Daniel J Stern wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
>
> > > >Gays can use their sexual preference as grounds for protected status.
>
> > > Bet you thinks black can use their skin color for that too.
>
> > Uhh - it is done all the time.
>
> Yes. And your reaction to that is?

I just stated a fact. Do I need to react? OK - since you asked -
Personally I don't like racism and discrimination in either direction -
and that goes for affirmative action too.

FYI, I grew up in a county that made national and international
headlines in the mid and late 50's because it defied the feds on
integration and closed the public schools for 4 years to avoid it -
i.e., the blacks literally had no school for 4 years. The area is still
suffering almost 50 years later for its foolish actions. I can't tell
you how many times me and my siblings were called "ni****-lover when we
were growing up because of the stand that my family took against what
the county was doing. So I see both sides of the issue - and I repeat -
discrimination in either direction is wrong.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
>
> Buddy Ebsen wrote:
> > ...The xtian faith is...
>
> Never heard of this xtian faith? Is this something new?
>
> Matt

You know, Matt - it's clear what the problem is here. I think he must
be one of those Christ-phobes or God-phobes. 8^)

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Dr. Zachary Smith wrote:
> "Kuzie" <greg.kuzmanich@NOSPAMintel.com> wrote in message
> news:ben8rt$oj5$1@news01.intel.com...
> : New day...new name...same loser...
> :
> :
> Do you have anything intelligent to post? Can you articulate one tiny little thought in
> that ape's brain of yours? It's really funny you tell everyone else to kill file me but
> you don't do that yourself. Your daddy needs to give you a good ass whomping. I would be
> glad to do it for him if you're ever in the neighborhood.
>
>

Now there's a mature and intelligent post.

Matt

Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article <3F0C948C.E8973FB6@kinez.net>, Bill Putney <peva@kinez.net> wrote:
> >Barry White wrote:
> >>
> >> ...homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger,
> >> discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay
> >> individuals

> >Well I learned 3 things from that:
> >1) Along with other things, they've re-defined the word "phobia" to fit
> >their "new" meanings.
>
> "phobic" has come to meant "hating" as well as "fearing."...

Well that's real nice. Strange that words have been redefined to suit
peoples false inuendos. Related to that, Lloyd, and I'm sure you don't
want to hear this, but (and as much as it sounds like a cliché) God
loves the homosexual but hates homosexuality. And I feel the same way.

You know - using the "new" definition of "phobia", and applying words in
the new loose (and incorrect) fashion, I've coined a new word that I
just might put into my everyday vocabulary. There seem to be some
God-phobes around here (as in "Watch out for that guy - he's one of
those God-phobes!"). But you know what, I wouldn't really do that in a
serious manner - that might be dishonest, because you could actually
love God and I would be trying to make people think that you hated him
by calling you that with it's new "expanded" meaning.

After all, there are people that love the homosexual but that hate
homosexuality that you and those of your politics call "homophobes", so
calling those that throw the term "homophobe" around so loosely
God-phobes would be no less dishonest, now would it, Lloyd?

As you once were so fond of saying "sauce...goose...gander".

I tell you what: Why don't we get together in about ten thousand years
and discuss this again.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

"'nuther Bob" <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:qegugv4o06a9bhvuh6udmcn6rrdggrso1m@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 13:58:38 -0700, "Dr. Zachary Smith"
: <LostinSpace@BushsBrain.com> wrote:
:
: >next thing, we'll be reading quotes of "biblical science"
:
: Only school kids in AK read about biblical science.
:
: Bob

and Kansas and Texass and all over the south. Tom Delay said the Columbine shooting was
the result of teaching evolution. the common misconception about Darwin's Theory is that
man evolved from apes. Taking that a step further, Delay would seem to confirm this line
of incorrect thought.

