh Lip
You'll get no argument from me concerning that.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Nathan Bahn
It's late; but before I turn in, I'll share something that I received from a friend of mine (who shall remain anonymous).
--N.B.
--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html & http://www.libreoffice.org/ (Nathan Bahn)
From:
Date: Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Ubuntu 11.10 makes Unity compulsory
To: Nathan Bahn <natha...@gmail.com>
1967 – An existential war or a land grab?
[4]: Collected by Stephen Lendman, see http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/15348)
"(a) The New York Times quoted Prime Minister Menachem Begin`s (1977 - 83) August, 1982 speech saying: `In June, 1967, we had a choice. The Egyptian Army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that (President Gamal Abdel) Nasser (1956 - 70) was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.`
(b) Two-time Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (1974 - 77 and 1992 - 95) told French newspaper Le Monde in February, 1968: `I do not believe Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.`
(c) General Mordechai Hod, Commander of the Israeli Air Force during the Six-Day War said in 1978: `Sixteen years of planning had gone into those initial eighty minutes. We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we ate the plan. Constantly we perfected it.`
(d) General Haim Barlev, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief told Ma`ariv in April 1972: `We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the six-day war, and we had never thought of such a possibility.`"
So: instead of "thwarting an existential danger", in
1967 the State of Israel carried out an effective military operation to acquire
some real estate. There is nothing new about that "existential
danger" propaganda. Acquisition of real estate by conquest has been
already called pleasing names by various other conquerors and occupiers,
throughout the old and new history: such as "manifest destiny",
"white man's burden", "spreading true religion / culture /
democracy", whatnot.
The reader may like to know that the 1967 real estate acquisition by the State
of Israel was anticipated some twenty years earlier by Ben-Gurion, at the time
of the partition plan (which was supposedly accepted by the Zionist
leadership). See the following quotes of Ben-Gurion, which can be found in the
book by an Israeli historian[5]:
"Just as I do not see the proposed Jewish state as a final solution to the problems of the Jewish people, so I do not see partition as the final solution of the Palestine question. Those who reject partition are right in their claim that this country cannot be partitioned because it constitutes one unit, not only from a historical point of view but also from that of nature and economy".
"After the formation of a large army in the wake of the establishment of the [Jewish] state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of the Palestine".
Robert Holtzman
>
> I hate to be the one to be breaking the news to you, but all governments are
> both ethically and morally obligated to avoid discriminating on the basis of:
>
> • ethnicity
> • religion
> • gender
> • sexual orientation
Where is that written?
>
> Since Israel discriminates on the basis of ethnicity and religion (non-Jews
> need not bother applying for citizenship), it is ipso facto an ethically
> challenged and amoral government. Saying that its neighbors are even worse
> does not constitute any sort of justification for such behavior.
Not quite. There is a fairly large number of Arabs with Israeli
citizenship. They are also represented in the Knesset.
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
Avi
> I am actually quite ready for someone to show me
> unequivocally how the Israeli government differs from Judaism.
> Can you?
I think that in order to do that I'd need some help understanding why
they'd be viewed as the same; it's a distinction a lot of other people
find comes naturally.
One easy point, though, is the fact that according to some Jewish
tradition, Israel is/was not supposed to be reinstated after the fall of
the second temple until the messianic era - according to that (not
insignificant) sect of Judaism there should be no Israeli government at all.
Rather amusingly, a lot of that sect are in Israel, precisely to ensure
they're in the right place when the messiah comes.
--
Avi
Avi
> Not quite. There is a fairly large number of Arabs with Israeli
> citizenship. They are also represented in the Knesset.
It is harder for people who are non-Jewish (or, perhaps more
particularly, for Arabs) to gain Israeli citizenship. Whilst they *can*
get it, and do have representation, there's many more hoops to jump
through than for the Jews who gain automatic citizenship through their
Law of Return.
--
Avi
Liam Proven
> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:05:24 +0100
> David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I was wondering if Cybe was conflating "angry with actions of
>> Israel" and "anti-semitic".
>
> No matter how we might wish that it weren't so, they are and have
> always been the very same thing as long as there has been an Israel.
>
> Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
I don't see that at all. Can you justify what seems to me to be a
remarkable assertion?
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
David Sanders
>>> Israel" and "anti-semitic".
>>
>> No matter how we might wish that it weren't so, they are and have
>> always been the very same thing as long as there has been an Israel.
>>
nations are also full of Semitic people, so it would be bizarre for
them to be anti-Semitic. The modern use of the term "Anti-Semitism" is
based on a very narrow field of ideas from Germany in the 19th
century, so to apply it to anyone apart from the Nazis and their
direct modern equivalents is just plain wrong. No matter how much one
dislikes Hezbollah or Hamas they certainly can't be described as
Nazis.
To get on to the off-topic topic, I give up talking to people about
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for that very reason. There's so much
angry bile that it's almost impossible to complain about Israel's
actions without being dubbed an anti-Semite. I'm not prepared to talk
to people who are that wilfully idiotic.
Now back to flaming Unity!
Cybe R. Wizard
Avi <li...@avi.co> wrote:
> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > I am actually quite ready for someone to show me
> > unequivocally how the Israeli government differs from Judaism.
> > Can you?
>
> I think that in order to do that I'd need some help understanding why
> they'd be viewed as the same; it's a distinction a lot of other
> people find comes naturally.
Many people wear blinders regularly. Understand, I have no religion
nor any religious bone to pick with anyone's choice of strange beliefs
based on nothing. I just recognize facts which are right under my nose.
Have you looked at the Israeli flag or the Israeli emblem?
They are, respectively, the Star of David and the Menorah. I
do believe that both of those are Jewish.
How about this from Wikipedia :
"The modern State of Israel was declared in 1948, and traces its
historical and religious roots to the Biblical Land of Israel, also
known as Zion, a concept central to Judaism since ancient times."
or this:
"The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious
usage, to refer to the Land of Israel, the biblical Kingdom of Israel
and the entire Jewish nation. According to the Bible, the name
"Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl;
Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; "persevere with God") after he
successfully wrestled with an angel of God."
How about the fact that Israel doesn't yet have a written constitution
because:
"The Religious Jews at the time opposed the idea of their nation having
a document which the government would regard as nominally "higher" in
authority than religious texts such as the Tanakh, Talmud, and Shulkhan
Arukh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Laws_of_Israel
How about, "Founding of the State," from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_State
"The concept of a national homeland for the Jewish people in the
British Mandate of Palestine was enshrined in Israeli national policy
and reflected in many of Israel's public and national institutions. The
concept was expressed in the Declaration of the Establishment of the
State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and given concrete expression in the Law
of Return, passed by the Knesset on 5 July 1950, which declared: "Every
Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh." This was
extended in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and
their spouses."
Here's a whole wikipedia page dealing with just that controversy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state
Again, show me (please) how Israel and Judaism are no one and the same.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Avi
> I always think it's amusing that people fail to realise that the Arab
> nations are also full of Semitic people, so it would be bizarre for
> them to be anti-Semitic.
