DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO
POSTS
From 8/15/2009 Through 4/24/2010, Part 6
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hmuscp$jkr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/CVL/index.html
> There are some articles announcing this upcoming line of Horseman wide
> angle and macro conversion lenses for DSLRs from fall 2009 but I don't
> see where they can be bought. Horseman is known for making some rather
> fancy large format gear, so one would expect these lenses are not total
> crap although the $60-$120 price doesn't suggest the flawless imaging
> they describe. These are for screwing on the front of a kit lens.
It looks like an interesting collection of supplemental wide, fisheye,
and close-up lenses, made for 58mm-threaded lenses. *In general*,
final image quality depends on the attachment and original lens quality
and especially on how well they "get along together". Results can be
excellent, as with an "el-cheapo" fisheye I would have recommended
to no one, but on a friend's P&S, it is excellent - and an Olympus .8x
on my f2 Sony 707 zoom (but only near its lens widest zoom end...) is
good to the corners wide open. Also in general, the non-fisheyes
produce strong barrel "distortion" (they actually are fisheyes, but with
restricted angles of view) and the best of these may use aspheric
molded plastic elements to reduce optical problems, even if there is
only one element.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hn9r26$26f$2@news.albasani.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Wilba" <usenet@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:4b983ee4$0$27783$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> What's the technical term for the kind of lens we use all the time, that
>>> projects a plane of focus onto an image plane?
>> Rectilinear.
> I thought it was "flat field"?
>
> Stephanie
"Flat field" it is, and the opposite is "curved field" (of focus...).
"Rectilinear", "spherical", etc. havve to do with lens perspective
types (see for more --
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_distortion_types.htm,
although my server is VERY slow this morning...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:m6SdnehDHdi4wgTWnZ2dnUVZ_qoAAAAA@giganews.com...
> On 10-03-10 23:20 , stephe_k@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Wilba" <usenet@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:4b983ee4$0$27783$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> What's the technical term for the kind of lens we use all the time,
>>>> that projects a plane of focus onto an image plane?
>>> Rectilinear.
>> I thought it was "flat field"?
> Yes.
>
> Rectilinear goes to barrel/pin cushion being greatly reduced.
>
> Flat field is plane of focus that is flat, not spherical.
>
> I don't know if both can be achieved in the same lens.
Yes, they can...;-)
But, sometimes it gets more complicated, with reasonable field
flatness being achieved only within a certain focus range unless
the lens design includes lens physical variations that change with
focus ("CRC", some internal focus designs, etc.), or there is a
"happy" zoom control position that results in a compromise at
a certain FL that results in flat field focus. Most people don't
notice field curvature unless it is especially bad (it isn't in most
good lenses at the most commonly used focus distances), or they
know what to look for...;-) Also, the use of medium to small
stops generally covers even the worst field curvature.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Me" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:hnbtpn$t8t$1@news.albasani.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> But, sometimes it gets more complicated, with reasonable field
>> flatness being achieved only within a certain focus range unless
>> the lens design includes lens physical variations that change with
>> focus ("CRC", some internal focus designs, etc.), or there is a
>> "happy" zoom control position that results in a compromise at
>> a certain FL that results in flat field focus. Most people don't
>> notice field curvature unless it is especially bad (it isn't in most
>> good lenses at the most commonly used focus distances), or they
>> know what to look for...;-) Also, the use of medium to small
>> stops generally covers even the worst field curvature.
>> --DR
> It's a problem when amateur (and pro) "lens testers" shoot brick walls
> and resolution charts, particularly with wide lenses at close range.
> Some people on DPReview got all wound up about field curvature with the
> Nikkor 24-70. Perhaps there are some unique "real" circumstances where
> it matters - apart from brick walls.
> IIRC DPReview, when testing some wide lenses (at close range - so that
> the chart filled the frame) "averaged" focus setting to "allow for"
> field curvature, thus reporting relatively poor performance overall.
> Crazy stuff.
Yes, it is. ;-) In my "Subjective Lens Evaluations (Mostly Nikkors)", at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html, I use infinity targets to avoid
parallelism errors, but then check lenses also near their closest focus to
see if they change much (they often get much worse toward the corners).
Most *good* lenses are fairly good to the corners wide open (by my
definition for "good"...;-), but since close focus far less often requires
high standards, unless it is poor, I don't mention it in the evaluations.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7vv1s8Fjn9U9@mid.individual.net...
> Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote:
>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>On 10-03-11 17:46 , David Ruether wrote:
>>>> But, sometimes it gets more complicated, with reasonable field
>>>> flatness being achieved only within a certain focus range unless
>>>> the lens design includes lens physical variations that change with
>>>> focus ("CRC", some internal focus designs, etc.), or there is a
>>>> "happy" zoom control position that results in a compromise at
>>>> a certain FL that results in flat field focus. Most people don't
>>>> notice field curvature unless it is especially bad (it isn't in most
>>>> good lenses at the most commonly used focus distances), or they
>>>> know what to look for...;-) Also, the use of medium to small
>>>> stops generally covers even the worst field curvature.
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>That mainly says to me that a lens is Flat Field, Rectilinear or neither.
>>>
>>>eg: if you have to think about it too much it ruins the photo.
Yes...8^) But it is best to know your lenses, and what they can, and
cannot, do...
>> An interesting bit of history on that, is that the term
>> "flat field" applies to a specific lens design criteria,
>> and virtually all normal and wide angle lenses since the
>> late 1800's have been "flat field" designs.
> It's an advantage having a curved field of focus in a wide angle lens
> used for shooting interiors.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
It can be, in specific instances, but I prefer flat-field since, with few
exceptions, interior focus can be covered easily with DOF with WAs,
and flat-field limits me less with exteriors, landscapes, etc.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7vv1imFjn9U8@mid.individual.net...
> Wilba <usenet@cutthisimago.com.au> wrote:
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>>> Wilba wrote:
>>>>>> What's the technical term for the kind of lens we use all the time,
>>>>>> that projects a plane of focus onto an image plane?
>>> "Flat field" it is, and the opposite is "curved field" (of focus...).
>>> "Rectilinear", "spherical", etc. have to do with lens perspective
>>> types
>> That's exactly what I wanted. Thanks a bunch.
> And some cameras, such as the best of the tiny format Minolta 16s,
> used curved film planes in the camera and the matching enlarger.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
???? ;-)
It may be possible to match a camera lens fairly well to non-flat film,
but the enlarger would be an independent issue (the film image is
sharp, or not, but no compensation for lack of film flatness in the
camera could be made in the enlarger). It would be possible for the
enlarger's lens to likewise fairly well match a non-flat film positioning
in its film gate, but one wonders why one would bother, since focus
with both the camera and the enlarger would be at best an approximating
compromise. Price and simplicity of construction may be the answer
(use poor lenses, then try to approximate their non-flat focus fields
with non-flat film positioning - but the lens errors would likely be circular,
and those of the film positioning would likely be cylindrical...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:feadnQZ4l9ieqQHWnZ2dnUVZ_joAAAAA@giganews.com...
> On 10-03-13 18:56 , Michael Benveniste wrote:
>> Nikon body-lens compatibility is a minefield of footnotes, exceptions, and oddities.
> Succinct.
One can go to the Nikon site (www.nikonusa.com) and do a search
for a body, then the lens functional compatibility page for it (for the D90,
it is at http://support.nikontech.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/16108).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"rwalker" <rwalker@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:tnctq5dcru2vjd633fch9tntdhlkub93dh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:43:48 +0100, Robert Spanjaard
> <spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote:
>>I thought I'd be happy if I could spot _one_ deer. I never expected
>>this. :-)
>>
>>http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_5204.jpg
> Where is this if you don't mind? I've seen this kind of thing in
> upstate New York where I live, but not often that many at once.
Unfortunately (I hear......), this is what our side yard looks like, but
we never see the deer, just the ditch they have dug down our front
slope to the road where they cross to a park. Other evidence: the
large numbers of piles of "brown marbles" in the yard, and the
uprooting of almost everything we planted in the yard (including the
eating to the ground of an old but stunted oak tree). A trip to Agway
for material to spray on foliage that was supposed to keep the deer
from eating everything just resulted in severe "deer diarrhea" for a
couple of months - WHEW, what a MESS!!!!!! ;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"rwalker" <rwalker@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:luhtq55ulrkrgdn4qvf77hv9u4hprab8tu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:47:10 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>> Where is this if you don't mind? I've seen this kind of thing in
>>> upstate New York where I live, but not often that many at once.
>>Upstate NY. Whereabouts?
>>Before I moved to California I lived in Syracuse, Utica, and in the
>>Adirondacks at a small place on the Fulton Chain of Lakes, Inlet
>>(plenty of deer & bear there).