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message news:3F0F4959.6ED626AE@kinez.net...
: "Matthew S. Whiting" wrote:
: >
: > Buddy Ebsen wrote:
: > > ...The xtian faith is...
: >
: > Never heard of this xtian faith? Is this something new?
: >
: > Matt
:
: You know, Matt - it's clear what the problem is here. I think he must
: be one of those Christ-phobes or God-phobes. 8^)
:
: Bill Putney
: (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
: address with "x")
:
:
: -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
: http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
: -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

no, I am simply drug-free

"Matthew S. Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message news:3F0F4CB7.7030705@epix.net...
: Dr. Zachary Smith wrote:
: > "Kuzie" <greg.kuzmanich@NOSPAMintel.com> wrote in message
: > news:ben8rt$oj5$1@news01.intel.com...
: > : New day...new name...same loser...
: > :
: > :
: > Do you have anything intelligent to post? Can you articulate one tiny little thought
in
: > that ape's brain of yours? It's really funny you tell everyone else to kill file me
but
: > you don't do that yourself. Your daddy needs to give you a good ass whomping. I would
be
: > glad to do it for him if you're ever in the neighborhood.
: >
: >
:
: Now there's a mature and intelligent post.
:
: Matt
:

well it matches "kuzie's" constant bull****. I'll match my posts against hers any day

> Daniel J Stern wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Matthew S. Whiting wrote:
> >
> >
> >>OK, I don't consider behavioral psychology to be a real science.
> >
> >
> > Most of the world disagrees with you on that count.
> >
> >
> >>I believe the religious beliefs are at least as valid as the beliefs of
> >>the APA, since neither is based on hard science.
> >
> >
> > Pfft. The religious beliefs are based on superstition, fear, miracles
and
> > blind faith, none of which is open for question or scrutiny -- and
that's
> > why it's trumped by psychological science.
> >
> > DS

You can't compare science to faith, so there's no "trump". It's like
claiming that a full house beats a touchdown. You might rightly criticize
scientific notions made (by people) to support faith, but the faith part of
it remains untouchable.

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:42:38 -0700, "Dr. Zachary Smith"
<LostinSpace@BushsBrain.com> wrote:


>: Only school kids in AK read about biblical science.
>:
>: Bob
>
>and Kansas and Texass and all over the south.

I didn't want to paint them all with the same brush. But you can

>Tom Delay said the Columbine shooting was
>the result of teaching evolution. the common misconception about Darwin's
>Theory is that man evolved from apes. Taking that a step further,
>Delay would seem to confirm this line of incorrect thought.

Actually, the proof is in the pudding. He's verified that *he* evolved
from the Ape side of the split and that his brain did not mature to
the human level.

Bob

"'nuther Bob" <noonehere@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:lgtugvk7r7c6slqc0820mjiakdja6q8t0b@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:42:38 -0700, "Dr. Zachary Smith"
: <LostinSpace@BushsBrain.com> wrote:
:
:
: >: Only school kids in AK read about biblical science.
: >:
: >: Bob
: >
: >and Kansas and Texass and all over the south.
:
: I didn't want to paint them all with the same brush. But you can
:
: >Tom Delay said the Columbine shooting was
: >the result of teaching evolution. the common misconception about Darwin's
: >Theory is that man evolved from apes. Taking that a step further,
: >Delay would seem to confirm this line of incorrect thought.
:
: Actually, the proof is in the pudding. He's verified that *he* evolved
: from the Ape side of the split and that his brain did not mature to
: the human level.
:
: Bob
:
:

The spread of "cretin science" is much more insidious than you realize. A Texass
religious reich couple, Mel & Norma Gabler,
http://www.flash.net/~lbartley/au/whatsnew/sboe0508.htm have managed to completely corrupt
the school textbook review process. For some reason, a couple of states wield
disproportionate influence in the contents of school textbooks. Texass is one such state.
The Gablers, back by every religious reich wingnut in the country, have managed to
intimidate school textbook publishers into removing all references to evolution or
downgrading it to a "theory" (as opposed to a Scientific "Theory") on a par with biblical
creation. As a result, even though you (hopefully) don't live in Texass, your children's
school textbooks are probably influence by these idiots.

As for Delay, I would never insult apes by comparing them to him.