If we want to be really pedantic, "semitic" refers to a group of
languages that basically derive from Aramaic. I think it's quite widely
held that, irrespective of its technical accuracy, 'antisemitism' is the
term people use to describe anti-Judaic things. English is like that;
people aren't using the term in ignorance, but taking advantage of the
self-corrupting nature of English.
> To get on to the off-topic topic, I give up talking to people about
> the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for that very reason. There's so much
> angry bile that it's almost impossible to complain about Israel's
> actions without being dubbed an anti-Semite. I'm not prepared to talk
> to people who are that wilfully idiotic.
On the other hand, it's also nigh on impossible to support any given
Israeli action without the assumption that one also supports the
eradication of any Palestinian nationhood. Very sith :)
--
Avi.
Cybe R. Wizard
Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 April 2011 00:03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:05:24 +0100
> > David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Ah, I was wondering if Cybe was conflating "angry with actions of
> >> Israel" and "anti-semitic".
> >
> > No matter how we might wish that it weren't so, they are and have
> > always been the very same thing as long as there has been an Israel.
> >
> > Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
>
> I don't see that at all. Can you justify what seems to me to be a
> remarkable assertion?
>
Please see my further posts or do your own research. It has long been
an accepted fact that Israel was formed to provide a homeland for
Jewish people. It is /the very reason/ that Israel was created.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Avi <li...@avi.co> wrote:
> English is like that;
> people aren't using the term in ignorance, but taking advantage of
> the self-corrupting nature of English.
Heh, that's surely the truth. OK, let me change, "anti-Semitic," to,
"anti-Jewish," or, "anti-Israeli."
Better?
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Goh Lip <g....@gmx.com> wrote:
> 'kimjongilesque'
BTW, wonderful word!
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Michael Haney
> On 4 April 2011 00:03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:05:24 +0100
>> David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, I was wondering if Cybe was conflating "angry with actions of
>>> Israel" and "anti-semitic".
>>
>> No matter how we might wish that it weren't so, they are and have
>> always been the very same thing as long as there has been an Israel.
>>
>> Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
>
> I don't see that at all. Can you justify what seems to me to be a
> remarkable assertion?
>
His view is the same as most every other Christian. They can't
separate the government from the religion, when in fact they are two
separate things. Here in the US there's a huge movement trying to
rewrite history saying American was founded on Christianity, when in
fact most of the Founding Fathers weren't Christian and they wanted to
get away from theological control in government The US was founded on
Secularism.
Unfortunately, the Israeli Lobby, one of the most powerful
Christian-backed lobbies in the US, pushes politicians to back any and
all decisions the Israeli government makes. Whether they are ethical
or not, and whether they break International Law or not, which they've
done both on several occasions. Its all due to the fear that
Christian dogma creates, the fear that is used to control those
indoctrinated into the religion.
The God of the Bible is not the real God but one made up by men of
power seeking to use religion to control the masses. The real God is
love, it does not judge, it does not hate, it does not need anything
from us, and it does not have a master plan. God is the great
observer. God is the Universe and everything in it, and we are a part
of it. I say IT because God has no shape or form you can understand.
When we're made in God's image it is referring to our true selves.
These bodies are not what we really are. Our true selves are immortal
and non-corporeal. There is no separation, there is only one living
thing, and we are individual parts of that whole given free will.
As Carl Sagan put it, "we are a way for the universe to know itself."
If you want to learn more read "Conversations with God" by Neale
Donald Walsch, "The Law of Attraction" by Hicks-Abraham, and look up
the "Law of One" and the "Ra Materials".
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
Michael Haney
were all complaining how bad Unity was going to be. But, 11.04 hasn't
even been released yet and who knows what changes will occur between
now and then. I'm certain Canonical won't allow a blatantly defective
UI loose on the community. They've got to be way smarter than that.
In the Linux world, just like the gaming world, you fuck up and people
will go elsewhere and it will be a bitch to get people to come back.
Also, Unity is a new DE, so there are bound to be issues and Canonical
can't find them all on their own, so the community is going to have to
help them find those issues as they use 11.04 so that 11.10 can be a
better release.
I do agree that Unity shouldn't be compulsory though, and Canonical
should have the classic Gnome 2 desktop pre-installed for those who
want to switch. Perhaps they should give users an incentive of some
kind for using Unity and reporting any bugs that need to be ironed
out. I don't know what that incentive could be, but it would get more
people to want to use Unity and help make Ubuntu a better distro.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Michael Haney <thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> His view is the same as most every other Christian.
That's so completely false as to be pretty funny and plainly shows
your own prejudice. I am not, nor have I ever been a Christian. I was
not raised in a Christian atmosphere nor was I ever indoctrinated in
Christianity. I have never yet been (and hope never to be) a religious
person /at all/.
In fact, each and all religions seem quite silly to me. At least they
would were they not so fatal to non-believers.
Read what I've written with eyes open. Do your own research. The
Israeli government was originally formed /for Jewish people/. Its laws
are Jewish laws.
This does not make it bad, wrong or despicable. In fact, quite the
contrary; Israel shows more honesty about their actions than does the
USA.
The government has even delayed writing a constitution in order to keep
Jewish law above secular law. Because they have other religious in
their country and tolerate other religions makes not one whit of
difference to the facts that they have always been a Jewish state.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Michael Haney <thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> in
> fact most of the Founding Fathers weren't Christian
Mike, you should really do some research before commenting. See these,
please:
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Religion
http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
Yes, these men devised and instituted a government /not/ based on
religion nor promoting any particular religion because they wanted the
religious freedom /to worship/ in each their own way. That does /not/
mean that they weren't religious and, yes, Christian in the main.
Sorry to say, but you are looking more and more , um, 'untutored' is
perhaps the most polite word.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Alan Pope
> You know its funny, before we went off on a debate about Israel we
> were all complaining how bad Unity was going to be. But, 11.04 hasn't
> even been released yet and who knows what changes will occur between
> now and then.
We're in feature freeze and the beta has been released. It's unlikely
there will be dramatic changes between now and release date. It's
mostly bug fixing between now and then.
Al.
Avi
Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> Have you looked at the Israeli flag or the Israeli emblem?
> They are, respectively, the Star of David and the Menorah. I
> do believe that both of those are Jewish.
Equally, the Union Flag is composed of three crosses, but I don't think
the UK and Christianity are at all the same thing. Even if England has
its own church.
> "The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious
> usage, to refer to the Land of Israel, the biblical Kingdom of Israel
> and the entire Jewish nation. According to the Bible, the name
> "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel, Isrāʾīl;
> Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; "persevere with God") after he
> successfully wrestled with an angel of God."
This isn't specific to Judaism at all -
> How about the fact that Israel doesn't yet have a written constitution
> because:
> "The Religious Jews at the time opposed the idea of their nation having
> a document which the government would regard as nominally "higher" in
> authority than religious texts such as the Tanakh, Talmud, and Shulkhan
> Arukh."
How is this Israel 'being' Judaism any more than it is Israel bending to
the will of a religions group?
