Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

wrote:

From: on Aug 28, 6:02 pm

Dave Heil wrote:

hot

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.


More word play.

Word play? Hardly. I've never participated in a State Department net
on RTTY or CW.

More word play. Clintonesque.

Further down you just admitted to opening and closing RTTY net using CW
on "another frequency."

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.

When did that end?

It never began.

You should work on your facts.

The W1AW operator is paid a salary to transmit on amateur frequencies.
School teachers may make radio transmissions as a part of their paid
instructions to students.

Professional credentials don't get one a pass into amateur radio.

What? Another set of redundant licensing requirements?

They aren't redundant. They're for different services.

Oh yeh, forgot the physics change with the different services.

I recall taking the GROL. Looked identical to the Amatuer Advanced
exam.

Really? Were there lots of regulatory questions dealing with the
amateur bands?

There were lots of identical electronics and radio physics material.
Identical to the Advanced exam. And whaddayaknow? The exam was
administered by a famous VEC. Go figure?

...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.

As in murdered?

As in "deep-sixed".

As in "murdered?"

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.

There must be somthing more to it than that.

A read-between-the-lines guy like you would probably attempt to find a
hidden meaning or agenda.

This is what surprises me. Except for this, your agendas and
double-standards are obvious. This one has me puzzled.

He is to amateur radio

as a fishing rod to deer hunting.

You're not even close enough to be considered a poor analogue.

It'd be tough to come up with something. I'm a long time participant in
amateur radio. The closest Len can come is being an SWL.

Well there you go! You could say that he is a "lurker" on the HF
frequencies. That should sound nefarious enough to raise eyebrows.

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Mike Coslo wrote:

wrote:

Michael Coslo wrote:

John Smith wrote:

K0HB:

Yes, I have read a couple of books on the subject--most
of the authors
strike me as being rather weak in math and especially
in the area of
probability and statistics--quite possibly
lotus-blossom-eaters.

For some it is easier to attack the thinker than
to disprove the idea....


It certainly is a lot easier to say "God makes it so, so it is"

The hard part is defining what is meant by "God"...

Not for those who want the easy answer. There are plenty enough people
who are just slap happy to tell us that!

Mike, are you an atheist? Or are you just playing at one because
President Bush is a Christian?

You tell me, Brian! I think Jesus was one cool dude, and has a lot to
tell us about how to live


One cool dude?

Why yes, one cool dude. Seems like an irreverent thing to say, eh? I
wonder what Jesus' opinion of me calling him a cool dude would be?


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. 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.

While demanding that the first books of *their* bible (KJV) be taken as
absolutely literal, 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?

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.

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. I highly doubt that it was created by a supreme being. For what
happened before then, it becomes quite complex, and I enjoy speculation
on that.

- Mike KB3EIA -


There! I knew you had a lot more to say than mere nide remarks about
God. I hope you feel better.

If you look deeply enough, the snide remarks are not really about God.
They are about the people who would form God in their own image.

Problem is, that is an awful lot of people. Most, in fact.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:
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?

And you always give instruction not to be followed--right?

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

....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?

Opening and closing a RTTY net with CW. Hi!

I've been involved in both as a radio amateur. Len wouldn't know
anything about that. I've never been involved in either as a State
Department employee. Len wouldn't know anything about that either.

Calm down.

...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%.

About the same percentage as your commnets. Imagine that!

No RTTY or CW State Department "commnets".

Frustrated technical writer?

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.

There is always a quiz where your motives are concerned.

I'm taking a whiz on your quiz.

Lay off the branch water.

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.

Are FCC staffers required to hold an amateur radio license in order to
hold their positions?

Are they paid for regulating amateur radio? Are DMV employees required
to hold a driving license? Are DNR clerks mandated to have a hunting
license? Do you understand any of this?

FCC staffers - regulate amateur radio - receive a salary

radio amateurs - participate in amateur radio - receive no salary

Len Anderson - not a regulator or participant - receives no salary

So people without licenses and least likely to know anything about
anything are regulating our radio, our drivers, and people with guns???

There ought to be a law!

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.

Congratulations on almost a century of posting meaningless drivel.

A century, huh? That must be the new math.

Sorry, Log -10

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.

Please point out those "signs."

Check under the Google sign. Take some Pepto Bismol first and be
prepared to spend some time.

