wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to
tell us about how to live.

Yup - and how *not* to live.

Such as?

That being said, I think that many people who are proclaiming
themselves as "Christians" these days are not. The so-called
conservative Christians who loudly proclaim their ascendancy
these days
don't really seem to have much to do with Jesus at all.

Nothing new about that. Constantine, Cyril, the Crusades, and
of course the Spanish Inquisition.

I once saw King Constatine trying to outmaneuver his motorcade in
Athens.

"If Jesus came back, and saw what's going on in His name,
He'd never stop throwing up." --Frederick, in Woody Allen's "Hannah and
Her Sisters"

I always turn to Woody Allen when I need a good bible reference.

The closest thing that they are is a modern day version
of the Pharisees. Their trends are much more old
testament - therefore not sharing in the new
covenant proclaimed by Jesus. They push public prayer,
also proscribed
against by Jesus, they push religious domination of
government - same deal.

They've had plenty of company in the past 2000 years...

Indeed.

While demanding that the first books of *their* bible

Except it's not really "theirs" - particularly the first
five books...

Shared?

(KJV) be taken as
absolutely literal,

Except for Jesus first miracle. That was water into grape juice.

despite two different versions of creation, they
totally ignore the Sermon on the Mount, in which Jesus delivers direct
orders in as plain language as you will find in the bible.
What's up with that?

It's a mystery, Mike. You just have to take it on faith.

I find it interesting that the dietary and other laws of the "old"
testament are ignored when inconvenient - just like
the inconvenient teachings of Jesus.

Jim, do you practice the old laws?

Fun fact: Which states do you think have the highest and lowest
divorce rates - "conservative" red states or "liberal" blue states?

"what God has joined together, let no man put asunder"...

Just wait til your wife puts you asunder.

What is up with that is the modern
fundamentalist Christians are
falling for one of the oldest tricks
in the book - the false prophets.

That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that
the world was *not*
created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October
in 4004 BC
as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home.

Actually, Genesis says it took six days - because the Creator
rested on the seventh day.

Rush job, too. Left a lot of holes....

Grand Canyon, Yellowstone...

He should have created Soil and Water Conservation districts.

There is no doubt in my mind that the present
day universe *was*
created billions of years ago, probably in an
event we call "the Big
Bang.

There should always be doubt, Mike. The Big Bang
cosmology is simply the best explanation we
have now that fits all the scientific data. New
data might require a new cosmology.

That's one big difference between real and fake
science. Real science is always open to new
data and new explanations.

Hi! Just try to run a new theory by those guys...

I highly doubt that it was created by
a supreme being.

Why? Couldn't the Supreme Being have set it all
in motion, and the Bang was just the method?

Could have. But just remember that Jesus turned water into grape
juice, not wine.

For what
happened before then, it becomes quite complex, and I enjoy
speculation on that.

You can explain anything by using the 'supernatural'. Which means the
'supernatural' explains nothing.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Jim, this isn't programming school. It's OK to put the periods inside
the quotes where they belong.

Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that
the world was *not*
created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October
in 4004 BC
as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home.

Actually, Genesis says it took six days - because the Creator
rested on the seventh day.

Rush job, too. Left a lot of holes....

LOL!!!

snip

I highly doubt that it was created by
a supreme being.

Why? Couldn't the Supreme Being have set it all
in motion, and the Bang was just the method?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions. Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time. I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.

Does your soul need saving?

Turns out
they did not know where the water came from or went to, and didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order
not to drown.

Do you refer to a flood? There's one in New Orleans right now. Do you
know where the water came from? Do you know how it's going to be let
out? Are the zoo animals swimming for Cairo?

Even my more serious questions were troublesome for them,
especially since they were engineers. They really hated my thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

- Mike KB3EIA -

It's "nuclear." And they should be dating much younger women if decay
is going to be a problem.

Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to
tell us about how to live.

But I doubt it. Seems a incredibly roundabout way of doing things. 4.5
billion years to have people start thinking of "him" around 4000 years
ago. Not to mention all the times they got it wrong before this one came
along....

Yep, you've convinced me that "Jesus was one cool dude." Hi!

Uncle Ted wrote:
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 15:50:11 GMT, "K=D8HB"
wrote:


There are thousands of gods available to believe in, and for each indivi=
dual god
there are often several different versions of that religion. Take, for =
example,
President Bush's god --- dozens and dozens of different cults all claimi=
ng to be
the "proper" Christians.

