Ground Fault kills Church Pastor
Scott Dorsey
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Jona Vark
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dk5q8a$3n7$1...@panix2.panix.com...
not to mention the very act of grabbing a mic while waist deep in water..
Something I would NEVER do even with proper grounding, a GFI and a promise
from God that I wouldn't get zipped.
Lauren the Ravishing
Don Pearce
<lauren_the...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Damien must have been pleased.
Everybody with a brain should be pleased. Poetic justice, or what?
More please!!!
d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com
Paul Stamler
> news:dk5q8a$3n7$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> > You know what I'm going to say about proper grounding here:
And wireless mics.
Peace,
Paul
jakdedert
> You know what I'm going to say about proper grounding here:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
> --scott
It was God's will.....
jak
martin griffith
Intelligent Design, or the Darwin awards?
martin
Arny Krueger
news:ngv9f.31319$ty1....@bignews1.bellsouth.net
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
>> --scott
It was probably some person's screw-up.
God very rarely if ever confers immunity to the laws of
nature.
Phil Allison
"Arny Krueger"
>
> It was probably some person's screw-up.
>
** Who says the mic was live ?
The water may have been electrified and the mic provided a ground path.
......... Phil
wayne
Wayne
SSJVCmag
Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
> You know what I'm going to say about proper grounding here:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
> --scott
That $500 wireless system was just tooooooo expensive...
Ben Bradley
>
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dk5q8a$3n7$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> You know what I'm going to say about proper grounding here:
>>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>not to mention the very act of grabbing a mic while waist deep in water..
If any mic and cable and gooseneck/boom/stand/whatever should be
verified "safe", it's that one. Perhaps it was the Baptismal Tub that
wasn't properly grounded, and somehow got connected to the hot side of
the power line.
>Something I would NEVER do even with proper grounding, a GFI and a promise
>from God that I wouldn't get zipped.
You think He's gonna tell you when He as a gig He needs you to do
sound for?
Phil Allison
"wayne" <cathou...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1130811539.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> How's that again?
> Wayne
** Shout louder - I can't hear you !!
TOP POSTING FUCKWIT !!
............ Phil
t...@aerovons.com
"Everybody with a brain should be pleased. Poetic justice, or what?
More please!!! "
And anyone with a heart wouldn't post something so callous. The guy had
young children and a wife, and whether you agree with his religious
beliefs should be of no significance.
You have redefined the word "moron".
TH
Dr. Dolittle
0
>>Damien must have been pleased.
>
>
> Everybody with a brain should be pleased. Poetic justice, or what?
> More please!!!
Don? Why should we be pleased? (Yes I have a brain)
this]@ri.t-com.hr Edi Zubovic
Exactly! Now _that_ combination... just the same as drying hair while
tasking bath. Someone should inform these people; they should know the
issues.
Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia
Don Pearce
wrote:
Because the world is a slightly better place than it was before.
Don Pearce
<t...@aerovons.com> wrote:
No, you are wrong. These people are evil, and their wives and children
probably share that evil. The world is always better without such
people. This is cause for rejoicing.
Phil Allison
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com>
>
>>
>>"Everybody with a brain should be pleased. Poetic justice, or what?
>>More please!!! "
>>
>>And anyone with a heart wouldn't post something so callous. The guy had
>>young children and a wife, and whether you agree with his religious
>>beliefs should be of no significance.
>>
>>You have redefined the word "moron".
>>
>>TH
>
> No, you are wrong. These people are evil, and their wives and children
> probably share that evil. The world is always better without such
> people. This is cause for rejoicing.
** Don has just removed all doubt he is a red hot psychopath.
.......... Phil
David Morgan (MAMS)
"Ben Bradley" <ben_nospa...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> You think He's gonna tell you when He as a gig He needs you to do
> sound for?
Best line so far....
;-)
Mike Rivers
SSJVCmag wrote:
> That $500 wireless system was just tooooooo expensive...
For a church with 800 people attending a baptism? Don't they pass the
collection plate at those things?
Bob Gray
>
> Because the world is a slightly better place than it was before.
>
> d
Not after a comment like that, I think.
Bob
Don Pearce
wrote:
There are certain types that the world is always better without.
Nobody should be fearful of saying so.
Richard Crowley
> Don Pearce wrote:
>> Because the world is a slightly better place than it was before.
>
There is no prohibition about slandering Christians.
And lacking any public standards, the true character
of certain people are revealed by their own actions.
Richard Whisnant
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html
Arny Krueger
news:BF8C414F.161E7%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
>> --scott
That $13.00 GFCI was too expensive?
Tommy B
"We only use 10% of our brain"?
I don't want to throw a monkey wrench in the "Intelligent Design Theory"
;-), but what other animal takes delight in the misfortune that others of
it's kind endure.
Today's oxymoron, boys and girls is, "Tragiclly Funny"!
Tom
"Mike Rivers" <mri...@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:1130842702.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Don Pearce
Slander? Please explain.
The character of that Christian was certainly revealed by *his*
actions!
Richard Crowley
> "SSJVCmag" wrote ...
>> That $500 wireless system was just tooooooo expensive...
>
> That $13.00 GFCI was too expensive?
But the GFCI (required to be installed in areas where
water is likely) won't do any good when the equipment
with the wiring problem was at the other end of the room
where likely nobody thought there was any need for GFCI.
But even if I had done the wiring myself and tested it, I
would still not risk my life by touching a wired mic/stand.
There are just too many things to go wrong, and the risk is
too great.
Arny Krueger
news:43695945...@news.plus.net
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:56:00 GMT, Bob Gray
> <schope...@thinkers.org> wrote:
>
>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>
>>> Because the world is a slightly better place than it
>>> was before.