> "The concept of a national homeland for the Jewish people in the
> British Mandate of Palestine was enshrined in Israeli national policy
> and reflected in many of Israel's public and national institutions. The
> concept was expressed in the Declaration of the Establishment of the
> State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and given concrete expression in the Law
> of Return, passed by the Knesset on 5 July 1950, which declared: "Every
> Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh." This was
> extended in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and
> their spouses."
Yes, the concept of a Jewish homeland. It's worth bearing in mind that
during the birth of modern Zionism, anti-semitism (let's call it that
for now) was rife across Europe and Russia. The desire for a Jewish
homeland was one for a country where Jews would be welcomed; one they
could flee too from wherever they felt persecuted. That's still, to me,
the essence of Israel's Jewishness.
> Here's a whole wikipedia page dealing with just that controversy:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state
That article flies almost exactly in the face of everything else you've
been saying - acknowledging that even before we get to the idea that
Israel might somehow be a part of Judaism, or vice-versa, there's
discussion over whether it is indeed a Jewish state at all (which there
must be if there's argument over what constitutes a 'Jewish state').
>
> Again, show me (please) how Israel and Judaism are no one and the same.
>
Because Judaism is one or both of:
a) A religion founded in a set of beliefs and traditions
b) A people, defined by a hereditary covenant.
and Israel is a country.
It's a similar but much less strong relationship to that between Iran,
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and Islam. Those are all Islamic countries
much more convincingly than Israel is a Jewish one, yet I don't think
anyone would try to claim they all have equivalence with Islam.
--
Avi
Cybe R. Wizard
Michael Haney <thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You know its funny, before we went off on a debate about Israel we
> were all complaining how bad Unity was going to be. But, 11.04 hasn't
> even been released yet and who knows what changes will occur between
> now and then. I'm certain Canonical won't allow a blatantly defective
> UI loose on the community. They've got to be way smarter than that.
> In the Linux world, just like the gaming world, you fuck up and people
> will go elsewhere and it will be a bitch to get people to come back.
> Also, Unity is a new DE
I'm not picking on you, Michael, really, I'm not. BUT Unity is not a
DE, it is a GUI for the DE, GNOME. (which is still there and not going
away (yet))
> , so there are bound to be issues and Canonical
> can't find them all on their own, so the community is going to have to
> help them find those issues as they use 11.04 so that 11.10 can be a
> better release.
>
> I do agree that Unity shouldn't be compulsory though
...and it isn't. ..yet.
> , and Canonical
> should have the classic Gnome 2 desktop pre-installed for those who
> want to switch.
...and it does. ..so far.
> Perhaps they should give users an incentive of some
> kind for using Unity and reporting any bugs that need to be ironed
> out. I don't know what that incentive could be, but it would get more
> people to want to use Unity and help make Ubuntu a better distro.
>
Like you, I have (!! oh, the horror!) faith that Ubu with Unity will
somehow endeavour to persevere. /Surely/ they won't be shooting
themselves in the foot so badly.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Michael Haney
<cybe_r...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:55:56 -0400
> Michael Haney <thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> His view is the same as most every other Christian.
>
> That's so completely false as to be pretty funny and plainly shows
> your own prejudice. I am not, nor have I ever been a Christian. I was
> not raised in a Christian atmosphere nor was I ever indoctrinated in
> Christianity. I have never yet been (and hope never to be) a religious
> person /at all/.
>
> In fact, each and all religions seem quite silly to me. At least they
> would were they not so fatal to non-believers.
>
> Read what I've written with eyes open. Do your own research. The
> Israeli government was originally formed /for Jewish people/. Its laws
> are Jewish laws.
>
> This does not make it bad, wrong or despicable. In fact, quite the
> contrary; Israel shows more honesty about their actions than does the
> USA.
>
> The government has even delayed writing a constitution in order to keep
> Jewish law above secular law. Because they have other religious in
> their country and tolerate other religions makes not one whit of
> difference to the facts that they have always been a Jewish state.
>
Never have a met a person more delusional.
I'm against all forms of religion because they promote separation, and
aggression against those not of the same faith. To be more accurate,
I'm against the dogma that infects most religions. It is that which
is the cause of most of the world's problems, and has been a problem
for human civilization for centuries. Some religions have a good
message if you ignore the dogma, and for some people that message is
what they need to hear in their current spiritual evolution. The
dogma is that part which was made by men of power seeking to use faith
to control people's actions. And if Israel doesn't have a
constitution then that is what is happening. They are a nation ruled
by dogma, and thus can never show tolerance towards other faiths and
will never know peace. Once they abandon the dogma and establish the
rule of secular law then peace can finally become a reality. Dogma
promotes separation, it promotes the dehumanizing of those not of the
same belief, and it promotes aggression.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
--
David Sanders
> that basically derive from Aramaic. I think it's quite widely held that,
> irrespective of its technical accuracy, 'antisemitism' is the term people
> use to describe anti-Judaic things. English is like that; people aren't
> using the term in ignorance, but taking advantage of the self-corrupting
> nature of English.
I don't really agree with that. I believe that the ignorance of
history that leads to misuse of the term is a real issue when trying
to discuss the problem. The land that currently contains the state of
Israel isn't exclusively Jewish in any way, it's just part of an
historical area that is of significance to all kinds of people - most
of whom would have been considered Semitic. I consider it anti-Semitic
to bulldoze a refugee camp full of Semitic people and to gun down
Semitic civilians. Maybe the stupid, inflammatory phrase should just
go away so that the Israeli government can stop conflating their
modern day oppression of refugees with Jewish people being past
victims of oppression, which is disingenuous at best.
> On the other hand, it's also nigh on impossible to support any given Israeli
> action without the assumption that one also supports the eradication of any
> Palestinian nationhood. Very sith :)
I do agree with that, but the Israeli government can stop throwing
people out of a refugee camp before they get any of my sympathy.
donn
> That does/not/
> mean that they weren't religious and, yes, Christian in the main.
outwardly christian but privately (in conversations, letters and books)
*Deist* -- mainly because that was a sensible position to take back then
when science was young and the god-gap of "Creation" still loomed.
Similar still to this day, sadly, one cannot be an open atheist and
still hope for support -- religion is a social camouflage that has to be
worn. I support anything that tears the Emperor's clothes away from the
whole illusion.
\d
Cybe R. Wizard
Avi <li...@avi.co> wrote:
> (also, sorry, I think this hit your personal address earlier)
No problem; I know you don't make it a habit and that it was probably a
mistake.
>
> Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
> > Have you looked at the Israeli flag or the Israeli emblem?
> > They are, respectively, the Star of David and the Menorah. I
> > do believe that both of those are Jewish.
>
> Equally, the Union Flag is composed of three crosses, but I don't
> think the UK and Christianity are at all the same thing. Even if
> England has its own church.
Really? I see one, two if the background for the red cross is
considered to be such on its own. OTOH, the cross(es) aren't the
proportions seen in the Christian cross. Will any cross do? How about
an, "X"?
OTOH, the Israeli flag /is/ the Star of David and its emblem /is/ the
Menorah. ...both described as being so.