The only difference between atheists and GWB is that the atheists believ=
e in one
less god than George does. If I have it right, Georges god, in His cosm=
ic
loneliness, felt a need to be worshipped, so He invented Us to worship h=
im.
Those of Us who aren't so inclined, He will banish to spend eternity on =
75-meter
phone.

Beep beep!
de Hans, K0HB
Most Reverend Keeper of the Codes of Q

Since this subject has been brought up, I'll admit it - I am an
atheist. Here are MY observations, however off-topic they may be...

With the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, we saw thousands of
survivors thanking god for their lives, even though they've lost
everything. I haven't seen one survivor blaming god for the death of
innocents in this disaster, not to mention the thousands that have
been left homeless and displaced from their families, not yet knowing
whether they're dead or alive. Yet, they still thank god for their
lives. If a madman forced you out of your house by gun point, and then
burned your house to the ground while you watched, would you thank him
for sparing your life? What good is life if your lifestyle, quality of
life, and means of sustanation are suddenly gone?

It makes no sense to me why people would appeal to god and praise god,
yet not scratch their heads in confusion when said god anally rapes
New Orleans, but say that it is "god's will". Believers will say that
I must not question "god's will", but I SHALL question the will of
such a god in the hopes that some right-wing bible thumpers will
re-think their god's position in the wake of such disasters.

But I doubt that is going to happen. Today, there are people going to
prayer-fests in just about every church in the country. They'll do
their praying, get back into their big, gas-sucking SUVs, and drive
back to their fancy homes with the smug satisfaction that they
actually did something to help the survivors of this disaster. Is all
of this praying supposed to cause some big hand to come down out of
the sky and supply those affected by this tragedy with food, water,
clothes, medicine and shelter until the government and volunteer
donations can be supplied. Somehow, I doubt it.

I am ashamed of my government, and I don't care who is offended by my
comments. I'll question and bash anyone and any god I damn well please
and make no apologies for it. I have had with the religious platitudes
from politicians and community leaders on all levels of government.
They invoke a non-existent supernatural deity so they can duck their
responsibilities. They dragged their asses when it came to getting the
job done and lives were lost as a result. It's time to fire all of
them, starting with their murdering, cruel, vindictive god and working
the way down.

Welp, Ted, at least you didn't try to bash Bush over the hurricane.

wrote:

*That's* HHTTG.

The whole subject of creationism is nicely dealt with in
the first HHTG book, as part of the explanation of the
Babelfish. That was long before the current antiscience
inquisition..

73 de Jim, N2EY

What anti-science inquisition do you refer to?

wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


wrote:


wrote:


From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm


K4YZ wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:


Frank Gilliland wrote:

Just as they have not permitted you to comment about "amateur" radio
because you hold no license, NoServers may not comment about the
military.

Hold on, Sparky. Len has commented here at great length and on many,
many occasions.

And what has Jim's response been to Len's comments?

It has been quite varied and quite mild considering Len's typical
insulting demeanor. What Jim hasn't done is to prevent or attempt to
prevent Len from making those comments.

The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.


We were instructed to discard Len's comments.

....and you always follow instruction--right?

In the end, if they cannot
lay waste to Len's comments with rational argument(s)...

I've seen any number of Len's comments made to look like the product of
one who has little experience.


As Len has questioned your net control capabilities.

Net control capabilities? What in the world are you going on about?

...they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham.

Sometimes Len's opinions are no good because they are issued because he
has no experience in amateur radio. Sometimes his opinions are no good
because they are the rantings of a geezer with an ax to grind. Often,
he makes factual errors and there have been numerous times when he
deliberately fabricates.


You want us to believe that all of Len's comments are to be discarded.

I'd settle for 80-90%.

David Heil/K8MN is a primary culprit in that tactic, but Jim has used it as
well.

Oh no, I've by no means been "a primary culprit", but I have
participated over a period of years.


Can you guess how many times you've commented that Len isn't an amateur
radio operator?

I didn't know there was going to be a quiz. It has to be fewer than the
number of recountings of his ADA tale or his comments about FCC staffers
don't need to hold amateur radio licenses.

Len isn't involved in amateur
radio. He wraps himself in bunting and writes of his Constitutional
rights of free speech and to petition his government. Well, he has done
those things. Nothing on this planet can prevent me from lauging at him
or ridiculing him or his ideas.


Nor him you.

That's where I came in. Len's been doing that almost since my first
posts to this newsgroup in 1996.