I've seen plenty of name calling and denigration moving in Len's
direction.

Your point?

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. :-)

Typo.

A *big* typo.

"not"

You really are a frustrated technical writer, aren't you?

I'm neither frustrated nor a technical writer. I don't have the knack
for making simple terms seem complex.

Yet you have a knack to make simple typos into undecipherable passages.
You should put your lack of talent to more useful purposes.

Back to the subject.

Really? You're going to lay waste to Frank of Silliland's silliness?

Hi! Robeson is in hiding.

Len has declared a several-decades-long "interest" in amateur radio.

OK.

I'm sure he feels better now that you've blessed the concept.

There's nothing new there. I thought you were the guy that couldn't
take the simple and make it complex. Yet you point out the plain and
obvious and expect me to get excited.

He's never been interested enough to even attempt passing a license
exam.

How do you know that?

That's easy. He has told us so.

OK.

Len was going to go for an "Extra right out of the box" several
years back. That hasn't happened.

How do you know that?

Another easy one. He has told us so.

OK. That means you and the three other Morsemen are still safe from
having to talk to him on the radio.

Is there anything else?

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?

Perhaps he has tried and failed. Many people fail the tests.

It is certainly possible for you to be correct. Do you think Len is
fibbing about taking a test because he doesn't want to embarrass himself?

I certainly thought that dysfunctional and illiterate Bruce was fibbing
about having passed Extra on a lark, without studying, in under 7
minutes, with 100% correct, and winning a wager of $250. But I guess I
was wrong. So after being so wrong with such a slam-dunk, I'd rather
not venture a guess about Len.

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.

Yet you think that you are in charge of Anderson. You take it as a
personal challenge to reign in Len's postings.

I do? I've never told Len to shut up or to go away. I've countered
him, challenged his assertions and ridiculed a number of his ideas.

The word is "rein".

Please forgive me.

Why is that?

It isn't.

Hi!

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?

Then end your decade-long griping about Len.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Learning theory fails. There's certainly no change in your
behavio[u]r.

Take your own advice and
simply don't read it.

You and others are free to ignore my advice. I feel free to ignore yours.

And you your own. If it is worthless to you, why try to pawn it off on
others?

And don't start tail-ending someone elses
comments as Jim has, in order to comment on Len's opinions. Hi!

How about if I simply ignore your suggestions? There's certainly
precedent for doing so.

There certainly is.

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.

I'd prefer not to engage out of band Frenchmen on six meters...

You are free to check the allocations of any country's radio amateurs
before working them. You may quiz any foreign or domestic radio
amateurs about whether they are outside their alloted bands or band
segments. You may complain to any country's PTT if its amateurs call you
outside their published allocations. I woulnd't encourage just anyone
to do so but I feel that you need purpose in your life.

"wouldn't" Lots of anger.

...and not
to give Robeson a pass on his outrageous behavio[u]r by remaining
silent.

I don't control the postings of Steve Robeson. He is responsible for
his own postings. I'm free to comment or not comment on them. You
speak of them as outrageous. I feel that comments directed to Steve
about his military service, border on outrageous. You have written some
of them. Frank the CBer and Leonard Anderson have written others.

Steve has repeatedly told me that if I can't show proof, then my claims
didn't happen and that I'm a liar. I merely hold Steve to his own
ethics. Tuff Love.

I noticed that you made no comments about "Colonel" Mark Morgan's recent
outrageous lies about me. Why is that? Did you see the quoted Google
material which revealed his claims to be a lie? Aren't you, by your own
standards, responsible for his posts?

MARK! You bedda stop dat!

Feel better?

You, of course, will do both.

I will operate under the regs imposed by my license. I will not take
personal responsibility for newsgroup posts other than my own. Those
are two things you'll have to live with.

Dave K8MN

I hope you won't mind me sharing.

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
ups.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?

They think so!

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?

The water came from two sources. One was fresh water and the other salt
water from a storm surge. Water that was once some place else came to be
deposited in New Orleans and the world has suffered no increase or
decrease in the amount of water that exists in the world. The world
covering biblical flood is quite a different matter. A huge amount of
water that doesn't exist here toady would have to had existed at that
time. It would have had to be someplace else before the flood, and then
after the flood, it would have had to go some place else.

Another interesting question:

During the rain and flood period, the ocean levels would have to raise
by many 10's of thousands of feet. What effect would this have on the
rotational velocity of the earth? Same thing when the water receded.