>>--
>>Regards,
>>
>>Savageduck
> Seneca Falls, about halfway between Syracuse and Rochester, right at
> the northern end of Cayuga Lake.
Also Ithaca, at the southern end of Cayuga Lake (and now black bears
have now moved in...). BTW, when the Seneca Army Depot was
open north of here (a storage location for nuclear weapons, supposedly),
a large area was fenced off, and it encouraged a strain of white deer
to grow to become the largest such herd in the world. See for more -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_White_Deer.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010032720312215668-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-03-27 20:07:48 -0700, rwalker <rwalker@despammed.com> said:
>> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:47:10 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> Where is this if you don't mind? I've seen this kind of thing in
>>>> upstate New York where I live, but not often that many at once.
>>> Upstate NY. Whereabouts?
>>> Before I moved to California I lived in Syracuse, Utica, and in the
>>> Adirondacks at a small place on the Fulton Chain of Lakes, Inlet
>>> (plenty of deer & bear there).
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>> Seneca Falls, about halfway between Syracuse and Rochester, right at
>> the northern end of Cayuga Lake.
> Yup.
> I know exactly where Seneca Falls is.
> I was in Syracuse in '71&'72 on E. Genesee at the bottom of the hill
> from the University. I know that whole area quite well, having stomped
> over to Watkins Glen, Ithaca, Up to the Thousand Islands area,
> Alexander Bay, and East to Lake George, Corinth, Lake Lucerne, etc.
> Those were somewhat headier times for a 20 something.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
I've lived in some purdy nice areas (like Seattle, San Francisco, Phoenix,
Norman OK, Miami) and have traveled the west much and have been in
48 of the 50 states, but I kept returning to Ithaca for its wonderful "compact"
scenery. There are "zillions" of waterfalls (including the highest in the NE,
just up the road from me), glens, gorges, forests, rolling hills and fields, and
two great schools in this very small city, with most things within 5-10 minute
drive from my house, including the four NY State Parks here and the 25
Ithaca city parks, including a very large city-owned natural area. Add to this
two large bird sanctuaries, Cornell's large numbers of land holdings, plantations,
and flower gardens open to the public, and it is no wonder I kept coming back
here and finally stayed (even with the often-gruesome weather.......;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tMCdnTgYePrfKjPWnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> rwalker wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:43:48 +0100, Robert Spanjaard
>> <spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote:
>>> I thought I'd be happy if I could spot _one_ deer. I never expected
>>> this. :-)
>>>
>>> http://www.arumes.com/temp/CRW_5204.jpg
>> Where is this if you don't mind? I've seen this kind of thing in
>> upstate New York where I live, but not often that many at once.
> Reminds me of my back yard at times. I live in Austin TX in an area
> labeled "Central City" by the real estate people, and it's not uncommon
> to see as many as eight whitetails at once in our yard. Many of them
> were born in our yard and the does keep returned to what we call the
> "deer neonatal center" to bear their fawns. A nuisance, but beautiful
> creatures. All the nurseries and garden shops have lists of what they
> won't eat. Most herbs, such as rosemary and basil, are on the lists, but
> surprisingly they don't eat irises.
> Allen
They are beautiful, but destructive (and we unfortunately rarely see them
even with all the evidence of their presence) - and the worst is when we
too-often hear "SCRE-E-E-E-E-E-CH!!" - "THUNK!" Followed soon
by flashing lights and "BANG!, BANG!, BANG!" from the police ineptly
trying to put the injured deer out of its (their) misery. S - I - G - H ! ! !
(I used to be against hunting, but....) BTW, of all the many things we
planted, only an Austrian Pine (which we later cut down, not having done
our research before buying it), two of three low evergreen scrubs, and the
daffodils survived.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4baf8e37$1$31297$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:honvne$6ja$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> I've lived in some purdy nice areas (like Seattle, San Francisco, Phoenix,
>> Norman OK, Miami) and have traveled the west much and have been in
>> 48 of the 50 states, but I kept returning to Ithaca for its wonderful
>> "compact" scenery. There are "zillions" of waterfalls (including the highest
>> in the NE, just up the road from me), glens, gorges, forests, rolling hills
>> and fields, and two great schools in this very small city, with most things
>> within 5-10 minute drive from my house, including the four NY State Parks
>> here and the 25 Ithaca city parks, including a very large city-owned natural
>> area. Add to this two large bird sanctuaries, Cornell's large numbers of land
>> holdings, plantations, and flower gardens open to the public, and it is no
>> wonder I kept coming back here and finally stayed (even with the often
>> gruesome weather.......;-).