>
> > "The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious
> > usage, to refer to the Land of Israel, the biblical Kingdom of
> > Israel and the entire Jewish nation. According to the Bible, the
> > name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel,
> > Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; "persevere with God") after he
> > successfully wrestled with an angel of God."
> This isn't specific to Judaism at all -
"The name Israel has historically been used...to refer to...the entire
Jewish nation."
That is, the name refers to the 'entire nation of Jews': Judaism.
That (Judaism) is not specific to Judaism? I fail to see your
reasoning.
>
> > How about the fact that Israel doesn't yet have a written
> > constitution because:
> > "The Religious Jews at the time opposed the idea of their nation
> > having a document which the government would regard as nominally
> > "higher" in authority than religious texts such as the Tanakh,
> > Talmud, and Shulkhan Arukh."
>
> How is this Israel 'being' Judaism any more than it is Israel bending
> to the will of a religions group?
Bending to the will of a religious group usually doesn't include
defying /your own stated mandate/ to create a constitution. That would
seem, at least to me, to be completely surrendering to the will of the
whole religion.
>
> > "The concept of a national homeland for the Jewish people in the
> > British Mandate of Palestine was enshrined in Israeli national
> > policy and reflected in many of Israel's public and national
> > institutions. The concept was expressed in the Declaration of the
> > Establishment of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948 and given
> > concrete expression in the Law of Return, passed by the Knesset on
> > 5 July 1950, which declared: "Every Jew has the right to come to
> > this country as an oleh." This was extended in 1970 to include
> > non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses."
>
> Yes, the concept of a Jewish homeland. It's worth bearing in mind
> that during the birth of modern Zionism, anti-semitism (let's call it
> that for now) was rife across Europe and Russia. The desire for a
> Jewish homeland was one for a country where Jews would be welcomed;
> one they could flee too from wherever they felt persecuted. That's
> still, to me, the essence of Israel's Jewishness.
Whatever the reason or reasoning, it is still a Jewish homeland for
Jewish people primarily and the government is a Jewish government. It
is funny how one doesn't get this same denial from Israelis,
themselves. They /know/ that Israel is a Jewish state for Jews.
>
> > Here's a whole wikipedia page dealing with just that controversy:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state
>
> That article flies almost exactly in the face of everything else
> you've been saying - acknowledging that even before we get to the
> idea that Israel might somehow be a part of Judaism, or vice-versa,
> there's discussion over whether it is indeed a Jewish state at all
> (which there must be if there's argument over what constitutes a
> 'Jewish state').
You must have skipped this part:
"Because Israel was created within the sphere of international law as
the instrument for Jewish self-determination, these polarities are
captured by the questions: should Israel /maintain and strengthen/
(emphasis mine) its status as a state /for the Jewish people/
(emphasis mine), or transition to being a state purely for "all of its
citizens", or identify as both?"
Let me clean it up a little:
"Israel was created...as the instrument for Jewish self-determination...
as a state for the Jewish people..."
The debate is about whether or not this is right and just, not about
whether it is or isn't.
Here's a further quote which you somehow missed:
"These two goals of Israel as a Jewish and a democratic state must
coexist and not contradict each other."
> >
> > Again, show me (please) how Israel and Judaism are no one and the
> > same.
> >
>
> Because Judaism is one or both of:
>
> a) A religion founded in a set of beliefs and traditions
> b) A people, defined by a hereditary covenant.
>
> and Israel is a country.
...founded on Jewish beliefs (Jewish homeland) and for Jewish people
(Law of Return) and self-debating whether this is a right thing.
>
> It's a similar but much less strong relationship to that between
> Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and Islam. Those are all Islamic
> countries much more convincingly than Israel is a Jewish one, yet I
> don't think anyone would try to claim they all have equivalence with
> Islam.
>
They don't have equivalence because the Muslim countries are many.
Israel is one, singular and the /only/ country based upon Judaism,
promoting itself as the homeland of Jews and giving any Jew anywhere
worldwide (and /ONLY/ Jews) a chance at free citizenship. What is
Israel if not by, for and about Judaism?
And how can rational people deny it when /Israel/ doesn't?
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Cybe R. Wizard
Michael Haney <thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
And yet, below, you seem to agree with my outlook. Interesting.
>
> I'm against all forms of religion because they promote separation, and
> aggression against those not of the same faith. To be more accurate,
> I'm against the dogma that infects most religions. It is that which
> is the cause of most of the world's problems, and has been a problem
> for human civilization for centuries.
And I said," In fact, each and all religions seem quite silly to me.
At least they would were they not so fatal to non-believers.
See? We agree.
> Some religions have a good
> message if you ignore the dogma, and for some people that message is
> what they need to hear in their current spiritual evolution. The
> dogma is that part which was made by men of power seeking to use faith
> to control people's actions. And if Israel doesn't have a
> constitution then that is what is happening. They are a nation ruled
> by dogma, and thus can never show tolerance towards other faiths and
> will never know peace. Once they abandon the dogma and establish the
> rule of secular law then peace can finally become a reality. Dogma
> promotes separation, it promotes the dehumanizing of those not of the
> same belief, and it promotes aggression.
>
Here we don't agree. Secular law in no more promoting of peace than is
religious dogma. Men who lust for power and men who hate make laws to
support their power and hate, no matter whether religious or secular.
Men are men and some are evil. The evil ones want power. Those who
want power will inevitably achieve it and use law of any variety to
espouse their own agendas.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Avi
>> Equally, the Union Flag is composed of three crosses, but I don't
>> think the UK and Christianity are at all the same thing. Even if
>> England has its own church.
>
> Really? I see one, two if the background for the red cross is
> considered to be such on its own. OTOH, the cross(es) aren't the
> proportions seen in the Christian cross. Will any cross do? How about
> an, "X"?
> OTOH, the Israeli flag /is/ the Star of David and its emblem /is/ the
> Menorah. ...both described as being so.
Well, there's the Cross of St George (the vertical/horizontal red on
white), the Cross of St Andrew (white on blue) and the Cross of St
Patrick (diagonal red on white), and each, on their own, are referred to
by those names.
>>
>>> "The name Israel has historically been used, in common and religious
>>> usage, to refer to the Land of Israel, the biblical Kingdom of
>>> Israel and the entire Jewish nation. According to the Bible, the
>>> name "Israel" was given to the patriarch Jacob (Standard Yisraʾel,
>>> Isrāʾīl; Septuagint Greek: Ἰσραήλ; "persevere with God") after he
>>> successfully wrestled with an angel of God."
>> This isn't specific to Judaism at all -
>
> "The name Israel has historically been used...to refer to...the entire
> Jewish nation."
> That is, the name refers to the 'entire nation of Jews': Judaism.
>
> That (Judaism) is not specific to Judaism? I fail to see your
> reasoning.
No. Israel as a name for the country isn't specific to Judaism, that's
what it was called by everyone. Israel as a name for the people predates
that of the country, when the people of Israel found themselves in
control of a country, they named it after its inhabitants - Israel
(occasionally).