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F0BEB50.A0913F54@kinez.net...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> Thanks Ted. But if you look at the opinion of the justices and the
> logic behind their decision, it's general application has only one
> conclusion: Anything that you can think of that is mutually agreed to by
> adults that doesn't directly damage others is OK.
>

Then let's get a marijuana conviction up there and see how they would rule.

Bill, don't forget that the majority of the justices that make up the
currently
sitting US Supreme Court have been issuing many rulings in the last 10
years that they have taken pains to claim aren't precedent setting. They
did
this with the recent affirmative action decision, for example.

I find this behavior rather disgusting, frankly. The US Supreme Court
exists
to interpret the constitution and when an interpretation is made it must
apply
equally, across the board. You cannot say, for example, that flag burning
is
permitted as freedom of speech under the US Constitution, then turn around
and uphold the legality of the DMCA which bans online, but not printed
media,
publication of encryption algorithms used to encrypt music and movies on
DVD's

And you cannot make a ruling like the sodomy ruling and then uphold a state
ban on gay marriages.

There is a trend today among conservatives to claim the
Supreme Court is going more liberal, because of decisions like the sodomy,
affirmative action, and flag burning. ( I don't remember if they ruled on
that
last one but I thought they did)

But this is disingenuous. The currently sitting court is very conservative.
Every
time they are forced by the Constitution to issue a ruling that is the least
bit
liberal, they make sure it can't be used to set precedent. Every time they
are
able to issue a ruling that is conservative, they make sure it CAN be used
to
set future precedent.

Over time, it is setting up a framework that will make it more and more
impossible to get any kind of rulings that are in favor of the least little
bit
of personal freedom. After all that's what all this liberal Vs conservative
bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
extreme is terrible, of course.

From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe Vs. Wade. But don't
ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe Vs.
Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the few
liberal years of the court then were an aberration.

Even this gay sex ruling is conservative. It is only stating what is
effectively
the law of the land among practically all states as the anti-gay sex statues
became unenforceable years ago in practically all states. Of course, the
one state in the Union that still thought it could get away with arresting
someone on this was Texas, who else would you expect.

>
> This gets over into assisted suicide and other things too that I might
> feel differently on from one day to the next. Some of these matters I
> decide by looking at what God has to say about it, but I know that
> anything having to do with God in a positive light is extremely
> offensive to many of certian political leanings and free speech ion
> those areas is not tolerated, so I often just shut up.
>

Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
know for certainty what He wants, now can you?

I don't mind it if people in a discussion bring God into the picture, my own
philosophy isn't threatened by that like some other people's. But the
problem
is that people like to make statements like "God said to do this" instead of
truthful statements like "I believe that God said to do this" and that just
drags
the discussion down.

If you believe that God gives us freewill, then you have to also come to the
understanding that God expects everyone to work out their own, consistent,
moral framework by which to live, based on their own understanding of what
God is telling them is The Right Thing To Do. He is not providing the
roadmap
to get to the goal, He is providing the Goal itself. It is up to us to
figure out how
to get there, keeping in mind that everything we do are the steps, or
missteps,
on that road.

Ted

"Buddy Ebsen" <dead@hillbilly.com> wrote in message
news:QiiPa.1134$Bp2.137@fed1read07...
>
>
> Well you're welcome to come out and take a look at Colorado City, Arizona.
It is a
> polygamous mormon community and it has existed for years and the law
enforcement officials
> have done very little to stop the practice. Girls as young as I posted are
forced into
> incestuous relationships. An Arizona governor was bounced out of office in
the 1950's
> because he had the balls to raid the town. The state's mormon population
voted him out.
> Additionally, there are about 30-40,000 plural marriages right now in
Utah. That fact has
> been around for years. Everytime Colorado City comes up, I get to hear all
of this over
> again.
>

This story has been done several times by the major news shows, 20/20 etc.
It's amazing
it is still going on, but it just goes to show that if you catch people
young enough it is
incredible what you can get them to believe. The most frightening thing
about it is that most
of those 13 year old girls your talking about _aren't_ forced into those
relationships, they
go _gladly_ on account of how they have been programmed/raised.