>> --DR
> We are planning about a one week drive towards the end on April. I would
> really appreciate it if you could pinpoint some of those areas near Cornell,
> other than Watkins Glen. The falls need to be reasonably close to the
> parking area as my wife has a walking issue.
>
> TIA
> --
> Peter
Ah, if you want company, maybe I can serve as a guide (my email
is on my web site, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com, and I can give
you a 'phone number). A partial list is here , including some areas
meaningful or accessible only in summer through mid fall...
--Taughannock Falls overlook (about 7 miles north of Ithaca, on
Rt.89, turning left on the "slow Y" just after the bridge - watch for the
large parking area at the top of the hill), and there is also a Cayuga
Lake beach there (turn right immediately after crossing the bridge on
Rt.89 after entering the park). The walk in at the bottom (the parking
is left off Rt.89 a little before the bridge) is about 1.5 miles (flat) round
trip, and quite a sight as you round a bend, exit the woods, start over
a foot bridge and suddenly before you is a 215' falls. DO NOT CROSS
THE STONE BARRIERS!!! You can get close enough to the falls
staying behind the barriers to get quite wet on most days...;-) Rock
falls are common (on average, you may hear about two minor ones
per hour here), and I saw a family of four get hit by a 1/2-car size rock
that slipped out of the cliff wall near the top of the falls. NOT NICE!!!
Less well known is a short drive left going out of the overlook parking
lot and driving toward Rt.96 and Trumansburg, where you turn left at
the "T", cross the stone bridge there, then park in the lot on the left at
the other side of the bridge. A short walk takes you up onto an old
railroad bridge above another high falls, and there is a good view down
the gorge. The gorge floor trail and railroad bridge trail are generally
open all year, but other trails may not be open except in summer.
For photos, see -- http://nyfalls.com/taughannock.html.
--Buttermilk Falls State Park is at the city line, left from Rt.13 going
south. You can see a large "sloping" falls from a car, or a short walk
from the parking area (do not attempt to climb the trail beside the
falls unless you have more energy than I do! ;-). If you go back out to
Rt.13 and turn again south, there is almost immediately a left turn,
also to Buttermilk Park (the upper part). Go to the eventual "T" corner
(passing earlier the Lick Brook reserve and falls on a side turn), turn
left, and then right just after the end of the bridge at the bottom of the
hill. Walking back to the road and recrossing the bridge, there is a trail
on the downstream side with many falls along it. A trail on the other
side of the road goes through a nice woods, and eventually to a picnic
area, a falls, and a lake. I just thought - trails often open here quite late
due to trail conditions (rock falls, need to check for loose overhanging
rocks, etc. (DO NOT assume that cliff edges are safe either above or
from below - the rock here crumbles easily!!!) For photos, see --
http://nyfalls.com/taughannock.html.
--Robert Treman State Park is south of Ithaca a short way further
along 13, then right on a "slow Y" onto Rt.327. The lower entrance
is almost immediately on the left, where there is a bit of woods and
a short trail leading from the main parking lot to an "apron" falls and
a swimming area . From either side of the parking lot trails lead up
the L - O - N - G UPHILL gorge (this is not recommended as
the best use of time...). The upper part of the park (sometimes called
"Enfield") is reached by going out to Rt.327, turning left, and driving
uphill for what seems like forever (look back, the view is nice). You
eventually start downhill to the upper entrance to the park. An old
mill is by the parking lot at the lot at the end of the entry road. The
trails are closed until late (I've seen ice in the gorge as late as June...),
but if you are there in the summer, go to the far right end of the parking
lot, cross the small stone bridge, and STOP! ;-) The sign there will
mislead you (there is a short, but moderately strenuous, loop trail going
over a bridge near the bottom of a 160' Lucifer Falls that joins the long
loop trail from below). If you go straight ahead, it is a CLIMB to get
to one overlook (a good, but...), and then 200 steps straight down the
cliff beyond, only to climb up to where you can get much more easily
by going left at the sign and following a little, unassuming stream that
does something remarkable. It turns toward a cliff and cuts through it,
dropping with several falls, leading you to the head of the 160 footer.
Go until YOU SEE NO MORE WATER, then turn back and return
the same way (you will get great side views of the tall falls). DO NOT
TAKE the Red Pine trail - it is steep enough to be difficult in either
direction. On the return road trip, one of those two 10mph right-angle
bend signs near the end after a long downhill trip really means 10mph!