The people and the country share a name, but that doesn't mean they're
equivalent - the land of Israel is that which is inhabited by the
[people|children] of Israel. It's now also the name of the state that
exists on that land.
>> How is this Israel 'being' Judaism any more than it is Israel bending
>> to the will of a religions group?
>
> Bending to the will of a religious group usually doesn't include
> defying /your own stated mandate/ to create a constitution. That would
> seem, at least to me, to be completely surrendering to the will of the
> whole religion.
No, completely surrendering to the will of the religion would be
disposing of that entire mandate for them. This is *partially*
surrendering to their will, otherwise known as compromising.
> Whatever the reason or reasoning, it is still a Jewish homeland for
> Jewish people primarily and the government is a Jewish government. It
> is funny how one doesn't get this same denial from Israelis,
> themselves. They /know/ that Israel is a Jewish state for Jews.
You do get precisely that argument amongst Israelis. Even so, being a
Jewish homeland for Jewish people with a Jewish government would not
make it equivalent to Judasim. It would make it Jewish.
You seem to have left your earlier point: I'm not trying to argue that
Israel isn't Jewish to whatever degree - I don't think that being a
Jewish state makes it equivalent to Judaism and earlier you were saying
that it did.
[...]
> They don't have equivalence because the Muslim countries are many.
So were another Jewish country to be founded, Israel and Judaism would
lose their equivalence, without either having to change?
--
Avi
Cybe R. Wizard
There are other, non-Jewish Israels? Whoda thunk it? ;-]
> that's what it was called by everyone. Israel as a name for the
> people predates that of the country, when the people of Israel found
> themselves in control of a country, they named it after its
> inhabitants - Israel (occasionally).
Once again, "the land,...the Biblical kingdom..., and the entire Jewish
nation."
>
> The people and the country share a name, but that doesn't mean
> they're equivalent - the land of Israel is that which is inhabited by
> the [people|children] of Israel. It's now also the name of the state
> that exists on that land.
>
> >> How is this Israel 'being' Judaism any more than it is Israel
> >> bending to the will of a religions group?
> >
> > Bending to the will of a religious group usually doesn't include
> > defying /your own stated mandate/ to create a constitution. That
> > would seem, at least to me, to be completely surrendering to the
> > will of the whole religion.
>
> No, completely surrendering to the will of the religion would be
> disposing of that entire mandate for them. This is *partially*
> surrendering to their will, otherwise known as compromising.
"The State of Israel was supposed to adopt a formal written
constitution a few months after its declaration of independence on 14
May 1948."
That's 63 years ago; the mandate /has/ been effectively disposed of.
>
> > Whatever the reason or reasoning, it is still a Jewish homeland for
> > Jewish people primarily and the government is a Jewish government.
> > It is funny how one doesn't get this same denial from Israelis,
> > themselves. They /know/ that Israel is a Jewish state for Jews.
>
> You do get precisely that argument amongst Israelis. Even so, being a
> Jewish homeland for Jewish people with a Jewish government would not
> make it equivalent to Judasim. It would make it Jewish.
Right; just as a Christian homeland for Christian people based on
Christian beliefs/laws isn't equivalent to Christianity, it is,
um, uh, er... Christian.
So right. How could I have missed that telling difference?
I think I see what you are meaning; Israel, the state, isn't exactly
equivalent to Israel, the traditional People, the Sons of David. True,
the state, Israel has been embraced and extended by the people, Israel.
To continue the analogy, they should now extinguish it. ;-}
>
> You seem to have left your earlier point: I'm not trying to argue
> that Israel isn't Jewish to whatever degree - I don't think that
> being a Jewish state makes it equivalent to Judaism and earlier you
> were saying that it did.
>
Being a Jewish state for (mainly) Jewish people and defining Jewish as
a religious people, how may one differentiate between the two? If I
have a Boy Scout troop made for and by and of Boy Scouts, isn't it,
therefore, a Boy Scout organization? ...even if all we do is watch pr0n
movies?
> [...]
>
> > They don't have equivalence because the Muslim countries are many.
>
> So were another Jewish country to be founded, Israel and Judaism
> would lose their equivalence, without either having to change?
>
Exactly so, unless they self-profess to being equivalent. One may not
serve two masters.
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Michael Haney
The United Nation is poised to officially recognize the State of
Palestine as an official sovereign nation and member of the UN.
Israel has pretty much been given an ultimatum, forge a permanent
peace agreement that lets the Palestinians government themselves or
have the issue taken our of their hands by a vote in the UN. Which is
likely to pass given how the international community isn't too happy
with Israel right now because of what is happening the Gaza Strip and
especially because of what happened on that aid convoy. Israel lost a
lot of supporters over that one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?_r=1
Douglas Pollard
> All of this is about to become moot.
>
> The United Nation is poised to officially recognize the State of
> Palestine as an official sovereign nation and member of the UN.
> Israel has pretty much been given an ultimatum, forge a permanent
> peace agreement that lets the Palestinians government themselves or
> have the issue taken our of their hands by a vote in the UN. Which is
> likely to pass given how the international community isn't too happy
> with Israel right now because of what is happening the Gaza Strip and
> especially because of what happened on that aid convoy. Israel lost a
> lot of supporters over that one.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?_r=1
>
have a country and Isreal can have a country to declare war on. Then
they can defeat them in war and annex what ever land they need to assure
their own defense. That is one of the problems they have had since
1968 they have not had a country to bargain with. It should help
them as they will have someone to negotiate with. I have to wonder whose
side the United Nations is on?? Do they have a right to make decisions
for a Soverign Nation. That is scary stuff as it smacks of World
Government. I don't understand where they got the right to create
Soverign Nations and then give them a seat in the body that created
them. In Our government the making of a state requires both bodies and
the President. In the UN they vote and ipso facto it's done. They have
no president with a constitutional power and they have no opposing body
that represents the people they have only members that represents
Governments. Supposedly when they were formed there was no president
because that would allow them to pass laws. Without that Hierarchy they
were only supposed to pass resolutions that were not binding. They have
come a long way. Doug
Avi
> All of this is about to become moot.
>
> The United Nation is poised to officially recognize the State of
> Palestine as an official sovereign nation and member of the UN.
> Israel has pretty much been given an ultimatum, forge a permanent
> peace agreement that lets the Palestinians government themselves or
> have the issue taken our of their hands by a vote in the UN.
Well, that looks like a pretty sure-fire way to ignite the region. I
wonder what the UN expects they will get out of it. I don't think
relabeling the West Bank and Gaza Strip as countries is going to make
any real change to what's actually happening, just what it's called.
--
Avi.
Michael Haney
There are International Laws which apply in all member nations of the
UN and in International Waters. The same laws the UN investigation
concluded that Israel violated when they attacked the aid convoy
headed for the Gaza Strip. There are other organizations which are
loosely attached to the UN such as WTO.