>>>
>>> d
>>
>> Not after a comment like that, I think.
>>
>> Bob
> There are certain types that the world is always better
> without. Nobody should be fearful of saying so.
What types of people might this be that the world is always
better without?
Arny Krueger
Phil Allison
"Don Pearce" :
> Slander? Please explain.
>
> The character of that Christian was certainly revealed by *his*
> actions!
>
** Don Pearce has just removed all doubt he is a red hot criminal
psychopath.
....... Phil Allison
Richard Whisnant
Arny Krueger
news:11menhp...@corp.supernews.com
> "Arny Krueger" wrote ...
>> "SSJVCmag" wrote ...
>>> That $500 wireless system was just tooooooo expensive...
>>
>> That $13.00 GFCI was too expensive?
>
> But the GFCI (required to be installed in areas where
> water is likely) won't do any good when the equipment
> with the wiring problem was at the other end of the room
> where likely nobody thought there was any need for GFCI.
Good point - there's some argument for powering a SR system
through a GFCI.
> But even if I had done the wiring myself and tested it, I
> would still not risk my life by touching a wired
> mic/stand.
I have a little more faith in my work. After all, I do my
own brake jobs and have been doing so for about 45 years.
> There are just too many things to go wrong,
> and the risk is too great.
In fact making a system safe after a single point failure is
sufficient to be safe enough for most practical purposes.
That's the operative principle behind common household items
like double-insulated electrical appliances.
Risk management is about reducing risks to a common,
acceptable standard, so if you will deign to use a
double-insulated electrical appliance, or a single-insulated
appliance with a ground, then application of the same
princple throughout your environemnt is reasonable.
Most people get nailed by risks they never knew they took.
Nothing is perfectly safe.
More people are killed by arrogance and ignornace than by
dangerous situations.
Don Pearce
wrote:
Religious proselytizers, liars and generally unpleasant riff-raff of
that sort.
Scott Dorsey
Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>"SSJVCmag" <t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com> wrote in message
>news:BF8C414F.161E7%t...@nozirev.gamnocssj.com
>> On 10/31/05 2:11 PM, in article
>> dk5q8a$3n7$1...@panix2.panix.com, "Scott Dorsey"
>> <klu...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You know what I'm going to say about proper grounding
>>> here:
>
>>> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
>
>
>That $13.00 GFCI was too expensive?
I don't know. But I will say that in all probability, that $1.50
two-pin cheater was very expensive indeed.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
Didn't you read? Grabbing hold of electrical equipment while up to his
waist in water. A triumph of faith over brain, if ever there was one.
Ty Ford
(in article <dk5q8a$3n7$1...@panix2.panix.com>):
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
Whatever your God, He/She/It calls you back when it's time.
Who was the sound contractor that did the install?
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com
Richard Crowley
> "Richard Crowley" wrote
>> water is likely) won't do any good when the equipment
>> with the wiring problem was at the other end of the room
>> where likely nobody thought there was any need for GFCI.
>
> Good point - there's some argument for powering a SR system
> through a GFCI.
>
>> But even if I had done the wiring myself and tested it, I
>> would still not risk my life by touching a wired
>> mic/stand.
>
> I have a little more faith in my work. After all, I do my
> own brake jobs and have been doing so for about 45 years.
Oh, I have as much faith in my work as you do in yours.
However, I also am aware of the possibility that the
person who vacuumed the carpets last night may have
broken something, or frayed a wire, or knocked a cord
out and re-plugged it in to the wrong socket, or the safety
ground wire is attached to a rusting screw, etc. etc. etc.
ad nauseum.
>> There are just too many things to go wrong,
>> and the risk is too great.
>
> In fact making a system safe after a single point failure is
> sufficient to be safe enough for most practical purposes.
> That's the operative principle behind common household
> items like double-insulated electrical appliances.
I can't think of ANY examples of wired electrical
devices that are intended for use while standing in
water. Can you?
OTOH, the safety of custom-install sound systems is
reliant on the (unknown) judgement of the (unknown)
last person who worked on it. I'm unwilling to risk my
life to that, even when I know everyone who has keys
to the building.
> Risk management is about reducing risks to a common,
> acceptable standard, so if you will deign to use a
> double-insulated electrical appliance, or a single-insulated
> appliance with a ground, then application of the same
> princple throughout your environemnt is reasonable.
Yes, I am aware of risk management. My employer's
safety record is a couple orders of magnitude greater
than our industry standards. But it doesn't take that kind
fanaticism to know that using wired electrical/electronic
equipment while submerged is just way too risky.
Arny Krueger
I was afraid that was the case.
For example, a large fraction of preent-say agnostics,
atheists and other skeptics can be found gathering under the
banner of "Secular Humanism". Yet, the Secular Humanism
movement started out unabashedly religious at the point of
its founding in the early 20th century, and has remained
unabashedly religious for most of its existence. Arguably,
many of the current adherents of Secular Humanism were
brought into the movement by religious proselytizers.
Just because its based in skepticism and does not include
faith in a diety or dieties, doesn't mean that its not a
religion.
Don Pearce
wrote:
I have no idea why you just wrote any of that.
black...@aol.com
Don Pearce wrote:
> >>>> Because the world is a slightly better place than it
> >>>> was before.
> >>>>
> >>>> d
> >>>
> >>> Not after a comment like that, I think.
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >
> >> There are certain types that the world is always better
> >> without. Nobody should be fearful of saying so.
> >
> >What types of people might this be that the world is always
> >better without?
> >
>
> Religious proselytizers, liars and generally unpleasant riff-raff of
> that sort.
What, he deserved to be electrocuted because he was a fundamentalist?
One need not be supporter of fundamentalists to be appalled at THAT
comment. You guys need to stop listening to the BBC for awhile and get
a dose of reality. And humanity.