For photos, see -- http://nyfalls.com/treman.html.
--Cascadilla Glen (the trail is being reconstructed now, so it is closed)
has many nice falls in it (it goes from the intersection of University, Linn,
and Court Streets by the white church in downtown Ithaca up to College
Town by the Cornell Performing Arts Center and the Cornell campus
(a beautiful place to wander around, with a fine museum at the edge of
campus by the Fall Creek Gorge on the other side of the campus). The
interiors of Sage Chapel, the large atrium of the Sage business school,
the A. D. White library in the library that has the bell tower attached,
the library in the law school, and the dining hall in Risley dorm are
interesting, and lunch is available at most dining halls for under $11.
Ask about parking at the entry booths - Cornell tickets are expensive,
and the available lots are hard to find without a map (but a few are free).
For photos, see -- http://nyfalls.com/cascadilla.html.
--Ithaca Falls is the last falls in Fall Creek Gorge, and is about 125'
square - and MOST impressive after a couple of days of heavy rain
(the water shoots over it horizontally before dropping!). When the water
is not too high, it is a short, fairly easy walk to the falls (you can walk up
to within a few feet of it, but you will get soaked ;-), or you can view it
from the road bridge opposite the high school. For photos, see --
http://nyfalls.com/ithacafalls.html.
--There is a small free lot next to the high suspension bridge opposite the
Johnson Museum (and a pay meters in front of that, above the other
bridge entrance). The Asia section of the museum has spectacular views
up the lake, and you can move around the large windows on that floor
and see in every direction. If you are up to it, the door to the bell tower
opens about 20 minutes before the bells play (BRING EARPLUGS
if you go up under the bells! They are LOUD!!!!! But, the views are
spectacular!). Times and info are at http://chimes.cornell.edu/ - and it
is worth being on campus near the tower during the playing, even if you
don't make the climb (and there is still an interesting view from near
the tower toward the town and Cayuga Lake). A bit more is here --
http://www.cornell.edu/visiting/ithaca/.
--Further upstream is a road bridge with a Payomatic parking lot for
access to Beebe Lake, the woods, and the foot bridge in front of a
dam and falls. Beyond by road is the plantations area, herb garden,
flower garden, rhododendron hill, and antique plants area (all free,
with free parking). See for more -- http://www.cornellplantations.org.
--Beyond that are wildflower trails on the hills and along the water below,
woods trails, the Cornell Plantations with specimen shrubs and trees,
etc, on out to farms in the country, the Geneva station, the Weill-Cornell
Medical College in NYC, Shoals Marine Lab in Maine, a part in London,
Arecibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico (Never did get sent there to
photograph that, darn! But I did get to photograph other interesting things
along the way...;-), and Mars, with the rovers...;-) Oops! These last
aren't close to Ithaca...;-) As you probably know, this can be useful -
http://maps.google.com/. Later in the year would be better for a visit,
as in July, but...
--One more: if you drive north on Rt.13 beyond the top of the hill and
the Ithaca Mall, and just past the airport turn, there is a turn on the
right for "Sapsucker Woods", with a building with chairs and observation
'scopes looking out onto the pond, and nice, well-maintained trails
through the woods - with boardwalks over the swampy areas. Even
short walks are nice, like the one to the left of the building entrance (it
returns to the other side of the building after circling the large pond),
and the one from the small parking area on the left a little further up the
road (turn left at the "T" unless you want to make the loop). BTW,
the Cornell Lab of Ornithology has the world's largest archive of bird
and animal sounds (and, well, heck - its Museum of Vertebrates there
has about 1,000,000 fish, 45,000 birds, 3,200 eggs, and 15,000
specimens each of mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. More is at --
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/about/BuildingAndSanctuary/index.html.
--North of Ithaca is the old Seneca Army Depot, with the largest herd
of white deer in the world (often seen near the fence). The best views
are along Rt.96A straight through Ovid (turning right in Ovid
continues north on Rt.96) along Seneca Lake toward Sampson State
Park. For a description, see --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_White_Deer.
--Oops, almost forgot the Ithaca Farmers Market (on the Inlet, with
nearby parking). Good country acoustic music, friendly people, fresh
local produce. See - www.ithacamarket.com/ifm-fun-stuff/photo-gallery/
for photos, www.ithacamarket.com/ for times, and "ithaca farmers
market" on http:maps.google.com for maps and directions.