Since the water came from rain, and therefore fresh, there should be a
distinct record of the Oceans salinity dropping drastically at that time.

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.

I had dated a few anomalies myself in my younger days. Some were fun,
and others.....

- Mike KB3EIA -

wrote:
From: on Sun 4 Sep 2005 07:48

wrote:
snip
From: on Aug 28, 8:18 am

In the end, if they cannot
lay waste to Len's comments with rational argument(s),
they claim that
his opinions are simply no good because Len isn't a ham.

Actually the logic is quite different. It comes down to
asking why Len is so interested in amateur radio policy
even though Len is not a ham and has never been one. There
has been a nocodetest amateur radio license in the USA since
1991, yet Len never got one. The maximum code test required
for any US amateur radio license has been 5 wpm since 1990 (with
medical waiver) and since 2000 without a waiver.

[Jimmie NEVER got a no-code-test Technician license...]

But he's got 101 opinions about it.

Nor is Len a manufacturer of amateur radio equipment, nor does
he have anything to do with FCC.

[Jimmie is a "manufacturer of amateur radio equipment"...makes
one of a kind equipment...state-of-the-art style using vacuum
tubes in the 1990s]

He's preparing for the big EM Pulse.

More than 5-1/2 years ago, Len told us he was going for Extra,
but didn't say when, and it hasn't happened yet.

[tsk, tsk, make a statement long ago and the Profiler HOLDS ONTO
that as a "lifelong goal"...as he was taught in Seminary...]

Hey Len, have you ever worked Frenchmen out of band on Six Meters?

So in the end, when Jim Miccolis/N2EY, David Heil/K8MN, Brian
Kelly/W3RV, and Steven J. Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP point out that Len is not
an amateur, for what purpose do you do so? What do you hope to gain
from pointing out that Len isn't an amateur?

Jimmie has a need to WIN MESSAGE POINTS. :-)

No, there's something else to it. Probably something on Aaron Jones
list of "Morse Myths." By coming out with whatever their motivations
are, it will expose yet another myth. But which one?

Jimmie wants to be TOP DAWG in here! :-)

Never happen if he can't face legitimate discussion.

And regardless of how someone replies to Len's posts here, Len will
reply according to the profile.

It's just his way.

Why should anyone reply to his posts at all, Dave?

73 de Jim, N2EY

Hi, hi! You reply directly to my comment, then you act as if you are
speaking to Dave. Then you ask why anyone should reply to Len's posts
at all. More hi, hi's!

Jim, when you're ready to have a rational discussion with me, I'll be
here.

Brian, don't expect a "rational discussion" with Jimmie. Repeated
asking will get you PROFILED! :-)



Yeh, well.

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

They think so!

Would you be offended if they prayed for your soul?

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?

The water came from two sources. One was fresh water and the other salt
water from a storm surge. Water that was once some place else came to be
deposited in New Orleans and the world has suffered no increase or
decrease in the amount of water that exists in the world.

Do you know this from first-hand experience, or what?

The world
covering biblical flood is quite a different matter.

The known world in the biblical flood...

A huge amount of
water that doesn't exist here toady would have to had existed at that
time.

Why?

It would have had to be someplace else before the flood, and then
after the flood, it would have had to go some place else.

Much like the water in New Orleans. It wasn't there two weeks ago.
Three months from now it will be somewhere else. Will you be able to
account for all of the water then?

Another interesting question:

During the rain and flood period, the ocean levels would have to raise
by many 10's of thousands of feet. What effect would this have on the
rotational velocity of the earth? Same thing when the water receded.

Probably rotate faster as a water covered earth should have far less
frictional drag than a rough land/mountain covered earth. If you
discount the atmosphere.

Since the water came from rain, and therefore fresh, there should be a
distinct record of the Oceans salinity dropping drastically at that time.

You should have asked Noah if he could float an egg in the water or
not.

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.

I had dated a few anomalies myself in my younger days. Some were fun,
and others.....

Too many cultures have a tradition of a great flood for it to be a
fairy tale.

