"Mike Coslo" wrote

....avoid spending credit money like a drunken sailor....

And how does a drunken sailor spend differently from a drunken marine or a
drunken soldier or a drunken airman or a drunken draft-dodger? Or do you
just have a thing about sailors? Or do you even have a clue, Mike?

With kindest personal regards,

de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:

"Mike Coslo" wrote


....avoid spending credit money like a drunken sailor....


And how does a drunken sailor spend differently from a drunken marine or a
drunken soldier or a drunken airman or a drunken draft-dodger? Or do you
just have a thing about sailors?

You've never heard the term, Hans? since you took the time to write
this, I'll elaborate:

Sailors on leave have been known to be avery exciting bunch for years.
They spend a lot of their lives at sea, and when they get to land often
have a fair amount of discretionary cash to spend, and a lot of steam to
work off. So sailors often spend their money at an alarming pace, thus
the phrase.

And where did I refere to the Navy? A sailor is a generic term for:

1. One who serves in a navy or works on a ship.
2. One who travels by water.
3. A low-crowned straw hat with a flat top and flat brim.

It wasn't number three, so it was numbers one and two.

Or do you even have a clue, Mike?

Proudly serving my Navy and country since 1976.........


- Mike KB3EIA

"Mike Coslo" wrote

And where did I refere to the Navy?

Do what?!?!?

Who mentioned 'Navy'? (DOS Hint: It wasn't me!)

Sunvuagun!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB
Master Chief Radioman, US Navy
--
For details, go to http://www.home.earthlink.net/~k0hb/id5.html

In article m, "Dee D. Flint"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
nk.net...
You seriously need to climb off your high horse, Kim. Who in the heck
asked you to "help" anyone in this newsgroup? I came to this newsgroup to
discuss various topics - not be lectured by you with a mandate to drop my
opinions in favor of yours. So, if you're sitting around waiting for that
to
happen, you're going to be one very, very, tired old woman long before
there's even a glimmer of hope.


While I normally disagree with a great many of Kim's posts. Here she is
fundamentally correct. Consumers do have the choice to be informed if they
really want to. If they don't want to go to that much work, then it is
their own problem.

AGREED!

Government should NOT be doing your research for you.

I disagree. Govt. has a legitimate role in making sure products are reasonably
safe and that claims made for them are not false.

But providing information isn't the same thing as "protecting consumers" from
every imaginable hazard.

I
certainly don't want MY taxes to go for the checks on goods and information
dissemination that you seem to think the government should do for you.

Remember what cars were like when we were kids, Dee? No seat belts, no head
restraints, single brake systems. Roofs that would crush in a rollover and
solid steering posts that would spear the driver in even a mild crash. Sharp
metal objects all over the inside and outside of the car.

All of these were easily avoidable hazards whose remedies required govt.
intervention in the form of safety legislation. Something as simple as seat
belts was aggressively fought by all of the major US carmakers. Not just on a
cost issue, either - they did not like the psychological impact that they
believed seat belts would create in the minds of car buyers.

Would you want to go back to the kinds of cars we had back then?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

if the mortgage isn't paid off, the mortgage company can
foreclose and resell the house for a very tidy profit. That alone is enough
to attract many mortgage companies to the elderly. This may also be why some
mortgage companies actually seem to seek out those who will likely not fully
pay off a mortgage (excessive debt, a history of bad credit, or whatever).
After the mortgagor has partially paid down the amount owed on the property,
the mortgage company can foreclose and retain the property for a much lower
amount than they would have paid in an outright purchase.

Only if the total costs of doing all that do not exceed the recovered value
after the sale.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article . net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

How do you know they haven't?

Because absolutely nothing has happened.

Exactly.

Perhaps something really bad would have happened, but the spell prevented it.
Who can ever say?

Well, would you like if someone called a
religion you respect "all nonsense"?

If it were a ligitimate religion, no.

Who determines what is a "legitimate" religion and what isn't? Who *can*
determine such a thing (other than God?)

However, it is a little hard to
perceive wicca as a ligitimate religion.

Why not? People have come up with new religions all over the map. Who is to say
they were not "legitimate" because their beliefs are different?

Since little is really known of the
old pagan religions (especially directly), wicca practices today cannot
seriously be linked to paganism.

Probably not. Doesn't mean wicca is or isn't legitimate, though. From what
little I know, they are trying to reconnect with the *spirit* of those old
pagans.

Instead, the practices today mostly seem
made up from images and stories in movies, television, and fiction books
(old and new). And the people involved often take on the personas of
characters directly from those fiction stories.

Couldn't the same be said of almost all religions now in existence? Most are
based on a book or series of books written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Most describe events of the long past that are not provable to be fact or
fiction in any way.

Would you say they weren't legitimate?

Further, their claims of
spells, charms, and so on, are simply hogwash (childish hogwash).

Would you say the same thing about the power of prayer, miracles,
transubstantiation, and other central beliefs of modern Christianity?

Everyone
is certainly free to believe what they want, including those who consider
the whole thing absolutely ludicrous.

Everyone is free to believe up to a point. That point is where someone's purely
religious beliefs begin to infringe on the rights of others for reasons based
purely on belief and not provable scientific fact.

As an extreme example, a religion that required the human sacrifice of
unbelievers can't coexist with others. (There have been forms of Christianity
that fit this description, btw).