The US has been ignoring a running by WTO that the ban on online
gambling violates the Fair Trade Agreement. So, those nations being
adversely effected by this ban have been given permission to ignore US
Intellectual Property Right up to a certain amount, don't really
remember how much but it was high. And the 301 Special Report is a
joke. Its supposed to be used to fight piracy, but the US is using it
to punish nations that have companies that compete too well against
domestic US corporations. The US isn't innocent either, we still have
people locked up in Gitmo, and we have that embarrassment called the
TSA. A Federal Agency with the right to molest women and little girls
in the name of National Security. They should advertise job postings
on pedophile forums, they'll get new employees to the boat loads. LOL
Its a system that's unsustainable, and soon, very soon, it will be
impossible to sustain it. Change is coming, whether the powers that
be like it or not. They can't stop it. Wars can't stop it, laws
can't stop it. December 21st, next year, everything is going to start
changing in a positive way, and this negative shit is going to slowly
go away and become a long forgotten memory.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
--
Robert Holtzman
.........snip.........
>
> The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
> what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
> 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say? ;)
If by "your media" you mean *all* the various radio/tv outlets,
newspapers,magazines, etc you are painting with too broad of a
brush, the consolidation of outlets notwithstanding.There are
still a number of independent news sources.
--
Bob Holtzman
Key ID: 8D549279
"If you think you're getting free lunch,
check the price of the beer"
Michael Haney
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:37:50PM +0800, Goh Lip wrote:
>
> .........snip.........
>>
>> The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
>> what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
>> 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say? ;)
>
> If by "your media" you mean *all* the various radio/tv outlets,
> newspapers,magazines, etc you are painting with too broad of a
> brush, the consolidation of outlets notwithstanding.There are
> still a number of independent news sources.
>
Also, not everyone is towing the corporate/party line. Can you say
Rachel Maddow?
Robert Holtzman
> cyberwizard--
>
> It's late; but before I turn in, I'll share something that I received from a
> friend of mine (who shall remain anonymous).
After exploring the URL you cited, I certainly wouldn't regard it as
impartial.
.........snip.........
Liam Proven
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Robert Holtzman <hol...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:37:50PM +0800, Goh Lip wrote:
>>
>> .........snip.........
>>>
>>> The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
>>> what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
>>> 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say? ;)
>>
>> If by "your media" you mean *all* the various radio/tv outlets,
>> newspapers,magazines, etc you are painting with too broad of a
>> brush, the consolidation of outlets notwithstanding.There are
>> still a number of independent news sources.
>>
>
> Also, not everyone is towing the corporate/party line. Can you say
> Rachel Maddow?
No, never. Please bear in mind that this is an international list,
sponsored by an Isle of Man company, owned and headed by a South
African, that is headquartered in London, England.
We're not all American and have no clue - nor any wish for one - about
American media or its personalities.
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
Liam Proven
> Change is coming, whether the powers that
> be like it or not. They can't stop it. Wars can't stop it, laws
> can't stop it. December 21st, next year, everything is going to start
> changing in a positive way, and this negative shit is going to slowly
> go away and become a long forgotten memory.
Oh come on! I think this is getting needlessly messianic.
(http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/THHGTTG/THHGTTGradio4.htm)
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
--
Liam Proven
> Unfortunately, the Israeli Lobby, one of the most powerful
> Christian-backed lobbies in the US, pushes politicians to back any and
> all decisions the Israeli government makes. Whether they are ethical
> or not, and whether they break International Law or not, which they've
> done both on several occasions. Its all due to the fear that
> Christian dogma creates, the fear that is used to control those
> indoctrinated into the religion.
Now, y'know, I was with you up to this point. But then it all starts
to go a bit strange.
> The God of the Bible is not the real God but one made up by men of
> power seeking to use religion to control the masses. The real God is
> love, it does not judge, it does not hate, it does not need anything
> from us, and it does not have a master plan. God is the great
> observer. God is the Universe and everything in it, and we are a part
> of it. I say IT because God has no shape or form you can understand.
> When we're made in God's image it is referring to our true selves.
> These bodies are not what we really are. Our true selves are immortal
> and non-corporeal. There is no separation, there is only one living
> thing, and we are individual parts of that whole given free will.
>
> As Carl Sagan put it, "we are a way for the universe to know itself."
>
> If you want to learn more read "Conversations with God" by Neale
> Donald Walsch, "The Law of Attraction" by Hicks-Abraham, and look up
> the "Law of One" and the "Ra Materials".
Um... You go from condemning one man's perceived (and disavowed)
religion to suddenly evangelising your own, which is not a good way to
come across as sane, rational and reasonable, you have to realise
that.
A quick Google of those titles and authors makes me think "ah, right,
another bunch of raving lunatics" and file 'em in the round file next
to David Icke, a local noisy public deranged idiot in our part of the
world.
Believe what you like, Mr H, but I suggest you keep it under your hat.
Religion is like genitalia. It's fine to enjoy them, it's fine to be
proud of them, just keep them to yourself unless invited to share.
Never shove them down anyone's throat uninvited and keep them away
from children.
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
--
Liam Proven
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 13:07:47 +0100
> Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4 April 2011 00:03, Cybe R. Wizard <cybe_r...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 16:05:24 +0100
>> > David Gerard <dge...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Ah, I was wondering if Cybe was conflating "angry with actions of
>> >> Israel" and "anti-semitic".
>> >
>> > No matter how we might wish that it weren't so, they are and have
>> > always been the very same thing as long as there has been an Israel.
>> >
>> > Sorry if that doesn't fit your world-view.
>>
>> I don't see that at all. Can you justify what seems to me to be a
>> remarkable assertion?
>>
> an accepted fact that Israel was formed to provide a homeland for
> Jewish people. It is /the very reason/ that Israel was created.
This is as may be. It does not support your argument.
Israel the place in the middle-east is a country. Judaism is a
religion and a culture. They are not one and the same thing.
There is even a philosophical notion of "the nation of Israel" as a
sort of superset of all Jewish people, but this is not the same thing
as the middle-eastern state.
It is a Jewish state, yes. It does not represent all Jewishness,
though. Not all Jews live there, nor ever will. Many don't want to,
including friends of mine, although some do regard it as a sort of
spiritual homeland.
It's a political entity, one which takes its identity from the
religion, but to conflict a religion and a state is a foolish and a
childish error.
Cybe R. Wizard
Liam Proven <lpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is a Jewish state, yes. It does not represent all Jewishness,
> though. Not all Jews live there, nor ever will. Many don't want to,
> including friends of mine, although some do regard it as a sort of
> spiritual homeland.
>
> It's a political entity, one which takes its identity from the
> religion, but to conflict a religion and a state is a foolish and a
> childish error.
I understand your argument. It is much the same as Avi's. I don't
agree (obviously, and I hope it doesn't matter) and can only conclude by
pointing to the example of Vatican City as possibly equivalent.
All in all and when the smoke has finally cleared, it probably won't
affect the usability of Unity too much. :-|
Cybe R. Wizard
--
Registered GNU/Linux user # 126326
Registered Ubuntu User # 2136
--
Goh Lip
> .........snip.........
>> >
>> > The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
>> > what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
>> > 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say?;)
> newspapers,magazines, etc you are painting with too broad of a
> brush, the consolidation of outlets notwithstanding.There are
> still a number of independent news sources.