The man had a right to believe what he chose and not be electrocuted
for it. Nor slandered by an intellectual midget. This was a tragedy,
dimwit.
Arny Krueger
Well Don, there's a lot of faith involved in navigating juat
about any modern household.
For example, I hear tell that "electric showers" are popular
in the UK. It appears from this side of the pond that
grabbing the showerhead or faucets of of an electric shower
takes no more or less faith in technology in grabbing a mic
while standing in water.
In both cases the right things are supposed to be, in
accordance with standard legal and technical requirements,
grounded and/or insulated in proper ways.
Arny Krueger
Well Don, if the world is better off without people who are
arugably religious proselytizers, you probably cut out a lot
of the underpinings of your own belief system.
If you understand the history of Science, you know that at
one point much of what we now call Science was once
practiced as any number of religions. There are some
post-modernists who argue that much of what we now call
Science is in fact Scientism, a religion.
Most religions are about faith, and promote faith. Since
none of us have a thorough understanding of everything we
work with, we all take a lot on faith. Furhtmore its a tenet
of true science that a lot of our current knowlege about
science is either incomplete or flawed or both. Therefore
what we call science is significantly based on faith in what
are arguably fables.
This differs from a religion, how?
Arny Krueger
news:1130854565....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>>>> Because the world is a slightly better place than it
>>>>>> was before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> d
>>>>>
>>>>> Not after a comment like that, I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>
>>>> There are certain types that the world is always better
>>>> without. Nobody should be fearful of saying so.
>>>
>>> What types of people might this be that the world is
>>> always better without?
>>>
>>
>> Religious proselytizers, liars and generally unpleasant
>> riff-raff of that sort.
>
> What, he deserved to be electrocuted because he was a
> fundamentalist?
Sorry pal, but this church was no way a fundamentalist
church. He was an evengelical, probably tilted on the
liberal side of evengelicalism.
>One need not be supporter of
> fundamentalists to be appalled at THAT comment. You guys
> need to stop listening to the BBC for awhile and get a
> dose of reality. And humanity.
Agreed that it takes an absence of humanity to not grieve
over the accidently loss of a person is far from being a
dangerous criminal.
> The man had a right to believe what he chose and not be
> electrocuted for it.
Yes - if his working environment met legal standards, this
would not have happened.
> Nor slandered by an intellectual midget. This was a
> tragedy, dimwit.
I don't know about "dimwit" but I do see someone who seems
to have a lot of dangerous baggage.
Arny Krueger
> "Arny Krueger" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote
>>> But the GFCI (required to be installed in areas where
>>> water is likely) won't do any good when the equipment
>>> with the wiring problem was at the other end of the room
>>> where likely nobody thought there was any need for GFCI.
>>
>> Good point - there's some argument for powering a SR
>> system through a GFCI.
>>
>>> But even if I had done the wiring myself and tested it,
>>> I would still not risk my life by touching a wired
>>> mic/stand.
>>
>> I have a little more faith in my work. After all, I do my
>> own brake jobs and have been doing so for about 45 years.
>
> Oh, I have as much faith in my work as you do in yours.
> However, I also am aware of the possibility that the
> person who vacuumed the carpets last night may have
> broken something, or frayed a wire, or knocked a cord
> out and re-plugged it in to the wrong socket, or the
> safety ground wire is attached to a rusting screw, etc.
> etc. etc. ad nauseum.
The critical things that might break are per electrical
code, supposed to be either very robust or protected from
breaking or both.
Failures due to frayed wires are supposed to fail safe.
There are not supposed to be any "wrong sockets" where
plugging something into them would cause a problem.
Grounding screws are supposed to be painted and plated so
they don't rust.
The US standard electrical code is supposed to be that fool
proof and that detailed. Furthermore, states and
municipalities in the US generally amend the standard code
to be stricter if they amend it at all.
>>> There are just too many things to go wrong,
>>> and the risk is too great.
>>
>> In fact making a system safe after a single point
>> failure is sufficient to be safe enough for most
>> practical purposes. That's the operative principle
>> behind common household items like double-insulated
>> electrical appliances.
>
> I can't think of ANY examples of wired electrical
> devices that are intended for use while standing in
> water. Can you?
Swimming pool pumps immediately come to mind. Motors in
whirlpool baths. Sump pumps. There's obviously more, but
those come quickly to mind.
> OTOH, the safety of custom-install sound systems is
> reliant on the (unknown) judgement of the (unknown)
> last person who worked on it. I'm unwilling to risk my
> life to that, even when I know everyone who has keys
> to the building.
That's a choice you get to make.
Its something I bear in mind when I become "the last person
who worked on it".
>> Risk management is about reducing risks to a common,
>> acceptable standard, so if you will deign to use a
>> double-insulated electrical appliance, or a
>> single-insulated appliance with a ground, then
>> application of the same princple throughout your
>> environemnt is reasonable.
> Yes, I am aware of risk management. My employer's
> safety record is a couple orders of magnitude greater
> than our industry standards. But it doesn't take that
> kind fanaticism to know that using wired
> electrical/electronic equipment while submerged is just
> way too risky.
There's a lot of people who don't have that luxury. They
often give that luxury up to get other benefits.
Arny Krueger
news:dk7rub$rql$1...@panix2.panix.com
In fact we just don't know enough about this regrettable
sitaution to understand how it came to be.
It was a relatively new church that seems to have money to
spend. Some kind of mismanagment somewhere.
Anahata
> A triumph of faith over brain, if ever there was one.
That Arab proverb springs to mind:
"trust in Allah, but tether your camels"
(though I doubt this had anything to do with faith, just plain ignorance)
Anahata
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
On 31 Oct 2005 11:27:42 -0800, "Lauren the Ravishing"
> <lauren_the...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Damien must have been pleased.