And not that I'd normally start picking on LDS, but they started it.
There's lots and lots that
is official dogma in LDS that is NOT followed by the faithful. Just one
look at the last Olympic
Games Salt Lake City scandal should show that. Instead of the church
members that bribed the
Olympic Committee being excommunicated, they were carried down the street in
parades. If
the LDS church had any honor, when news of the scandal broke they should
have told the IOC
to move the games elsewhere than Salt Lake City to punish the people that
did the bribery. Instead,
a few people got publically whipped but the vast majority raked in tons of
money as a reward.

Ted


>

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F0D4369.5D545707@kinez.net...
> >
> > Well the problem with what God has to say is that you can never really
> > know for certainty what He wants, now can you?
>
> Absoltuely not true. The Bible (His Word) is *VERY* clear on a certain
> issue that is being discussed here in many places, but I won't go into
> the detalis because it will just be considered by some to be
> inflamatory.
>

Sorry but God didn't write the bible, people did. He may have inspired them
but there is no way to know that what is in there is what he wants. The LDS
people claim that their book of mormon is also the Word of God, if your
going to claim the Bible is authoratative, then you have to believe LDS when
they say that their book is right too. And besides that, the Bible you read
is
a translation of the actual Hebrew, and even if you insist that the Bible is
the
word of God, then you would have to know Hebrew to actually know the
real Word.

>
> Absolutely! It is crucial. HOWEVER, don't you think that if I strongly
> believe that the quality of a society and a nation can be dragged down
> and destroyed by that society and its legal systems thumbing its nose at
> God that I owe it to my kids and grand kids to try to uphold the
> standards that he set for that quaility to be maintained. Personaly I
> think that that is the crux (no pun intended) of the disagreements.
>

But it is not the legal system that is thumbing it's nose it's people.

Keep this in mind, many of these so-called "objectionable laws" are
not laws MANDATING behavior, they are laws that are explicitly
BLOCKING people from mandating behavior.

Take the gay sex thing. The US Supreme Court runing says
that the US Constitution says that you CANNOT make laws against
gay sex. BUT, forgotten in this is that they are ALSO not mandating
people make laws REQUIRING gay sex.

So if I assume that your view is that gay sex is somehow dragging
down society, then how can you say the legal system is thumbing
it's nose at society? The legal system is not requiring everyone
to go out and have gay sex! If people choose to have gay sex then
it is THEM who are thumbing their nose, not the legal system. All
the legal system is doing is choosing to turn it's back on the issue,
it is neither encouraging or discouraging the practice.

This ruling, in fact, is even somewhat different than the group-led
prayer in schools rulings. In those rulings they say that society is not
permitted to make laws banning individuals from praying in school.
So far so good. But then they continue on to say that society CAN
make laws that ban GROUP-LED prayer in schools. In short, that
sort of a ruling is much more interfering than the gay sex ruling.

>
> He has provided both. I just find it paradoxical that man will reject
> the very entity that created him and try to make it on his own "logic"
> and "wisdom" and not only reject God's wisdom, but make it illegal for
> it to come into play on issues that have dire consequences not just for
> the individual but for the whole society - but people thru either
> ignorance or dishonesty pretend not to see the broader effects, and
> everybody suffers.
>

But Bill, don't you understand that if people completely reject "God's
law as set forth in the Bible" and use real honest logic to develop a
consistent
personal philosophy, that they end up saying almost exactly the same
things about Law and Society as the religious people do whom start with
"God's
law as set forth in the Bible" and use meditation and prayer to come to
understand God's wisdom?

The only real difference between the 2 groups is the notion of what happens
to you after you die, and whether your supposed to periodically prostrate
yourself or pray or give burnt offerings to some deity.

There is not one major religious tenant in the Bible that you can name,
dealing
with how people are supposed to interact with other people, that cannot also
be
justified with a logical, non-God approach to personal philosophy. There
may
be small differences - for example the Bible may say your supposed to serve
certain foods or take your shoes off before going into someone's house - but
people who are completely anti-religion do the same darn thing. I know a
few
Veegans for example who would never in a million years claim to have
anything
to do with the Jewish faith - but have personal diets that for all intents
and purposes
are kosher. And they will spend an hour carefully explaining the logical
reasoning
that everyone should be a veegan!