Yeah, like you can still get copies of Playboy in Pyongyang.
Michael Haney
> On 04/05/2011 06:48 AM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>
>> .........snip.........
>>>
>>> >
>>> > The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
>>> > what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
>>> > 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say?;)
>>
>> If by "your media" you mean*all* the various radio/tv outlets,
>> newspapers,magazines, etc you are painting with too broad of a
>> brush, the consolidation of outlets notwithstanding.There are
>> still a number of independent news sources.
>
> Yeah, like you can still get copies of Playboy in Pyongyang.
>
CNN here in the US has really started attacking Fox News for their
"unfair & unbalanced tabloid news". Fox News is owned by News Corp.
You Brits on the list should know the name Rupert Murdock. Yeah,
"that" Rupert Murdock. The man who could go to prison if the evidence
the court ordered the police to turn over implicates him in the whole
newspaper cell phone hacking scheme. The one where cell phones of
members of parliament were hacked. Yeah, serious shit, the kind that
could destroy his media empire. If you don't know what I'm talking
about look at this...
http://gawker.com/#!5310889/rupert-murdochs-uk-papers-in-huge-phone-hacking-scandal
That's an old article, but its not over yet. Scottland Yard has been
withholding the evidence the court wants because they've been getting
pay-offs, but now the court has put its foot down and serious
repercussions will result if they don't comply by the deadline. Which
if I remember isn't far off. I'm going to need to get me some
popcorn, this is going to be a fun show.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
--
Goh Lip
wrote:
> CNN here in the US has really started attacking Fox News for their
> "unfair & unbalanced tabloid news". Fox News is owned by News Corp.
Yes, Michael, know about that case. Generally though, Brits are more
'cosmopolitan' than Americans. They may be more aware that Rachel Maddow
may follow Keith Obermann and Katie Curic will resign. After the sacking
of Chris Hedges and Helen Thomas, why should this be surprising? I hope
they can feel the changes in BBC following Dyke and Davies 'resignation'
after the Kelly affair. And Canadians in the shift in Canadian politics
following the peddling of influence, ala American style. Or the Swedes in
the hand of Karl Rove in engineering the Swedish election reversal.
Yes, politics too has gone global too. And the control of the media has
long been seen as imperative in 'engineering' electoral outcomes. I hope
we can all see beyond the petty sound bites that is presented to us. For
example, in the recent Obama visit to Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero's
grave, I see a representative of the killer bring flowers to his victim.
What did you see?
Goh Lip
ps: by the way, I am not British. I am Chinese.
--
I used to have an open mind,
but my brains kept falling out.
Robert Holtzman
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 6:48 PM, Robert Holtzman <hol...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 12:37:50PM +0800, Goh Lip wrote:
> >
> > .........snip.........
> >>
> >> The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
> >> what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
> >> 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say? ;)
> >
> > If by "your media" you mean *all* the various radio/tv outlets,
> > newspapers,magazines, etc you are painting with too broad of a
> > brush, the consolidation of outlets notwithstanding.There are
> > still a number of independent news sources.
> >
>
> Also, not everyone is towing the corporate/party line. Can you say
> Rachel Maddow?
Yes, but I have to spit immediately after.
Basil Chupin
> You know its funny, before we went off on a debate about Israel we
> were all complaining how bad Unity was going to be. But, 11.04 hasn't
> even been released yet and who knows what changes will occur between
> now and then. I'm certain Canonical won't allow a blatantly defective
> UI loose on the community.
Wanna bet?!
> They've got to be way smarter than that.
An optimist!
> In the Linux world, just like the gaming world, you fuck up and people
> will go elsewhere and it will be a bitch to get people to come back.
Yep, just like opensuse with the KDE 4 fiasco.
No reason to assume that Canonical won't do a similar thing with 11.04
and Unity - after all, it is now only 3 weeks before final release and
no-one but a a total and completely hopeless optimist would think that
in 2 weeks [**] all the defects would be removed.
[**] 2 weeks because everything is frozen a week before release to allow
for production of CDs and DVDs.
> Also, Unity is a new DE, so there are bound to be issues and Canonical
> can't find them all on their own, so the community is going to have to
> help them find those issues as they use 11.04 so that 11.10 can be a
> better release.
If you want to do this then you release Ubuntu NOT with Unity as the
default DE but as an OPTION to be installed by "the brave".
As well, unlike opensuse which uses opensuse releases for the users to
find problems before the software goes into their commercial version,
Ubuntu has no such program.
> I do agree that Unity shouldn't be compulsory though, and Canonical
> should have the classic Gnome 2 desktop pre-installed for those who
> want to switch.
Yep, Unity should be an option and not forced down your throat as the
default - with people then having to spend download time and volume to
get the gnome DE, which is a hybrid anyway :-( .
> Perhaps they should give users an incentive of some
> kind for using Unity and reporting any bugs that need to be ironed
> out. I don't know what that incentive could be, but it would get more
> people to want to use Unity and help make Ubuntu a better distro.
Amen.
BC
--
Any experiment in life will be at your own experience.
Basil Chupin
> On 4 April 2011 16:03, Michael Haney<thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You know its funny, before we went off on a debate about Israel we
>> were all complaining how bad Unity was going to be. But, 11.04 hasn't
>> even been released yet and who knows what changes will occur between
>> now and then.
> there will be dramatic changes between now and release date. It's
> mostly bug fixing between now and then.
>
> Al.
The situation is even worse than I thought.... :-( .
Basil Chupin
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Goh Lip<g....@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 04/05/2011 06:48 AM, Robert Holtzman wrote:
>>> .........snip.........
>>>>> The reason you haven't heard of Pinter, is that your media controls
>>>>> what they want you to read, ie, what they want you to think, very
>>>>> 'kimjongilesque' [1], wouldn't you say?;)
>>> If by "your media" you mean*all* the various radio/tv outlets,
>>> newspapers,magazines, etc you are painting with too broad of a
>>> brush, the consolidation of outlets notwithstanding.There are
>>> still a number of independent news sources.
>> Yeah, like you can still get copies of Playboy in Pyongyang.
>>
> CNN here in the US has really started attacking Fox News for their
> You Brits on the list should know the name Rupert Murdock. Yeah,
> "that" Rupert Murdock.
Just to put the record straight.
Murdoch was originally an Australian, from Adelaide.
When he moved to America he applied for American citizenship so as to be
able to buy up some media outlets and so now he is an American citizen.
> The man who could go to prison if the evidence
> the court ordered the police to turn over implicates him in the whole
> newspaper cell phone hacking scheme. The one where cell phones of
> members of parliament were hacked. Yeah, serious shit, the kind that
> could destroy his media empire. If you don't know what I'm talking
> about look at this...
>
> http://gawker.com/#!5310889/rupert-murdochs-uk-papers-in-huge-phone-hacking-scandal
>
> That's an old article, but its not over yet. Scottland Yard has been
> withholding the evidence the court wants because they've been getting
> pay-offs, but now the court has put its foot down and serious
> repercussions will result if they don't comply by the deadline. Which
> if I remember isn't far off. I'm going to need to get me some
> popcorn, this is going to be a fun show.