>
>
> Everybody with a brain should be pleased. Poetic justice, or what?
> More please!!!
Darwin nominee?
--
Dirk
The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Hey! What about me - I'm Asatru!
Surely all you Xians should rejoice now that he's with your Lord.
[Although maybe Odin or Thor zapped him...]
Don Pearce
wrote:
>> I have no idea why you just wrote any of that.
>
>Well Don, if the world is better off without people who are
>arugably religious proselytizers, you probably cut out a lot
>of the underpinings of your own belief system.
>
>If you understand the history of Science, you know that at
>one point much of what we now call Science was once
>practiced as any number of religions. There are some
>post-modernists who argue that much of what we now call
>Science is in fact Scientism, a religion.
>
>Most religions are about faith, and promote faith. Since
>none of us have a thorough understanding of everything we
>work with, we all take a lot on faith. Furhtmore its a tenet
>of true science that a lot of our current knowlege about
>science is either incomplete or flawed or both. Therefore
>what we call science is significantly based on faith in what
>are arguably fables.
>
>This differs from a religion, how?
>
Science is not about faith in any shape or form. It is about
pragmatism, and useful guesses, any of which can be overturned at a
moment's notice when new evidence emerges. This makes it fundamentally
different from religion, which simply restates the lie.
Don Pearce
<black...@aol.com> wrote:
I couldn't give a damn what he believed - his fairies can have
whatever colour dresses they like. It is the proselytization I find
deeply offensive, preying as it does on the weakness and ignorance of
the average superstitious peasant. It is tyranny, and yes, it deserves
death.
And your is the second post that mentions slander. Please illuminate.
Don Pearce
wrote:
You are committing a logical fallacy by using the word faith in two
different ways. Kindly examine and repost properly.
Don Pearce
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>
> On 31 Oct 2005 11:27:42 -0800, "Lauren the Ravishing"
>> <lauren_the...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Damien must have been pleased.
>>
>>
>> Everybody with a brain should be pleased. Poetic justice, or what?
>> More please!!!
>
>Darwin nominee?
One can but hope that he hadn't bred.
Ricky Hunt
news:43677d8d$0$63077$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
> That Arab proverb springs to mind:
> "trust in Allah, but tether your camels"
>
> (though I doubt this had anything to do with faith, just plain ignorance)
Of course it doesn't. The ignorant ones are the ones who are writing it up
as a faith or religious issue.
Springer
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:6MydnXwR2plK6vre...@comcast.com...
> Just because its based in skepticism and does not include
> faith in a diety or dieties, doesn't mean that its not a
> religion.
Atheism is not a religion. In its true form it's an intellectual dismissal
of religion.
A true (a)theist is, literally without theism. Anyone who claims any belief
in *any* sort of mysticism, deity, "other/higher/unknown etc. power" by
default is not an atheist.
See "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith
Scott Dorsey
>none of us have a thorough understanding of everything we
>work with, we all take a lot on faith. Furhtmore its a tenet
>of true science that a lot of our current knowlege about
>science is either incomplete or flawed or both. Therefore
>what we call science is significantly based on faith in what
>are arguably fables.
This is an unfortunately common misconception of the nature of science.
There _are_ many scientific principles that today need to be taken with
some degree of faith, in that they are inferred from a limited amount of
observation.
But, it's the _purpose_ of science to minimize them. Science is the
process of understanding the principles by which events occur, so that
faith is no longer needed.
Science is all about skepticism.
>This differs from a religion, how?
A religion encourages people to believe in things without proof, which
is a good thing for metaphysical things that cannot be proven or
disproven.
Science encourages people to believe only in things with proof, which
is a good thing for physical things that can be proven or disproven.
James
> This differs from a religion, how?
Religion defines and limits how one may perceive things. A true scientist
is constantly seeking to confirm and expand knowledge, explore the unknown
whereas religion has primarily impeded, often violently, the expansion of
knowledge.
Science is based on logic, reason, the recognition of the efficacy of one's
rational faculties. Religion rests on the abdication and denouncement of
them.
No, not all things are known, but if you believe a current tenet of science
is incorrect, you're challenged to prove it wrong. What you're calling
"faith" in respect to science is a reasoned dependence on certain
propositions that have been arrived at by some method of deduction.
"Faith" in the religious sense is an entirely different animal. It means
acceptance of doctrine without expectation that it be based on evidence and
even worse, in defiance of evidence. Science demands that you use your mind,
religion demands that you don't.
Once upon a time, one took their life in their hands by daring to oppose
church doctrine. Heretics aren't generally publicly executed here or other
modern western nations any longer but look at the Middle East. Islamic
countries aren't known as lands of tolerance.
Animix
"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
news:436b71fd...@news.plus.net...
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 07:31:27 -0500, "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Don Pearce" <don...@pearce.uk.com> wrote in message
> >news:43695945...@news.plus.net
> >> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:56:00 GMT, Bob Gray
> >> <schope...@thinkers.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Don Pearce wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Because the world is a slightly better place than it
> >>>> was before.
> >>>>
> >>>> d
> >>>
> >>> Not after a comment like that, I think.
> >>>
> >>> Bob
> >
> >> There are certain types that the world is always better
> >> without. Nobody should be fearful of saying so.
> >
> >What types of people might this be that the world is always
> >better without?
> >
>
> Religious proselytizers, liars and generally unpleasant riff-raff of
> that sort.
>
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
>
> Just because its based in skepticism and does not include
> faith in a diety or dieties, doesn't mean that its not a
> religion.
Yes, it does. To be a religion it must have a belief in the supernatural.