By the way, this is not "us versus them." I have no specific religious
beliefs, so pointing to a ligitimate religion is not really going to change
my opinions of wicca. All religions have their faults and doubters, but I
have no doubts about my opinions of wicca. :-)

Fine - but then why discriminate between "legitimate" and "illegitimate"
religions?

I wonder what the Book of Bokonon has to
say about all that...


Wasn't it supposedly Books (plural) of Bokonon? Anyway, I'm not so sure
all this (wicca) is exactly harmless untruths.

Couldn't that be said of many religions?

What harm does wicca do?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote

Would you want to go back to the kinds of cars we had back then?

In a heartbeat!!!!! Most wonderful car I ever owned is a 1962 Chev Corvair
Corsa convertible.

Big-brother government killed all the really good cars, trying to protect
against stupidity like poor driving habits. We could use a lot LESS
government around these parts. We'd have a lot less stupid people.

The world is methodically being dumbed down by government efforts to protect
us from stupid people.

Stupid drivers don't recognize the dangers of speed, so they drive too fast
and kill themselves. The government regulates speed, so now more stupid
people survive.

Stupid pedestrians don't know enough to not step out into a busy street, so
they get injured and killed trying to cross the street. The government makes
laws giving them the right-of-way, so now more stupid people survive.

Stupid parents don't recognize the value of childhood inoculations. The
government makes them vaccinate their children before entering school, so
now more stupid people survive.

Stupid hams don't know enough to keep their fingers out of 3KV plate
transformers, so they get fried in their own juice. Some would have the
government protect them, and more stupid people would survive.

In the ways of Mother Nature, stupidity was kept in check because stupid
people generally didn't survive to breeding age, thus our species tended to
get smarter over time.

But stupidity begets stupidity, so we are being overwhelmed by a tsunami of
stupidity. The tsunami is triggered by the government protection of stupid
people, which allows them to survive to reproduce.

Ergo, less government regulations makes a smarter populace.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"Mike Coslo" wrote


And where did I refere to the Navy?


Do what?!?!?

Who mentioned 'Navy'? (DOS Hint: It wasn't me!)

You wrote earlier:

And how does a drunken sailor spend differently from a drunken marine or a
drunken soldier or a drunken airman or a drunken draft-dodger? Or do you
just have a thing about sailors? Or do you even have a clue, Mike?

Hans, even if you didn't refer to "sailor" as navy, and certainly within
the context of the statement, you referred to Marines, Soldiers, Airmen,
and even draft dodgers (hint: if you didn't, you need to arrange the
sentence differently)

but.......... The Marines are *indeed* part of the Navy, so yes, Hans,
you very much *did* mention Navy. (All apologies to the Marines in here
that know that the navy is actually a subset of the Marines! ) 8^) hehe.


Sunvuagun!

Huzzanga!

- Mike KB3EIA -

"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"N2EY" wrote

Would you want to go back to the kinds of cars we had back then?

In a heartbeat!!!!! Most wonderful car I ever owned is a 1962 Chev
Corvair
Corsa convertible.

Woo-hoo, lemme have a 1969 Super-Bee! Alas, all I had was a 1973 Dart with a
318. I would've loved to have a 340 Dart with the bumble bee stripe. sigh

One other car that is probably my all time favorite is the 1973 European
Ford Capri. Not terribly fast, but wonderfully quick and pretty agile too. I
had the 2000cc 4 cyl. model but I'd love to drop a modern Ford 3.8l V6 in
one, if I could find one in acceptable cond'n.

73 de Bert
WA2SI

"N2EY" wrote:

Perhaps something really bad would have
happened, but the spell prevented it.
Who can ever say?


The specific spell requested could only have resulted in something bad.


Who determines what is a "legitimate" religion
and what isn't? Who *can* determine such a
thing (other than God?)


You just love to ask the "who determines" question, don't you? Especially
when the answer is bloody obvious - like with most other things, people do.
People either decide it's a legitimate religion or not. A small, fringe,
group of supposed believers don't make a religion legitimate (Hale-Bop's
Heaven's Gate cult, for example), especially when the vast majority believe
it's a load of crap (and I do suspect the vast majority don't really believe
wiccas can actually cast spells, charms, and so on).


Why not?


Already answered in the paragraph you quoted (the paragraph taken as a
whole, not sliced up into individual sentences).


Couldn't the same be said of almost all religions
now in existence? Most are based on a book or
series of books written hundreds or thousands
of years ago. (snip)


However, the practices of today's wiccas seem mostly made up from images
and stories in FICTIONAL movies, television, and books, not religious
material and literature written by those who practice that religion. In
other words, since so little is known of the old pagan religions, wiccas
simply 'borrowed' things like black robes, symbols, supposed spells, and so
on, from relatively modern day fiction.


Would you say the same thing about the power
of prayer, miracles, transubstantiation, and other
central beliefs of modern Christianity?


It is one thing to pray for assistance from a God and quite another to
actually claim to have personal powers to cast spells, charms, and so on. I
would ask for similar proof from anyone, in any religion, who claimed to
have such powers (any powers).


Fine - but then why discriminate between "legitimate"
and "illegitimate" religions?


Words alone do not discriminate, Jim. Nobody has been deprived of anything
by my words.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/