Frank:

Frankly, if I thought anything, I would suspect that it would be the
"supreme aliens" who were able to call the shots--I don't think our gov't
or the world gov'ts for that matter would be doing much of anything--at
least not anything the aliens were not telling them to do...

Who knows, keep an open mind, maybe they are just raising us like a head
of cattle--and butchering time is near!!! terrified-look!

.... do I think that is really happening? Heck, I don't know if there is a
supreme being, I don't know if we came from a mud puddle, how should I
know, if you ask me--all the choices just sound crazy, ask the aliens!
chuckle

John

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:53:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 19:37:46 -0700, John Smith
wrote in
:

Frank:

You are much more dense than I'd imagined, I am sorry to have given you
too much credit, let me explain it to you, perhaps you can get the picture.
snip


No need, but I read it anyway. You have concluded that I think life
does not exist elsewhere in the universe. I said no such thing. On the
contrary, I think that extraterrestrial life is not just a possibility
but a statistical probability with a level of confidence that's better
than the sun rising each morning.

What I find amusing is the way some people use that as a justification
for their belief that the government is hiding little grey aliens.









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

K0HB:

Interesting...

All I know from observing the elements, electromagnetic spectrum and
the nature of things is that nature never creates symmetry (well,
crystals and spheres), never creates extremely complex designs, machines
or beings--indeed, the only argument and/or example anyone can possibly
pose is us--or rather, life on earth.

I would find one believing you can throw a handful of glass, plastic,
metal into a mud puddle--come back a million or so years later and start
pulling out microwaves, cell phones, amateur equip., etc... as all of
those are much simpler, we can make those ourselves!

I find it strange men have designed a whole complex theory explaining how
it can happen and stating they have "proofs", and yet we are the only
"proof", and really no proof at all to the original question--i.e., we are
simply proof we exist, not how we came to exist...

In my personal opinion, evolution is nothing more than a religion, and one
needing a leap of faith to participate in...

Nature is a prime example of decay, destruction of complex chemicals,
reduction to the base elements--devolution if you will... but then, some
would argue black is white...

If I was forced to guess, a beginning without the intervention of an
intelligence with a plan I would venture is impossible, someone obviously
"made" us...

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 03:11:38 +0000, KØHB wrote:


"John Smith" wrote


Then again, even if it a "mud puddle god" which is now on his/her/their
way to us right now, we may not be able to tell the difference between
them/it and a/the supreme being(s)--or perhaps, "God forbid!", they did
create us and now study us from a "duck blind"...


In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic
loneliness.

And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what
We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one
was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up,
looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he
asked politely.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And He went away.

--- Book of Bokonon, Chapter 1, Verses 2-4

Frank Gilliland wrote:

Well, I'll tell ya, Dave -- I have absolutely no regrets about
anything I did in the Marines,

But the Marines probably do.

Frank:

To be honest--it wouldn't surprise me, but then you are talking to a guy
who thought the stain on monicas' dress might be ice cream! straight-face

John

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:11:31 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote:

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 20:06:44 -0700, John Smith
wrote in
:

Frank:

Grey? Who told you grey? I heard it was green! grin


Dave Hall (N3CVJ) said they were grey. He also said they were from
Zeta Reticuli. I guess he's an expert with those sorts of things.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"John Smith" wrote


If I was forced to guess, a beginning without the intervention of an
intelligence with a plan I would venture is impossible, someone obviously
"made" us...


Are you from Kansas?

Evolution is (in my mind) too fuzzy a term, because it has become popularized to
imply a lock-step progression from "lower to higher". I subscribe to the basic
premise ("natural selection") but I believe it to be a stochastic process in
which some randomly scattered "lucky breaks" occured. For a good read, go to a
good university library and check out "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins
(Oxford) and "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies (University of Adelaide).

73, de Hans, K0HB

"John Smith" wrote


I have trouble in believing in either, but one is true!


There is a teleological argument, popular in the bible belt, which goes
something like this:

Premise 1: The universe was designed by someone "intelligent"
Premise 2: If it was designed by an intelligent being, it was designed by
either humans or God.
Premise 3: The universe was not designed by human intelligence.
4: From (1) and (2), the universe was designed by either humans or God.
5: From (3), it was designed by God.

The third premise is generally scientifically accepted, but not so the first
and second.

73, de Hans, K0HB

KØHB wrote:
"John Smith" wrote


Then again, even if it a "mud puddle god" which is now on his/her/their
way to us right now, we may not be able to tell the difference between
them/it and a/the supreme being(s)--or perhaps, "God forbid!", they did
create us and now study us from a "duck blind"...



In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic
loneliness.