--
Aaron
pa...@nospam.net
<dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hey! What about me - I'm Asatru!
>Surely all you Xians should rejoice now that he's with your Lord.
>[Although maybe Odin or Thor zapped him...]
If this is true you should know your own history as well. Asatru grew
out of the neopagan movement that was ostensibly begun in the 1950's
by Gerald Gardner. Gardener didn't invent his religion (Wicca) out of
whole cloth, he harkened back to practices of ritual magic,
spiritualism and occultism of the 1850's. The folks in secret
societies from those times, were Rosicrucian, and Masons who were all
very devout Christians.
Their is no direct unbroken link to any truly ancient practices of
Neolithic to modern man, but we do celebrate many festivals on
solstices and equinoxes.
This doesn't negate your religion in the least, by it is good to know
which myth stories are empowering and which are not.
Arny's point" Most religions are about faith, and promote faith. Since
none of us have a thorough understanding of everything we
work with, we all take a lot on faith."
Is worth repeating.
J. P. Morris
> misposted this earlier, I should have waited until the coffee kicked in...
>
> Interesting, troubling account of Sony's DRM implementation:
>
>
http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html
Fantastic. And horrifying. And, as they say, a pretty clear breach of the
Computer Misuse Act. Thanks for sharing this.
--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- j...@it-he.org
Anti-walkthroughs for Deus Ex, Thief and Ultima http://www.it-he.org
Reign of the Just - An Ultima clone http://rotj.it-he.org
The DMFA radio series project http://dmfa.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KAW u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)
Don Pearce
wrote:
>You are a dickhead dude.
Wow! Never been called a dude before. Cool!
jakdedert
> SSJVCmag wrote:
>
>
>>That $500 wireless system was just tooooooo expensive...
>
>
> collection plate at those things?
>
Really...$500 would have gotten them a *very* nice wireless system.
*$100* would have been adequate, sound-wise...and saved the guy's life....
jak
pa...@nospam.net
wrote:
> It is the proselytization I find
>deeply offensive, preying as it does on the weakness and ignorance of
>the average superstitious peasant. It is tyranny, and yes, it deserves
>death.
I find it offensive as well, but it is no worse than any other con
artist and perhaps deserves similar sentencing. The problem is like
scientism his beliefs aren't disprovable since they are based on a
belief. Often folks proselytize to convince themselves. I regrettably
did it while trying to keep on a live food diet, that work for me, but
was very socially ostracizing. No Companionship Con ( with) Pan
(bread) the thing we've shared as a staple for centuries.
Try a little compassion it goes a long way to heal hatred.
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
Just put it down to an act of God...
--
Arny Krueger
This differs from a modern view of Christianity, how?
>This makes it fundamentally different from
> religion, which simply restates the lie.
To lie, one has to first know and if you want to be picky,
actually believe the truth but represent otherwise.
Don, this makes you different from just about everybody
else, not to mention my late friend in the baptistry, how?
jakdedert
> Don Pearce wrote:
>
> On 31 Oct 2005 11:27:42 -0800, "Lauren the Ravishing"
>
>> <lauren_the...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Damien must have been pleased.
>>
>>
>>
>> Everybody with a brain should be pleased. Poetic justice, or what?
>> More please!!!
>
>
> Darwin nominee?
>
his survivors will never trust electricity and water in close proximity
again. In that sense, I guess Darwin could be invoked.
jak
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 15:02:35 +0000, Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> <dirk....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hey! What about me - I'm Asatru!
>>Surely all you Xians should rejoice now that he's with your Lord.
>>[Although maybe Odin or Thor zapped him...]
>
>
> If this is true you should know your own history as well. Asatru grew
> out of the neopagan movement that was ostensibly begun in the 1950's
> by Gerald Gardner. Gardener didn't invent his religion (Wicca) out of
> whole cloth, he harkened back to practices of ritual magic,
> spiritualism and occultism of the 1850's. The folks in secret
> societies from those times, were Rosicrucian, and Masons who were all
> very devout Christians.
Asatru (or Odinism in Britain) goes back before Gardner and has nothing to do
with him at all.
> Their is no direct unbroken link to any truly ancient practices of
> Neolithic to modern man, but we do celebrate many festivals on
> solstices and equinoxes.
> This doesn't negate your religion in the least, by it is good to know
> which myth stories are empowering and which are not.
The unbroken link are the existing historical texts and N European mythology.
> Arny's point" Most religions are about faith, and promote faith. Since
> none of us have a thorough understanding of everything we
> work with, we all take a lot on faith."
> Is worth repeating.
Well, literally *everything* is theory, hypothesis or faith.
Give solipsism a try...
BTW, just looked it up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_Neopaganism
"Odinism
Coined by Orestes Brownson in 1848, in A revival of Odinism, or the old
Scandinavian heathenism, and re-introduced in the late 1930's by Alexander Rud
Mills, and in the 1960s to early 1970s with Else Christensen's Odinist
Fellowship in America, and by the Odinic Rite in England, the term focuses on
worship of Odin in particular, and in the narrow sense refers to the Odinic Rite
society, but in a wider sense it is also used synonymously with Ásatrú or Heathen."
I used to be a member of the OR.
--
Animix
Glad I could be of help.
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:26:40 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>
>> Most religions are about faith, and promote faith. Since
>> none of us have a thorough understanding of everything we
>> tenet of true science that a lot of our current knowlege
>> about science is either incomplete or flawed or both.
>> Therefore what we call science is significantly based on
>> faith in what are arguably fables.
> This is an unfortunately common misconception of the
> nature of science.
Let's see if you can support this claim, Scott.
OK, so right up front a so-called *proper* conception of
science can't deal with the following claim of mine:
"Since none of us have a thorough understanding of
everything we
work with, we all take a lot on faith."