Ted

"David Allen" <dallen03NO_SPAM@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1UhPa.99620$98.3548870@twister.socal.rr.com...

> > After all that's what all this liberal vs
> >conservative
> > bull**** really boils down to, liberals want total personal freedom,
> > conservatives want total control of people's lives by the state. Either
> > extreme is terrible, of course.
> >
>
> I disagree. In theory, the liberal / conservative thing is mostly about
the
> role and scope of the federal government.

That may have been true 200 years ago when Alexander Hamilton was
arguing for a strong central bank, but it's not true today. And I doubt
it really ever was.

Today, BOTH sides have the EXACT same position on the role and scope of
the Federal Government. In short, as long as the Feds are doing what I
want,
then by gum expand, expand, expand!! But the second the Feds start doing
what I don't like - then shrink, shrink, shrink!!

> In most of these morality cases
> the issue centers around whether state or local legislatures can pass such
> laws. Liberals tend to look for ways the federal government can expand
it's
> jurisdiction on such morality issues.

Until the Feds start blocking something like Death With Dignity or Medical
Marijuana,
which the Liberals like, and then all the sudden it's Up With States Rights

> Conservatives tend to view the
> federal government as being constitutionally limited, unable to impose
> itself on local jurisdictions.
>

Only until the States start pushing something like Death With Dignity or
Medical Marijuana,
which the Conservatives don't like, and then all the sudden it's Up With The
Federal Government.

> >
> > From a historical perspective, the US Supreme Court has hardly ever
> > been at the forefront of expanding personal freedoms. The conservatives
> > like to tell people that they are, just because of Roe vs Wade. But
don't
> > ever forget that the US Supreme Court never freed the slaves, the
> > executive branch of the government did that. By contrast, the Court
> > helped to _strengthen_ the legal teeth of slavery. If you view the Roe
vs
> > Wade decision in the historical context, you will quickly see that the
few
> > liberal years of the court then were an aberration.
> >
>
> What you have to remember is that it's not the job of the Court to "expand
> personal freedoms"

Didn't I just say that?

The Conservatives like to tell people that the Court is at the forefront of
expanding
personal freedoms, as a crude scare tactic. But as I have shown, and you
have
just agreed, the Court doesen't do this.

> (read expand federal jurisdiction over local
> jurisdiction). As repugnant as slavery is, the court found no
consitutional
> powers granted to the federal government to prohibit states from allowing
> it. It was left to the legislature and the states to amend the
constitution
> giving the courts the ability to rule in slavery cases. Of course, we all
> know it almost tore the union apart. One might argue that it would have
> been better for the courts to "find" a prohibition against slavery in the
> constitution and spare us the result of Dred Scott but, assuming the court
> was technically correct in it's ruling, it set the stage for a
constitional
> amendment prohibiting slavery leaving no question as to it's
> constitutionality.
>

The court didn't set the stage for a constitutional amendment prohibiting
slavery, that stage was set by the original Founding Fathers during the
constitutional convention. If you study the papers at the time you will
find that during the original Convention, they talked about putting a ban
on slavery right into the Constitution, but the Southern colonies basically
said that they would walk out of the process if that was done. So they left
it alone for the "future" to fix. All the court did was rule consistently
with
what the Founding Fathers had directed - ie: that the Slavery question
was "undone constitutional business" and would have to be handled
legislatively.

Of course, Lincoln said to Hell with it, and simply issued
an executive order freeing the slaves.

> In Roe v. Wade, the courts "found" an implied right that states could not
> violate (right to privacy) and thus expanded it's jurisdiction over states
> without legislation.

This is a clever restatement of the issue. The Roe vs Wade decision didn't
strip the States from the ability to outlaw abortion in the first 2
trimesters,
because the states never had such ability to outlaw abortion in the first
place.
They merely assumed that they had that right, and the court set them
straight.