This is not quite the same, but along the lines, of George "Dubbya" Bush
not going to Europe because he will be arrested on charges of war crimes.
BC
--
Any experiment in life will be at your own experience.
Basil Chupin
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:55:56 -0400
> Michael Haney<thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> His view is the same as most every other Christian.
> That's so completely false as to be pretty funny and plainly shows
> your own prejudice. I am not, nor have I ever been a Christian. I was
> not raised in a Christian atmosphere nor was I ever indoctrinated in
> Christianity. I have never yet been (and hope never to be) a religious
> person /at all/.
OK, what ARE you then? An atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Hindu, a Taoist,
or any of the other non-Christian faiths?
Stop playing around with words - or non-words. Be specific.
> In fact, each and all religions seem quite silly to me.
Smoke and mumbo-jumbo.
What ARE your religious beliefs or at least inclinations? You must have
SOME - you weren't raised by the wolves in some remote part of America,
right?
Michael Haney
> On 05/04/2011 01:08, Cybe R. Wizard wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 10:55:56 -0400
>> Michael Haney<thez...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> His view is the same as most every other Christian.
>>
>> That's so completely false as to be pretty funny and plainly shows
>> your own prejudice. I am not, nor have I ever been a Christian. I was
>> not raised in a Christian atmosphere nor was I ever indoctrinated in
>> Christianity. I have never yet been (and hope never to be) a religious
>> person /at all/.
>
> OK, what ARE you then? An atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Hindu, a Taoist, or
> any of the other non-Christian faiths?
>
> Stop playing around with words - or non-words. Be specific.
>
>
>> In fact, each and all religions seem quite silly to me.
>
> Smoke and mumbo-jumbo.
>
> What ARE your religious beliefs or at least inclinations? You must have SOME
> - you weren't raised by the wolves in some remote part of America, right?
>
I know the questions are directed at me, but for the record I'm a Spiritualist.
I'm not quite yet a shaman, I have a long way to go. Right now I'm
still learning how to consciously control the Law of Attraction. I've
done it a few times with very good results, but I have a lot of
unlearning to do in order to make things happen that I want them to
happen. There are things from my upbringing that I need to get rid of
that are hindering me. The Law of Attraction can bring you what you
want, but it can also bring you what you don't want. It depends on
how you think about things, because what you think and say shapes your
reality. The universe doesn't care one bit if its good for you or
not. It simply acts on your thoughts and that's all. Controlling
your thoughts and how you think about things is the key, and I need to
watch how I think about certain things because I can push things I
want away from me as much as I can pull them towards me based on how I
think about something. Its how the Law of Attraction works, its a
part of the true nature of how the universe works really.
--
Michael "TheZorch" Haney
"The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking
of morality by religion." ~ Arthur C. Clarke
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and
politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place
for it in the endeavor of science. " ~ Carl Sagan
Visit My Site: http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1
To Contact Me:
http://sites.google.com/site/thezorch/home-1/zorch-central---contacts
Free Your PC from the Bondage of Windows http://www.ubuntu.com
--
Liam Proven
> OK, what ARE you then? An atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Hindu, a Taoist, or
> any of the other non-Christian faiths?
Atheism is not a non-christian faith. Atheism is not a faith at all.
> Smoke and mumbo-jumbo.
>
> What ARE your religious beliefs or at least inclinations? You must have SOME
> - you weren't raised by the wolves in some remote part of America, right?
Why must he?
I don't, for example. None at all.
--
Liam Proven • Info & profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/lproven
Email: lpr...@cix.co.uk • GMail/GoogleTalk/Orkut: lpr...@gmail.com
Tel: +44 20-8685-0498 • Cell: +44 7939-087884 • Fax: + 44 870-9151419
AIM/Yahoo/Skype: liamproven • MSN: lpr...@hotmail.com • ICQ: 73187508
--
Avi Greenbury
> On 5 April 2011 08:23, Basil Chupin<blch...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
>> OK, what ARE you then? An atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Hindu, a Taoist, or
>> any of the other non-Christian faiths?
>
> Atheism is not a non-christian faith. Atheism is not a faith at all.
Atheism is, generally, faith in the belief that there is no God. As
opposed to merely not believing either way.
I don't know that there is a term for someone who doesn't claim to know,
but doesn't believe it to be unknowable.
--
Avi.
Mark Widdicombe
Liam Proven wrote:Atheism is, generally, faith in the belief that there is no God. As opposed to merely not believing either way.
On 5 April 2011 08:23, Basil Chupin<blch...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
OK, what ARE you then? An atheist, a Buddhist, a Jew, a Hindu, a Taoist, or
any of the other non-Christian faiths?
Atheism is not a non-christian faith. Atheism is not a faith at all.
David Sanders
> to merely not believing either way.
I don't need faith to know that something invisible, unmeasurable and
intangible is non-existent. Atheism is not a faith, it's purely a view
informed by scientific method.
Avi Greenbury
>
> There's a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no
> god. I can't remember who said that saying atheism is a religion is like
> saying not collecting stamps is a hobby, but he was right on the money.
>
I don't think the second sentence supports your first.
Say we take stamp collection as analogous to believing in God. Not
believing in God would, therefore, be not collecting stamps. This would
probably be some form of agnosticism.
Atheism, though, goes one step further and claims there is no God. I
think the best we can do with the stamp collecting analogies is say this
is like habitually disposing of stamps, but that's not a great analogy.
Atheism appears to perform the same functions as a Religion - it
requires belief in a particular status of a deity or deities, and
succinctly answers the question of why we are here.
Mark Widdicombe
Mark Widdicombe wrote:I don't think the second sentence supports your first.
There's a difference between not believing in god and believing there is no
god. I can't remember who said that saying atheism is a religion is like
saying not collecting stamps is a hobby, but he was right on the money.
Why not?
Say we take stamp collection as analogous to believing in God. Not believing in God would, therefore, be not collecting stamps. This would probably be some form of agnosticism.
Atheism, though, goes one step further and claims there is no God. I think the best we can do with the stamp collecting analogies is say this is like habitually disposing of stamps, but that's not a great analogy.
I don't know of anyone who makes such a claim; you misunderstand what atheism is. We can say that it is *extremely unlikely* that gods exist, but I can't think of anyone who expresses faith in the notion that god does not exist.
Avi Greenbury
>> Atheism, though, goes one step further and claims there is no God. I think
>> the best we can do with the stamp collecting analogies is say this is like
>> habitually disposing of stamps, but that's not a great analogy.
>
> I don't know of anyone who makes such a claim; you misunderstand what
> atheism is. We can say that it is *extremely unlikely* that gods exist, but
> I can't think of anyone who expresses faith in the notion that god does not
> exist.
Ah, we're just using two different definitions of the same word, then.
Many of the people I've spoken to about this, who call themselves
Atheists, claim to know there is no God. I've, hence, been labelled an
agnostic for telling everyone who claims to know either way that they're
wrong :)