I'll take your response as a "no comment" - IOW no
refutation.
> There _are_ many scientific principles that today need to
> be taken with some degree of faith, in that they are
> inferred from a limited amount of observation.
That seems to agree with the following:
Furthmore its a tenet of true science that a lot of our
current knowlege
about science is either incomplete or flawed or both.
Again, no refutation.
> But, it's the _purpose_ of science to minimize them.
I've got no problem with that, and my alleged misconception
did not address this. IOW, no refutation.
> Science is the process of understanding the principles by
> which events occur, so that faith is no longer needed.
I've got no problem with that, and my alleged misconception
did not address this. IOW, no refutation.
> Science is all about skepticism.
I've got no problem with that, and my alleged misconception
did not address this. IOW, no refutation.
>> This differs from a religion, how?
> A religion encourages people to believe in things without
> proof, which is a good thing for metaphysical things that
> cannot be proven or disproven.
Again, no refutation.
> Science encourages people to believe only in things with
> proof, which is a good thing for physical things that can
> be proven or disproven.
Again, no refutation.
In conclusion, the claim:
"This is an unfortunately common misconception of the
nature of science."
Remains totally unsupported. I'm too much of a skeptic to
believe it. ;-)
Arny Krueger
news:OCM9f.4237$AS6....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
> news:0pWdnZeEvew...@comcast.com...
>
>> This differs from a religion, how?
> Religion defines and limits how one may perceive things.
Here we go again, a wild assertion with no support.
> A true scientist is constantly seeking to confirm and
> expand knowledge, explore the unknown whereas religion
> has primarily impeded, often violently, the expansion of
> knowledge.
While it is true that some religions and some religious
leaders have stuggled with science, its improper to
generalize from that to any kind of far-reaching conclusion.
> Science is based on logic, reason, the recognition of the
> efficacy of one's rational faculties.
So far so good.
> Religion rests on the abdication and denouncement of
> them.
Please see my previous comment about "some religions and
some religious leaders".
> No, not all things are known, but if you believe a
> current tenet of science is incorrect, you're challenged
> to prove it wrong.
The same is true in many religions.
> What you're calling "faith" in respect
> to science is a reasoned dependence on certain
> propositions that have been arrived at by some method of
> deduction.
The same is true in many religions.
> "Faith" in the religious sense is an entirely different
> animal. It means acceptance of doctrine without
> expectation that it be based on evidence and even worse,
> in defiance of evidence.
Please see my previous comment about "some religions and
some religious leaders".
> Science demands that you use
> your mind, religion demands that you don't.
Please see my previous comment about "some religions and
some religious leaders".
> Once upon a time, one took their life in their hands by
> daring to oppose church doctrine.
That was true of both people in certain religions and also
people with certain scientific beliefs.
>Heretics aren't
> generally publicly executed here or other modern western
> nations any longer but look at the Middle East. Islamic
> countries aren't known as lands of tolerance.
Please see my previous comment about "some religions and
some religious leaders".
pa...@nospam.net
wrote:
>Religion defines and limits how one may perceive things.
There are more types of observation and perception than exist in your
philosophy my dear fellow. There are empirical ways to observe to
remove the experiencer from the experience and their are the opposite
ways that allow you to experience deity or oneness or even subtle
forms of telepathy.
>
>Science is based on logic, reason, the recognition of the efficacy of one's
>rational faculties. Religion rests on the abdication and denouncement of
>them.
>
Harsh and not always true.
>No, not all things are known, but if you believe a current tenet of science
>is incorrect, you're challenged to prove it wrong. What you're calling
>"faith" in respect to science is a reasoned dependence on certain
>propositions that have been arrived at by some method of deduction.
>
Just read Discover magazine and you'll see that the debate about the
Big bang creation myth's factualness is still reasonably in question
by the belief (scientifically founded naturally) in The Steady state
theory.
The Burbidges who are the chief proponents of Steady state are being
stoned for their beliefs, the Burbidges are the same scientists who
formerly brought us one of the seminal papers of the century "The
Synthesis of Elements in the Stars". The discovery of how all the
heavier elements are formed in stars from Hydrogen.
>"Faith" in the religious sense is an entirely different animal. It means
>acceptance of doctrine without expectation that it be based on evidence and
>even worse, in defiance of evidence. Science demands that you use your mind,
>religion demands that you don't.
>
Not always true, and very narrow definition of mind.
>Once upon a time, one took their life in their hands by daring to oppose
>church doctrine. Heretics aren't generally publicly executed here or other
>modern western nations any longer but look at the Middle East. Islamic
>countries aren't known as lands of tolerance.
>
It's getting to be the pot calling the kettle black in the States. I
don't see much tolerance or intelligence coming from the right wing
Christians. Besides we only hear the worst parts of their newscast.
Don Pearce
wrote:
>> Science is not about faith in any shape or form. It is
>> about pragmatism, and useful guesses, any of which can be
>> overturned at a moment's notice when new evidence
>> emerges.
>
>This differs from a modern view of Christianity, how?
>
I'm stunned that you can even ask. Where should I start? The
fundamental tenet of Christianity is that you believe, without proof,
and you aren't permitted to question, that there is a supernatural
being directing the universe.
>>This makes it fundamentally different from
>> religion, which simply restates the lie.
>
>To lie, one has to first know and if you want to be picky,
>actually believe the truth but represent otherwise.
>
That would describe just about every intelligent Christian I have ever
come across. The fact that they also lie to themselves doesn't save
the situation.
>Don, this makes you different from just about everybody
>else, not to mention my late friend in the baptistry, how?
>
>
I don't believe palpable nonsense. Listen carefully: There ain't no
fairies. Get it?
Scott Dorsey
>Let's see if you can support this claim, Scott.