And it most definitely didn't "usurp" the power of the States in this matter
because it ALSO didn't permit the Federal Government the right to outlaw
abortion EITHER int he first 2 trimesters. Thus the Feds were not given any
expansion of power over the states because the Feds, like the States, cannot
exercise any rights with regard to abortion in the first 2 trimesters
either.

> This leaves one to wonder what other things can be
> "found" in the constitution allowing the federal government to usurp power
> from the local jurisdictions.

Well, the Conservatives are headed in this direction with regards to
education.
It appears to me that education is supposed to be the province of the
States,
but with the School voucher program that the Conservatives are pushing, it
appears they want to be able to force all States to institute a voucher
program
against their will.

>You might think of Roe v. Wade as "expanding"
> your personal freedom because the ruling went in your direction,

This is a facinating statement from you. First you have no idea of my
personal
views on Roe vs Wade so you don't know if it really did go my direction or
not. You are assuming that it did because you know from my posts that
I am in favor of expanded personal freedom - and here's the kicker -
by this statement you are stating that it is a fact that Roe vs Wade DID
expand personal freedoms. (because that is why you assume that I like it)

The facinating thing here is that most true conservatives argue with Roe
vs Wade that it was NOT about expanding personal freedoms at all!!
Instead they say that Roe vs Wade curtailed the rights of the fetus to
enjoy life, liberty, etc. in short, it curtails greatly the personal freedom
of
the fetus.

What you sound like is a Democrat who is trying to play devils advocate and
argue like a Republican. Please, take my advice, your not doing a good
job of it.

> but the
> true impact is a Judicial branch that can impose law based on popular /
> political views rather than interpret law based on a technical analysis of
> the law.
>

Sort of when the Judicial Branch imposed it's law on the vote counting of
the 2000 Federal Election, when they told the State of Florida that the
State
could not have the power to determine the Electors of the State. Of course,
those "popular political views" were the political views of the US Supreme
Court justices, not of the actual popular vote.

Yes, your right, this IS a serious problem!!!

Ted

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F0E0C69.C63CD0FF@kinez.net...

> I'll take this a step further: If I as a landlord don't charge someone a
late
> rent charge because I know the person's situation and feel a little
compassion, I
> set myself up for a lawsuit because I didn't show the same consideration
for
> another person whose situation may have been totally different. So guess
what -
> the legal system has forced me to remove all compassion from all tenant
> situations and always be an a**hole no matter what the situation just to
protect
> my right to charge a late charge when it is clearly justified.

Which you can easily get around by simply billing BOTH tenants, and verbally
telling the poor tenant to just disregard the bill, when you and the tenant
are alone and
there are no witnesses. The paperwork will still be there
to satisfy the lawyers, and there is no law that says you have to send all
unpaid
bills to a collection agency, nor is there any way to argue that you are
being
discriminatory if you send one to a collection agency and one not, because
the
legal demand to pay (ie: the bill) still exists in both cases, and there's
no proof
that you never intended to collect on it.

> a liability (and that's the way some people prefer it) and everyone's
motivation
> in doing practically *anything* is whether they will run the risk of
getting sued
> or not

The whistleblowers know that people are going to be discriminatory, threat
of lawsuit
or not. All they care about, though, is that discrimination doesn't get
institutionalized,
and when people do decide to be discriminatory, they don't make it obvious.
(because making it obvious is what leads the rest of the morons to start
copying
the discriminatory behavior)

It's like dumping a bucket of hazardous waste into the stream. One bucket
isn't
going to hurt anything, but when the rest of the bozos see you doing it, and
they
start dumping their buckets, you have a mess. The lawyers are there to make
it
sufficiently difficult to dump 1 bucket that the rest of the bozos don't
dump their
buckets.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F0E14B9.67EF9D3D@kinez.net...