And God said, "Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what
We have done." And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one
was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up,
looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he
asked politely.

"Everything must have a purpose?" asked God.

"Certainly," said man.

"Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God.

And He went away.

But God, being the first electrical engineer, came back and took a rib
from the man and created the first "loud speaker".

From: Frank Gilliland on Aug 27, 7:08 pm

On 27 Aug 2005 15:30:42 -0700, "
wrote in
s.com?:


snip

Dave is a Pro-Code-Test Advocate. Dudly is more-or-less a PCTA.
Dave wants to fiercely attack ANY No-Code-Test Advocate (NCTA).

Frank, you've come out as an NCTA and thus are on Dave's ****list.

Then Dave is barking up the wrong tree. I'm not a ham but I do see the
value of keeping the code as a requirement.

Okay, I stand corrected. No problem to me.

However, under the ROE (Rules of Engagement) in here, if you
agree with me in the slightest on anything, that puts you in
"aligned with me" and in Dave's ****list. :-)

Not only is it one of the
most efficient and universal forms of radio communication, learning
the skill demonstrates both a willingness and dedication to the hobby
and it's history. Besides, 5wpm isn't so hard that it leads to chronic
insomnia or constipation, but some of these no-coders whine about as
much as Dudly does when he's asked for proof of his military service!
Code isn't that big of a deal. Learn it, pass the test, then either
use it or don't use it but at least you'll have a skill you didn't
have before. IMO.

Opinion noted. I have a surfeit of acquired skills already,
don't need any old ones. :-)

I don't need to demonstrate how to hand-crank-start a car to
the state motor vehicle department. I've done that anyway.

I don't need to learn musketry skills, of hand-loading a lead
ball, to shoot well. I've shot well with modern firearms. No
personal firearms license in my locality requires demonstration
of shooting skills.

I don't need to "sit" a horse in order to convey myself a large
distance. I've never done that nor do I expect to. All the
"horsepower" I need is in our new Chevy. The state motor
vehicle department does not recognize horsemanship.

I don't need to learn blacksmithing in order to shape iron or
most other metals. I've already shaped metal to what I want
and none of it was for horseshoes. :-)

I don't need to learn to grow all my food, either in ground
or that walking upon it. Food markets serve me and wife well.
I've learned enough to survive on the land in emergencies and
that is, in my opinion, sufficient.

Since 1952 I've learned old-fashioned vacuum tube radio
communications techniques and never had to demonstrate any
morsemanship nor to use it in any transmission mode then...or
afterwards. That afterwards included transmitting on many
more parts of the EM spectrum than is allowed to U.S. radio
amateurs.

One thing I have learned in the last half century is that our
government CAN and DOES accept cogent arguments on changing
existing regulations to better suit all citizens. At the
same time I also learned that there is a large body of citizenry
that absolutely forbids any thought of changing "their" beloved
standards and practices in legislated law! :-)


Dave thinks you've "sided" with me. I'm on Dave's ****list from
years ago. :-)

Well, that's between you and Dave. Apparently he can't make that
distinction.

He sure can't. :-)

From: John Smith on Aug 27, 5:00 pm

Len:

Little boys who never grow up only have their fairy tale dreams, how could
it be different--it is obvious from the get-go that they dream they are
secret agents fighting some secret war. They imagine themselves important
"radio operatives", not ever realizing the gov't has let old, retired,
decrepit men dream they are still vitally important as they have been
warehoused in "amateur service."

That's a tad harsh, John. Close, though. Ham radio is essentially
a solo operation: One man, one radio, listening a lot to assorted
radio signals...and natural/man-made noise. There's ample
opportunity to start imagining things, even to reading "signals"
in natural noise.

With OOK CW the ONLY clue they have to the other operator is the
kind of keying they use/do, the so-called "fist". OOK CW has NO
other clue as to that other person, no voice tone, no expression,
no body language, nothing of what we in-person humans use to
base social interaction on...just the absolute formality of certain
procedures, jargon, abbreviations. That other operator could be
of another gender and there is NO clue as to which one with OOK CW.

That alienation to normal other-person input can be responsible for
some of the strident bigotry about morsemanship...a defense AGAINST
having to conform as humans in social, in-person situations. With
a minimum of normal human clues to others, they can be whatever they
want to be, whatever they dream about, the emobdiment of their
internal fantasies. Who is to tell with OOK CW? All the normal
human clues are missing in such interaction.

In much the same way is computer-modem communications. All we have
is words on a screen. The "clues" to what another person is like
is dependent on how well they can compose sentences, communicate
ideas and feelings. Not all have such capabilities. It is similar
to OOK CW morse code but has at least one approximation of human-
interaction clue, the representation of speech. Voice is a NATURAL
thing in human interaction, all races, all genders, any nation.
Monotonic sound patterns are NOT natural for communications, not a
part of our natural behavior.