A. Melon wrote:
In article . com
"an Old friend" wrote:


Dave Heil wrote:
an Old friend wrote:
cut

I noticed that you made no comments about "Colonel" Mark Morgan's recent
outrageous lies about me. Why is that? Did you see the quoted Google
material which revealed his claims to be a lie? Aren't you, by your own
standards, responsible for his posts?


because I wasn't lying at worst I was eeing things differently than you

You posted baldfaced lies and when you were presented with facts, you
chose to ignore them. In fact, you continued with additional lies. If
you'd stoop to these lies, there's likely nothing about which you'd not lie.

what bald faced lies?

Anybody who disagrees with Dave Vile is a liar, didn't you know that? guffaw!
I have noticed

different edition of websters I guess


One thing you and Stvie need to learn is that disagreeing with isn't
lying
cut

There was no disagreement. There was only your posting of deliberate,
malicious untruths. You wrote that I was posting in a usenet
"personals" group. I wasn't. You wrote that I was flirting with a
woman. I wasn't. You wrote that I was flirting with a bisexual woman.
I wasn't. You wouldn't know the truth if it whapped you in the face.

you were posting in group consiting of nothing but presonal adds and
sexual flirtations

you were posting stuff of a flirting nature, directed toward a bisexual
female

Guess he was bored with the one he married.
and interesting that he attacks me so vicously for being a BIsexual
male but will flirt with Bisexual female

wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Frank Gilliland wrote:

On 4 Sep 2005 16:44:42 -0700, wrote in
ups.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.

Just about 1 blue whale should do it.

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.

Don't forget the "variable light speed" theory. Or is that fact? ;^)
Light can magically slow down and speed up in order to account for a
literal Genesis interpretation.

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.

Ostrich heads in the sand....

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.

Of course. Yaknow, my trump card in the whole science/fundamental
religion debate is that I have a lot of the fundies literature, courtesy
of my maternal grandparents, who were indeed fundies.

I have literature that proclaims that education is dangerous, due to
the likelihood of sinful ideas such as evolution being imprinted on the
student. I even have statements that education may lead the educated to
question things. Questioning things is bad.



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

Not in time for his pension, I dare say!

- Mike KB3EIA -

an Old friend wrote:
Dave Heil wrote:

an Old friend wrote:

cut

I noticed that you made no comments about "Colonel" Mark Morgan's recent
outrageous lies about me. Why is that? Did you see the quoted Google
material which revealed his claims to be a lie? Aren't you, by your own
standards, responsible for his posts?


because I wasn't lying at worst I was eeing things differently than you

You posted baldfaced lies and when you were presented with facts, you
chose to ignore them. In fact, you continued with additional lies. If
you'd stoop to these lies, there's likely nothing about which you'd not lie.


what bald faced lies?

The lies which I outlined below. You know full well which baldfaced lies.

One thing you and Stvie need to learn is that disagreeing with isn't
lying
cut

There was no disagreement. There was only your posting of deliberate,
malicious untruths. You wrote that I was posting in a usenet
"personals" group. I wasn't. You wrote that I was flirting with a
woman. I wasn't. You wrote that I was flirting with a bisexual woman.
I wasn't. You wouldn't know the truth if it whapped you in the face.


you were posting in group consiting of nothing but presonal adds and
sexual flirtations

That is one lie. I was posting in alt.west-virginia.

you were posting stuff of a flirting nature, directed toward a bisexual
female

That is two more lies. I posted nothing of a flirtaceous nature and I
posted nothing to a bisexual female.

I know the turth you lack a nodding understanding of it

You not only don't "know the turth", you incapable of being truthful.

again One thing you and Stvie need to learn is that disagreeing with
isn't
lying

There is no disagreement, Mark. You flat out lied, deliberately,
brazenly and maliciously.

You're one of the most sorry human beings I've ever encountered.


you have nevr entounteed me thnak god

No, I haven't entounteed you. I've encountered you right here.

Why are you "thnaking" a deity in which you have no belief?


Dave K8MN

wrote:

snip

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?!)


It must be remembered that New Orleans has been sinking at the rate of
3 feet per century. This has been accelerated due to the deterioration
of the Mississippi Delta.

When the city was founded, it was a low lying coastal city, just like
most coastal cities. At that time, there was plenty of Delta, and it
looked like a fine place to build a port city.

Over the years, as the geology changed, it was not at such as fast rate
that relocation seemed necessary. Then as we learned more, we found out
that essentially the city was doomed.

More on that in my reply to Brian upcoming.

- Mike KB3EIA -