Len writes of being denigrated or
insulted by those who do not agree with his him but he often insults and
denigrates those who have the opposite point of view.

Perhaps Len is correct to do so.

The signs point to his not being correct.

He is quick to tell others that they are not discussing amateur radio
policy,


Get a clue, he's giving it back to you. He's been told that he is not
an amateur radio operator and should be here. This is a place only of
amateurs and amateur things.

I don't think Len has ever been told that he should be here. :-)

Len has declared a several-decades-long "interest" in amateur radio.
He's never been interested enough to even attempt passing a license
exam. Len was going to go for an "Extra right out of the box" several
years back. That hasn't happened. We have him declaring within the
past few months that he has *no interest* in obtaining an amateur radio
license. Tsk, tsk. What is one to believe?

then he goes on a multi-post rant having everything to do with
personalities and nothing to do with amateur radio.


Have you ever thought of reigning in Robeson?

Am I in charge of Steve's postings? Feel free to take on the job if you
think it should be done.

When you do, get back to
me about Len and we'll talk some more.

Howzzat? Did I suggest that it is up to you to control Len's bad behavior?


You, of course, are Len's little electrolytic acolyte.

And you are the World Famous DXer that works out of band Frenchmen on 6
Meters.

Well, I certainly operate on 6m, but always within the regs which govern
my amateur radio operation. I don't control French radio amateurs any
more than I'm responsible for Steve's posts.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
From: on Aug 28, 6:02 pm


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm

K4YZ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:


The PCTA, including Jim Miccolis/N2EY, immediately set upon
discrediting Len's comments and opinions.

Correct. Questioning or discrediting is not what you claimed. What you
said was that Len wasn't permitted to comment. You were incorrect.

We were instructed to discard Len's comments.


In the end, if they cannot
lay waste to Len's comments with rational argument(s)...

I've seen any number of Len's comments made to look like the product of
one who has little experience.

As Len has questioned your net control capabilities.


Not quite true either side. I was citing Heil as a CONTROL FREAK
that he appears to be from all his postings to me. Evident to all.

I've never told anyone here to shut the hell up or to go away. You
have. What are you, some kind of control freak? I'm sure that your
words were evident to all.

I have experience in radio. A considerable amount. Most of it is
PROFESSIONAL radio...that kind that pays money for services
rendered.

That's nice for you, Len. I have much experience in professional radio
as well. Your lack of experience in *amateur radio* was being discussed.


Heil must not equate government employ in the Department of State
as "professional" yet he obviously got MONEY for that, PLUS living
expenses.

I must not? How utterly silly sounding your statement is! I was never
employed by the Department of State as an amateur radio operator.


...they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham.

Sometimes Len's opinions are no good because they are issued because he
has no experience in amateur radio. Sometimes his opinions are no good
because they are the rantings of a geezer with an ax to grind. Often,
he makes factual errors and there have been numerous times when he
deliberately fabricates.

You want us to believe that all of Len's comments are to be discarded.


Heil doesn't like my commenting, therefore I am to be "discarded,"
discredited, demeaned, and some other "d" I can't think of. :-)

De-clawed.


David Heil/K8MN is a primary culprit in that tactic, but Jim has used it as
well.

Oh no, I've by no means been "a primary culprit", but I have
participated over a period of years.

Can you guess how many times you've commented that Len isn't an amateur
radio operator?


He has a macro sentence generator for that. :-)

Is that how you crank out those ADA tales of half a century back? :-)

I've never said I had an amateur radio license. From day one in
here
I've stated that I do not.

....and you are correct!

I have a Commercial radio license.

You had a commercial radio license. That isn't an amateur radio
license. One doesn't get you the other. I've know plenty of folks with
commercial radio licenses. Some were hams; some were not. A commercial
ticket gets you nothing in amateur radio.

But, that constant repetition of "not having a license" masks Heil's
INABILITY to reply ON the subject of what he was challenged for. He
tries to wiggle out of a challenge by semi-denigrative, moral
something or others implying that I should NOT be posting in here.

"On the subject of what he was challenged for" doesn't appear to be
grammatically correct. You haven't bothered much with
"semi-denigrative" (have you ever worked as a technical writer?).
You've gone straight for denigration and insult. I've implied that you
shouldn't post here? Nope. I've questioned your motives and your
ideas. I've stated (correctly) that you don't know much at all about
amateur radio.


Len isn't involved in amateur
radio. He wraps himself in bunting and writes of his Constitutional
rights of free speech and to petition his government. Well, he has done
those things. Nothing on this planet can prevent me from lauging at him
or ridiculing him or his ideas.