No longer can they tell reality from the dream, they are either unable or
unwilling to face the stark reality--it would be too painful... now they
must be left to hide within this dream world, they no longer have the
courage to face the truth... strange, but it probably all started out
with everyone wanting to be nice to them, but it became an evil and
diabolical trap to the demise of their credibility and respectability...

There are many psychological causes for a retreat into a fantasy
world. They might not be able to handle the pressures of reality.
They might be too ego-driven to accept change if they've become
good at some old procedure...and need that to retain their sense
of self-worth. They might be just fraudulent individuals seeking
prestige under a fantasy identification; personal income is not
always monetary. They might be just nuts.

No one takes any joy in such a sorrowful thing...

Certain other individuals in this newsgroup have. They have openly
wished others dead and thought nothing of it. That's perverted.

I've found enormous satisfaction in the entire technologic field
of radio-electronics, so much so that it has been my work as well
as hobby; one need not be licensed to build/experiment/explore if
the RF radiation is below government-specified standards. All of
electronics has been continuosly evolving, changing, IMPROVING,
opening up new vistas of technology in other fields, a working-
together of techno trades that benefit all. It is insane to have
to confine oneself to certain old procedures and standards in a
hobby endeavor, to have to behave in such utter formality of
everything. Amateur radio is NOT a job, not a guild, not a craft
of professionals. Neither is it some specific national resource
or a "service" for/of/about the nation. It is basically a HOBBY,
personal interest for recreation in a radio area that requires
licensing due to the nature of EM waves and human legislation to
regulate such EM wave uses.

I will be happy if more people recognize that amateur radio IS a
hobby and not some mythical "service" to their own imaginations
and desires for personal glory and misguided self-patriotism.




On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 16:25:14 -0700, wrote:
From: K4YZ on Aug 27, 7:32 am

(N0IMD in yet another drag) wrote:

text removed since it has already been posted in public

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.

First, just for starters, to get all the necessary elements formed into
the complex amino acids to create the RNA is preposterous--let alone the
actual creation of the RNA (and this would only be a virus--unable to
replicate on its own.) Next, to get a complex DNA structure would be
another extraordinary event, for the proper structure (organism) to be
present and form around the DNA AND be able to use the DNA would be
another extraordinary event, for this organism to be able to replicate
would be one more extraordinary event, for just one of these single celled
organisms to go "multi-cellular" would be one more extraordinary event,
then for each cell to develop specialized functions--another extraordinary
event, for them to form complete organs handling a specific
function--another extraordinary event.... AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO GO
RIGHT ON UP TO WHERE THE ORGANISM IS CAPABLE OF SELF-REALIZATION, COMPLEX
THOUGHT AND CONSIDERS ITSELF TO HAVE A SPIRIT!

.... as you can quickly see, this chain of impossible, seemingly endlessly
numbered and impossible links of extraordinary events to have all
occurred, all at just the right time, all in just the proper order is just
too mathematically impossible to have any believe but those willing to
believe the most preposterous impossibility which could ever be devised...
in plain english--IT IS IMPOSSIBLE--END OF STORY!

Those books on the subject, start quickly to, toss around these CHAINS of
extraordinary events without the slightest considerations to the
mathematical possibilities, which end up being NON-EXISTENT!

I had the fortune to have a mathematics professor who I worked with at the
university, who obtained a grant and was into computing these
possibilities, he WAS an atheist... and that is a true story!

In fact, it was this professor who first told me to look either for angels
or aliens--before he finally settled on the angels (intelligence NOT from
a mud puddle as you could ever find upon an earth-like planet)...

I just flat do not know what to think, it is all too impossible...
perhaps the answers are out there...
X-Files-theme-plays-in-the-background

.... or, perhaps there is a very simple explanation we just have not
thought of--yet... any guess is as valid as another...

John

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:03:50 +0000, KØHB wrote:


"John Smith" wrote


If I was forced to guess, a beginning without the intervention of an
intelligence with a plan I would venture is impossible, someone obviously
"made" us...


Are you from Kansas?

Evolution is (in my mind) too fuzzy a term, because it has become popularized to
imply a lock-step progression from "lower to higher". I subscribe to the basic
premise ("natural selection") but I believe it to be a stochastic process in
which some randomly scattered "lucky breaks" occured. For a good read, go to a
good university library and check out "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins
(Oxford) and "The Mind of God" by Paul Davies (University of Adelaide).

73, de Hans, K0HB