>
>OK, so right up front a so-called *proper* conception of
>science can't deal with the following claim of mine:
>
>"Since none of us have a thorough understanding of
>everything we
> work with, we all take a lot on faith."
Right, but this has nothing to do with science. You can say, "I can't
support this but it works just fine." That's not a scientific
observation. That's engineering. As an engineer, much of what I do
isn't science, and a lot of it does rest on faith. As long as it works,
that's fine.
Paul Stamler
news:0pWdnZeEvew...@comcast.com...
> Well Don, if the world is better off without people who are
> arugably religious proselytizers, you probably cut out a lot
> of the underpinings of your own belief system.
>
> If you understand the history of Science, you know that at
> one point much of what we now call Science was once
> practiced as any number of religions. There are some
> post-modernists who argue that much of what we now call
> Science is in fact Scientism, a religion.
>
> Most religions are about faith, and promote faith. Since
> none of us have a thorough understanding of everything we
> work with, we all take a lot on faith. Furhtmore its a tenet
> of true science that a lot of our current knowlege about
> science is either incomplete or flawed or both. Therefore
> what we call science is significantly based on faith in what
> are arguably fables.
>
> This differs from a religion, how?
In one crucial way: the beliefs of science are testable and subject to being
disproved. The central beliefs of religion are not.
Which has little or nothing to do with whether the world is better off
without certain human beings. Annoyed as I get with religious proselytizers,
they are human beings, and seeing them killed violates *my* beliefs as a
secular humanist. This qualifies as a Darwin Award event, but it's still
possible to grieve for a human being and the family that loved him.
Peace,
Paul
Jay Kadis
wrote:
Simply because one doesn't know something doesn't mean it is therefore
unknowable. Making up answers to questions (as religions do) is not a proper
substitute for the hard work of rational, scientific investigation. You're free
to depend on faith, but don't be surprised when you are confronted with
realities that do not comply with your beliefs.
The current tendency to blindly adopt religion and dismiss science is going to
cost this country (the US) its economic lead in the near future. And its
scientific lead as well. Choose wisely...
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Paul Stamler
news:419fm1d8toa14uiio...@4ax.com...
> Just read Discover magazine and you'll see that the debate about the
> Big bang creation myth's factualness is still reasonably in question
> by the belief (scientifically founded naturally) in The Steady state
> theory.
> The Burbidges who are the chief proponents of Steady state are being
> stoned for their beliefs, the Burbidges are the same scientists who
> formerly brought us one of the seminal papers of the century "The
> Synthesis of Elements in the Stars". The discovery of how all the
> heavier elements are formed in stars from Hydrogen.
Stoned for their beliefs? That's horrible; has someone notified the police?
Were they badly injured?
Oh, you didn't mean stoned, you meant criticized and perhaps ridiculed. It's
not quite the same, you know. I haven't heard of anyone killed for a
scientific belief since Bruno, several centuries ago. The consequences of
scientific heresy are somewhat less dire these days than those of religious
heresy.
Peace,
Paul
Paul Stamler
news:_lN9f.34169$ty1...@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Lamarck.
Peace,
Paul
Geoff@home
this by publicly wasting an infidel.
geoff
Geoff@home
"Paul Stamler" <pstaml...@pobox.com> wrote in message news:aDO9f.18894
>
> Stoned for their beliefs? That's horrible; has someone notified the
> police?
> Were they badly injured?
Do rastas get stoned for their beliefs ?
geoff
Geoff@home
<black...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> What, he deserved to be electrocuted because he was a fundamentalist?
No, but it was not a good advertisement for his brand !
geoff
Geoff@home
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 09:20:21 -0700, "Animix" <spam...@fuckoff.com>
> wrote:
>
>>You are a dickhead dude.
>
> Wow! Never been called a dude before. Cool!
Don't get carried away - he wasn't calling you a "cool dude".
geoff
Don Pearce
Still, close enough for an optimist like me.
fredbloggstwo
> You know what I'm going to say about proper grounding here:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Was that "Waco" or Wacko" basic rule electricity and water don't mix in any
combination.
GregS
Being in water up to the shoulders, i don't see where holding anything is a good idea.
greg
Frank Vuotto
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/31/pastor.electrocuted.ap/index.html
What better end could an entertainer have ? He went out
doing his 'schitck', mic in hand.
I'll bet it was a good show, there must be video.
Frank /~ http://newmex.com/f10
@/
Arny Krueger
news:jay-42A89E.1...@news.stanford.edu
> In article <dk8be8$3d2$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>>> Let's see if you can support this claim, Scott.
>>>
>>> OK, so right up front a so-called *proper* conception of
>>> science can't deal with the following claim of mine:
>>>
>>> "Since none of us have a thorough understanding of
>>> everything we
>>> work with, we all take a lot on faith."
>> Right, but this has nothing to do with science.
Yes it does, as it has a lot to do with the similarities
between how people take scientific knowlege on faith and how
people take religious teachings on faith. If its wrong to
accept religious teachings just on faith then its wrong to
take anything on just on faith, even if that which is being
taken on faith is based on science.
> You can
>> say, "I can't support this but it works just fine."
>> That's not a scientific observation. That's
>> engineering. As an engineer, much of what I do isn't
>> science, and a lot of it does rest on faith. As long
>> as it works, that's fine. --scott
> Simply because one doesn't know something doesn't mean it
> is therefore unknowable.
However, just because something is thought to be known
doesn't mean that our knowlege of it is accurate.
>Making up answers to questions
> (as religions do) is not a proper substitute for the hard
> work of rational, scientific investigation.
Religions are hardly alone in the game of making up answers
to questions. Before it was known for sure whether the world
was flat or round, saying that the earth was either flat or
round was a made-up answer, right? The Philogston theory of
matter was a made-up answer that Science taught for years.