Nor him you.


Heil is a bundle of laughs. :-)

....and you provide quite a number of laughs.

Len writes of being denigrated or
insulted by those who do not agree with his him but he often insults and
denigrates those who have the opposite point of view.

Perhaps Len is correct to do so.


Tsk tsk tsk. Heil thinks he has some special dispensation that
allows
him to insult others but others are "not permitted" to fire right
back
at him.

What you have is a juxtaposition of horse and cart, Leonard.



He is quick to tell others that they are not discussing amateur radio
policy,

Get a clue, he's giving it back to you. He's been told that he is not
an amateur radio operator and should be here. This is a place only of
amateurs and amateur things.


Supposedly. Lots of different things are discussed in here. One
such seems to be winding down: The one about evolution versus
creationists. All of radio hasn't been around more than 109 years
and fits NEITHER. :-)

It has been a civil discussion. Don't read it if you don't care for it.
It certainly beats Mark Morgan's endless, "lier" and "cuting Sevie..."

then he goes on a multi-post rant having everything to do with
personalities and nothing to do with amateur radio.

Have you ever thought of reigning in Robeson? When you do, get back to
me about Len and we'll talk some more.


Heil must LIKE Dudly...because Dudly attacks me.

Who is "Dudly"? Is that another of your insulting terms for someone
posting here?

Heil is living
vicariously, enjoying another personally-insult me.

I have no need to live vicariously, Len. If I want to ridicule you,
I'll do it myself.

"An enemy of
an enemy is his friend" to slightly paraphrase an old folk saying.

The anemone of my enemy is my anemone's enemy.

Heil doesn't realize that Dudly's fraudulent behavior is HURTING
the image of U.S. amateur radio.

Who is Dudly? Is this another insulting name you've come up with?
Well, Len, it delights me to no end that you haven't come up with an
amateur radio license. We don't have to worry about you tarnishing
amateur radio's image. You are tarnishing the image of California
retirees though.

Miccolis can't rein-in Dudly.

It isn't Jim's job to rein-in (or, in Brian's words, to "reign him in").

Hans Brakob couldn't hold him down.

It isn't Hans' job to hold anyone down.

Katapult Kellie doesn't seem to have tried either way.

Who is "Katapult Kellie"? Is he supposed to have control of someone
named "Dudly"?

Jeswald
hasn't said much.

He's written quite a bit. You don't seem to like what he writes.

NOT a good case for building a good image of
U.S. amateur radio to the public.

If you view amateur radio in a poor light, as you have since you arrived
on the scene in r.r.a.p., I can live with that.

Dave K8MN

wrote:
wrote:

From: on Aug 28, 6:02 pm


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

From: on Aug 25, 2:42 pm

K4YZ wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:

I've seen any number of Len's comments made to look like the product of
one who has little experience.

As Len has questioned your net control capabilities.

Not quite true either side. I was citing Heil as a CONTROL FREAK
that he appears to be from all his postings to me. Evident to all.


Closing a net with CW?

The only nets I've ever closed with CW were CW nets.


I have experience in radio. A considerable amount. Most of it is
PROFESSIONAL radio...that kind that pays money for services
rendered.

Heil must not equate government employ in the Department of State
as "professional" yet he obviously got MONEY for that, PLUS living
expenses.


Obviously he's not professional.

....not any more. There aren't any professional radio amateurs.
Professional credentials don't get one a pass into amateur radio.

...they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham.

Sometimes Len's opinions are no good because they are issued because he
has no experience in amateur radio. Sometimes his opinions are no good
because they are the rantings of a geezer with an ax to grind. Often,
he makes factual errors and there have been numerous times when he
deliberately fabricates.

You want us to believe that all of Len's comments are to be discarded.

Heil doesn't like my commenting, therefore I am to be "discarded,"
discredited, demeaned, and some other "d" I can't think of. :-)


demonized.

Deep-sixed.


David Heil/K8MN is a primary culprit in that tactic, but Jim has used it as
well.

Oh no, I've by no means been "a primary culprit", but I have
participated over a period of years.

Can you guess how many times you've commented that Len isn't an amateur
radio operator?

He has a macro sentence generator for that. :-)


And there is a purpose for his stating that you're not an amateur.

There certainly is. It is to point out that Len isn't a radio amateur
and that he has no experience in amateur radio. He is to amateur radio
as a fishing rod to deer hunting.