> You do realize that there are those in our country (many in
> universities) who strongly advocate that we should consider adults
> having sex with children as normal and acceptable behavior. I guess us
> Christians are sure hung up in our religion since we think that ought
> not to be allowed.
>

Whoah here Bill! Yes there are a few misguided professors that are
saying that. But blaming the university system for this is wrong. Those
particular idiots you are talking about have had the phychological
associations in an uproar, and are disputed by just about everyone
in the business. There's also excellent evidence that they are only saying
that to attract attention to themselves as a way of getting news coverage.

The sad part is that now money and time is going to have to be
directed into repudiating these books with a bunch of studies that
nobody in those disciplines ever thought they would have to bother
doing, because the results are so obvious.

> Here's an example: The AIDs problem in Africa - the liberal's solution
> is live and let live - take money from the taxpayers and ship it over
> there to buy condoms, then tell the people to be sure to use their
> condoms and have fun. The (for lack of a better word) conservative's
> solution is to tell the people "Hey - quit screwing everything that
> walks and have one spouse". Guess which solution works and fits with
> life.
>

Right now there is no controlled study that shows that either approach
works at all. Nobody really knows, and at this point, both approaches
are equally valid.

It does appear, though, that the abstinence campaign has done nothing
to reduce the rate of teen sex, (ie: between minors) although it may have
helped reduce the rate of teen pregnancy in the US. That has probably
happened
for the same reason that you tell your high school kids "no parties allowed
when we are out of town" because you want them to make the extra
effort to clean up the place after their party. I suppose the threat of
being
whupped if they catch you in bed provides the extra impetus for the
kiddies to remember to wear their rubbers.

>
> But in the end, one solution (the "give everybody a condom and tell them
> to have a good time" one) results in one country having an AIDs rate of
> 40%, while the other solution ("control yourself and have some
> self-respect") drops the AIDs rate in another country from 21% to 6%.
>

That doesen't prove anything. If you were to take ONE demographic that
was consistent - such as one country where everyone believed and acted
the same - and split them in half and gave one half rubbers and the other
a bunch of moralizing, and the rubber half did worse, then you might have
something there.

Ted

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F0F394C.F23E5634@kinez.net...

>
> IOW, they will *never* have to take any action, but can put the ball in
the
> court of both manufacturers (in the case of my radio and the car wash,
they
> would tell me that I should take it up with the manufacturer of my radio
since
> it clearly is in violation of the susceptibility section; and if the car
wash
> mfgr. complains, they will be told that their car wash is clearly in
violation
> of the emissions section), and then the FCC can wash its hands of the
matter and
> wait for the next call.
>

And of course, you can go out and drop $20K on a test company to come in and
prove that the car wash is at fault, then sue them, and since they are
operator of
the transmitting equipment they will be forced to turn it off or go to the
manufacturer they
bought it from and get them to fix it. And the FCC isn't going to interfere
in
your ability to file the lawsuit or the court's ability to rule against the
car wash people.

> Of course the way it *should* work if they were doing their jobs (if it
couldn't
> be otherwise resolved) would be for the two manufacturers to be required
to
> re-test their product and show which one violates either the emissions or
> susceptibility test, then the one in that is in violation fix their
product and
> pay the cost of testing both products.
>

Why? If you are the only one being bothered, why should the cost of fixing
your
problem be put on the shoulders of every other customer that the two
manufacturers
will be passing these costs along to?

I think you woud find that if the FCC gets thousands of calls about the
stepper
motor manufacturer they are going to take action against them.

Ted

"Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
news:newscache$ywiwhh$tb3$1@news.ipinc.net...
>
> "Buddy Ebsen" <dead@hillbilly.com> wrote in message
> news:QiiPa.1134$Bp2.137@fed1read07...
> >
> >
> > Well you're welcome to come out and take a look at Colorado City,
Arizona.
> It is a
> > polygamous mormon community and it has existed for years and the law
> enforcement officials
> > have done very little to stop the practice. Girls as young as I posted
are
> forced into
> > incestuous relationships. An Arizona governor was bounced out of office
in
> the 1950's
> > because he had the balls to raid the town. The state's mormon population
> voted him out.
> > Additionally, there are about 30-40,000 plural marriages right now in
> Utah. That fact has
> > been around for years. Everytime Colorado City comes up, I get to hear
all
> of this over
> > again.
> >
>
> This story has been done several times by the major news shows, 20/20 etc.
> It's amazing
> it is still going on, but it just goes to show that if you catch people
> young enough it is
> incredible what you can get them to believe. The most frightening thing
> about it is that most
> of those 13 year old girls your talking about _aren't_ forced into those
> relationships, they
> go _gladly_ on account of how they have been programmed/raised.
>
> And not that I'd normally start picking on LDS, but they started it.