Furthermore just because the answer comes out of religious
tradition doesn't mean that its a made-up answer.
> You're free
> to depend on faith, but don't be surprised when you are
> confronted with realities that do not comply with your
> beliefs.
I never am surprised, whether we're talking about my
spiritual beliefs or religious beliefs or scientific
beliefs. All findings of science and religion are
provisional until more accurate findings are obtained.
> The current tendency to blindly adopt religion and
> dismiss science is going to cost this country (the US)
> its economic lead in the near future.
Any tendency to blindly accept *anything* is risky to say
the least. Recipie for disaster is more like it!
> And its scientific lead as well. Choose wisely...
My operational life hypothesis in this regard is that all
correct findings of Science and all of my religious and
spiritual beliefs *must* either agree or be irrelevant.
Arny Krueger
news:6gP9f.100$xD6....@news.xtra.co.nz
> There obviously is an omnipotent and omnipresent god. He
> was demonstrating this by publicly wasting an infidel.
Since the God I believe in is omnipotent, in some sense he's
responsible for everything that happens.
You may be surprised to find that I showed the OP article to
my pastor, and he said "What a way to go!".
Surely for an evengelical pastor, its way ahead of dying in
some 14 year old boy's bed! ;-)
Arny Krueger
> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005 12:15:54 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> <ar...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>>> Science is not about faith in any shape or form. It is
>>> about pragmatism, and useful guesses, any of which can
>>> be overturned at a moment's notice when new evidence
>>> emerges.
>>
>> This differs from a modern view of Christianity, how?
>>
> I'm stunned that you can even ask. Where should I start?
> The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that you
> believe, without proof, and you aren't permitted to
> question, that there is a supernatural being directing
> the universe.
That would be an incorrect statement seemingly rooted in a
strange belief that Don Pierce understands my beliefs better
than I do, when I've never actually stated them in public
until now.
The fundamental tenet of Christianity for me is that,
knowing full well that scientific proof or disproof is
impossible, I choose to attempt to operate in agreement with
the supernatural entity that seems to be directing this
universe and everything else.
>>> This makes it fundamentally different from
>>> religion, which simply restates the lie.
>> To lie, one has to first know and if you want to be
>> picky, actually believe the truth but represent
>> otherwise.
> That would describe just about every intelligent
> Christian I have ever come across.
How do you know what they think the truth is?
> The fact that they also lie to themselves doesn't save
> the situation.
It is rather presumptious if not delusional to think you
know their minds better than they do.
I don't know if a person can lie to themselves. They can
believe illusions and false claims, but lieing to oneself is
an oxymoron.
>> Don, this makes you different from just about everybody
>> else, not to mention my late friend in the baptistry,
>> how?
> I don't believe palpable nonsense. Listen carefully:
> There ain't no fairies. Get it?
Never said there was. However, I'm also aware of the
difficulties of proving negative hypotheses. I agree that
scientific proof for the existence of fairies seems to be
highly elusive.
Ben Bradley
<reco...@room2b.com> wrote:
>misposted this earlier, I should have waited until the coffee kicked in...
>
>Interesting, troubling account of Sony's DRM implementation:
>
>http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/sony-rootkits-and-digital-rights.html
This is "yesderday's news" on slashdot, but still pertinent today:
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/31/2016223
My computer is set not to "autorun" when you stick something in the
CD drive (the driver that looks for discs as well as a bunch of other
useless "helper" things are disabled from loading thanks to msconfig).
If an audio CD won't read with EAC I probably won't listen to it.
Furthermore, I don't think this rootkit thing will load on Windows 98.
Now listening to Paul Anka's "Rock Swings" (Verve, not Sony).
James
You're right but from your previous statements you don't understand why
you're right. While they may speak English, wear a suit and tie and may not
set off bombs and execute people in the name of "God", right wing
Christians or *any* other religious sect are in exactly the same
philosophical camp as any apoplectic jihadist Muslim. It's only due to their
own lack of understanding that they claim moral or intellectual superiority.
They're equally philosophically bankrupt.
Dr. Dolittle
> The character of that Christian was certainly revealed by *his*
> actions!
>
How so?
Dr. Dolittle
> Didn't you read? Grabbing hold of electrical equipment while up to his
> waist in water. A triumph of faith over brain, if ever there was one.
Well you might know about more about microphone circuits than the
average person.
Most people would not think a microphone his live current going through
it. In fact I wouldn't have even thought that.
Regardless, the real moron here is you.
Dr. Dolittle
> I have no idea
Seems obvious.
Dr. Dolittle
> Still, close enough for an optimist like me.
Don,
I am not a religous person. And I think preachers or full of it. But
deserving of death because of their profession/beliefs?
What about Bose salesman? Should they be sentenced to death as well?
Get a grip, my friend.
Richard Crowley
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>> I'm stunned that you can even ask. Where should I start?
>> The fundamental tenet of Christianity is that you
>> believe, without proof, and you aren't permitted to
>> question, that there is a supernatural being directing
>> the universe.
>
> That would be an incorrect statement seemingly rooted in a strange belief
> that Don Pierce understands my beliefs better than I do, when I've never
> actually stated them in public until now.
Mr. Pierce needn't have explicitly reveal that he is stunned.
I think we've all got the point months ago. "Scientific proof"
changes from century to century (and even decade-to-decade)
Most of the published "scientific proof" that the Bible is fiction
has been widely debunked.
Dr. Dolittle
> Most of the published "scientific proof" that the Bible is fiction
> has been widely debunked.
Is that so?
That the Bible is fiction would be the logical assumption. Proof would
be required to show otherwise. Which is obviously impossible to provide.