Dave K8MN

Now you are showing your need for meds, serious meds

Get someone to read you what you wrote.

Dave K8MN

.............

And yet nary a discouraging word is uttered concerning Lennie's bloated and
self-aggrandizing posts.
Blowgut is a term that seems fitting for Lennie's oft tedious commentaries.

Mike Coslo wrote:
Frank Gilliland wrote:
On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
.com:

Mike Coslo wrote:

snip

That being said, there is no doubt in my mind that
the world was *not*
created in seven days starting on Sunday, the 23rd of October
in 4004 BC
as determined by Ussher - and put in print in one of my bibles at home.

Actually, Genesis says it took six days - because the Creator
rested on the seventh day.

Rush job, too. Left a lot of holes....

LOL!!!

That's from Time Bandits as well.

snip

I highly doubt that it was created by
a supreme being.

Why? Couldn't the Supreme Being have set it all
in motion, and the Bang was just the method?

I get a kick out of some of these discussions.

I find them somewhat interesting and somewhat dismaying.
The dismaying part is that the deeper meanings of the
Bible stories are missed because folks are too busy
taking them literally.

For example, take the two contradictory creation
stories in Genesis. First off, you find that relatively
few have actually read them well enough to see the
contradictions.

But those contradictions only exist if the interpretation
is literal. If you see the stories as parables, the contradictions
don't matter.

Or take the part about all of us being punished because
of Adam eating the apple. Doesn't make any sense at first - you
don't send a son to jail because his father robbed a bank!

OTOH, the mistakes of one generation (like pollution) *can*
affect following generations. (Why the heck did anyone
ever decide to build a major city on ground that is *below*
sea level and right next to three major bodies of water? And
in a hurricane zone?!)

Especially regarding
evolution. These "Christians" are constantly
trying to poke holes in
the theory, yet are too short-sighted
to consider that 'evolution'
(even with all it's holes) might be one of
God's creations. If so,
then they are effectively attacking their own faith.

I've asked them that (one time I was trapped in a car
on a 4 hour drive
with a couple fundies- arrrgh) We had a grand old time.
I used to keep
me yap shut because it doesn't do much good, but
after the second hour
of them trying to save my soul, I unleashed the dogs on them.

When did logic and reason become "the dogs"?

Turns out
they did not know where the water came from or went to, and
didn't know
why the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to the middle east in order not to drown.

Oh yes, the deluge. Lots of good stuff in there. Here's some mo

The Book tells us how big the ark was and how many of each
animal were taken aboard.

Now since evolution supposedly doesn't happen, all of the land mammals
and birds we see must have been on the ark, since otherwise they'd
drown. The Book specifically mentions Noah
sending out a bird, too.

Not just the animals and birds themselves were on the ark but food and
water for them.

Look around for all the different species of land animals and birds
around today. Then figure out how much space they'd all take up.

Unless the ark was actually a tardis, it wasn't near big enough for all
the different types of deer, bison, antelope, giraffe, elephant,
cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goat, emu, ostrich, eland, moose, horse,
zebra, bear, lion, tiger, panther, caribou, etc., etc., etc.

Even my more serious questions were troublesome
for them,
especially since they were engineers. They really hated my
thoughts on
how if they were correct about the young universe
and Earth were fact,
some of the "facts" that they tried to use to
disprove Evolution, such
as dating anomalies, could not be true because
the basic nuclear decay
rates (or is that nukular?) were wrong to begin with.

The basic explanation they use for all that is that it
was made that way. Even down to the light from the stars more
distant than 6000 light years. Just popped into being.

Of course if someone accepts that "popped into being"
explanation, the universe could only be an hour old...

I think the real attraction of the "young universe" idea
is that it's comforting and reduces people's
environmental responsibility. Global warming? Resource
depletion? Species extinction? No problems, because
the Earth isn't old enough for there to be enough data.

But if the Earth is billions of years old, the situation is very
different.

If someone wants to believe the Earth is a bit more than 6000
years old, that's fine with me. Just as if they want to believe
that pi is equal to 3, that the earth is flat or the moon is
made of cheese.

Just don't try to pass off those beliefs as "science", because
they simply don't stand up to the scientific method.

When people insist that their religious beliefs be considered
"scientific" even though they fall apart under scientific
scrutiny, what they're really trying to do is destroy the
scientific method.

Not a new thing. Look at what happened to Galileo. How many years did
it take for the Vatican to admit they were wrong?

73 de Jim, N2EY