There's more than one issue here. First, 13 year old girls? Mormons didn't
do that. Incest? Mormons didn't do that. Polygamy? Mormons did do that
more than a century ago, though very few as a percentage did. The remnants
and effects of polygamy are still very strong in the church today. Modern
polygamists have zero attachment to the polygamists from a century ago.
These people are typically in various forms of disaffection or have been
brought up with it. They are not Mormons, though they might have started
out that way or their relatives from previous generations.

I suppose you can argue that Mormons started polygamy in the America's, but
certainly didn't start it overall and weren't the last to practice it.
Muslims still practice it in many Arab countries. The old testament is
filled with sanctioned polygamy. There's no doubt that the children in
polygamous cultures grow up to believe it's ok.

> There's lots and lots that
> is official dogma in LDS that is NOT followed by the faithful. Just one
> look at the last Olympic
> Games Salt Lake City scandal should show that. Instead of the church
> members that bribed the
> Olympic Committee being excommunicated, they were carried down the street
in
> parades. If
> the LDS church had any honor, when news of the scandal broke they should
> have told the IOC
> to move the games elsewhere than Salt Lake City to punish the people that
> did the bribery. Instead,
> a few people got publically whipped but the vast majority raked in tons of
> money as a reward.
>
I don't know what "lots and lots" of "official dogma" you're thinking of.
Your example of the Olympic scandal is odd since there's no "official dogma"
that relates to what happened. Excommunication is a very personal matter
and isn't used to identify scapegoats or send a message to or appease
anyone.

> Ted
>
>
> >
>
>

speaking as a christian myself, most of the pious dont seem to have brains
at all. In fact, being dense and "simply believing" seems to be a virtue.
You get a lot of crap about "man can never understand the wisdom of God"
which is a convenient get out clause for difficult questions. Example below
is a classic - I don't like it, so it's not science. The problem the
christians have over homosexuality is that the bible condems it, and that
makes them want to condemn it legally. Frankly, I don't care what they do in
the privacy of their own homes as long as I dont have to know about it,
see, it or be chatted up by queers. I'm entitled to my opinion that it is
disgusting, but they are entitled to do it. I'd be happy for them to pump
their dog if it could be established that the dog wanted it. I'm sure God is
big enough to sort it out on judgement day ... and guess what ? We have
plenty of christians about to admit they are not qualified to do such a good
job..

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Daniel J Stern" <dastern@engin.umich> wrote in message
newsine.SOL.4.44.0307111841350.24622-100000@alumni.engin.umich.edu...
: On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Bill Putney wrote:
:
: > There's a difference between science and "science falsely so called"
: > (false science) (I Timothy 6:20).
:
: Riiiiight...don't think for yourself, just memorize The Book, which
: contains all the answers.
:
: God (or whatever) gave us brains for a reason. It's fascinating to me how
: so many of the most pious are also the least willing to use 'em.
:
: DS
:

Bill,

You will find that you are wasting your time arguing with Lloyd ; he
makes an inflammatory post (or to be fair, responds to one), gets bored and
then resorts to calling people ignorant. He is like a particularly sad child
who feels confident to hurl abuse but only from a safe vantage point or gets
tough in front of a mirror. He is exceptionally successful as a troll [ I'm
writing this aren't I ], and you will get the impression that it is
probably his only success.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Bill Putney" <peva@kinez.net> wrote in message
news:3F0F41DA.BBDA37CC@kinez.net...
: Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Lying scumbag.