As you know, there is Watkins Glen State Park (a beautiful glen with
many falls, including two you walk under on the trail, and sometimes
the walls "cup" nearly together above you), a beautiful 1/2 hour drive
from Ithaca (http://nyfalls.com/watkinsglensp.html), Letchworth State
Park, also west of Ithaca, with large waterfalls
(http://nyfalls.com/letchworth-main.html), and of course, the very large
Niagara Falls, further west (http://nyfalls.com/niagara/niagara-main.html).
Less well known are the many other falls near here, including one very
high one north on Rt.13. There is even a small falls with an eternal
flame behind it. BTW, you can access more photos of NYS
waterfalls here -- http://www.nyfalls.com/gmap.html (click on the
"balloons" to find out what they mark).
Have fun!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hp01fv$ak4$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
[...an update...]
> --Cascadilla Glen (the trail is being reconstructed now, so it is closed)
> has many nice falls in it (it goes from the intersection of University, Linn,
> and Court Streets by the white church in downtown Ithaca up to College
> Town by the Cornell Performing Arts Center and the Cornell campus
> (a beautiful place to wander around, with a fine museum at the edge of
> campus by the Fall Creek Gorge on the other side of the campus). The
> interiors of Sage Chapel, the large atrium of the Sage business school,
> the A. D. White library in the library that has the bell tower attached,
> the library in the law school, and the dining hall in Risley dorm are
> interesting, and lunch is available at most dining halls for under $11.
> Ask about parking at the entry booths - Cornell tickets are expensive,
> and the available lots are hard to find without a map (but a few are free).
> For photos, see -- http://nyfalls.com/cascadilla.html.
[...]
> --There is a small free lot next to the high suspension bridge opposite the
> Johnson Museum (and a pay meters in front of that, above the other
> bridge entrance).
[...]
Cornell has suffered 6 suicides this year, resulting first in 24 hour
guards on the 8 high bridges, and today I saw Cornell's more
permanent (but, unfortunately, VERY UGLY) solution - 10' high
chain-link fences with even higher wires tilting inward at the tops,
all running along the sides of the bridges and also the adjacent land.
Gone is the beauty of the stone and steel bridges, and of the great
uninterrupted views from them of very beautiful scenery.
S - I - G - H . . . . . . . . . . . ! ! !
--DR
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4bafa91a$1$27765$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message
> news:nospam.m-m-0AEDC6.14024328032010@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com...
>> In Valley Forge National Historic Park outside Philadelphia, there are
>> no trees less than 20 years old anymore, the deer are that destructive.
>>
>> There was supposed to be a deer kill in the park last year but the PETA
>> crowd sued- and lost- but the kill was nevertheless postponed.
> PETA
> People Eating Tasty Animals?
> --
> Peter
[Comment 1]
8^)
[Comment 2]
I did edit a hunting video for someone, which had some disturbing
things in it. The "kill" with bow and arrow sometimes took hours
for the deer to die after being hit, at night, without an easy trail to
follow to finish things and make sure the deer was dead.
[Comment 3]
Hold onto your seat! The user of the high powered compound bow
and (a huge stainless steel and polycarbonate) "elephant" gun, was,
er, blind.... Before you ask (as I did) what county he was going to
be in (so I could be elsewhere!), I saw on the video how it was done.
His son would be high in the tree in the blind with him, the gun and
bow had sights that could be used from a distance, both had a laser
to shine on the deer, and there was a quiet signal for the father to
shoot. PHEW! But...., it still gives me the willies.....;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ken Walls" <kwalls@spamblocked.com> wrote in message
news:vrf0r5t2a0ch6feoqceej5kn621ie4ieo4@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 01:23:14 -0400, rwalker <rwalker@despammed.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:03:09 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
>><spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote:
>>> National Park Hoge Veluwe, Netherlands.
>>> http://maps.google.com/?ll=52.087734,5.83065&spn=0.082484,0.222988&t=h&z=13
>>In keeping with the theme of this thread, here is a photo I took a
>>couple weeks ago with an old Brownie Hawkeye using Kodak Portra VC2:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/51646689@N00/4472600014/
Ah, the white deer near here...;-)
> While it's not uncommon to have 40+ deer amble by the edge of my woods
> every sunset-lit evening, and have tons of images of them, I prefer
> something a little more artistic,
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2757/4471900815_0f3b21b853_o.jpg
> or humorous.
> Like this one taken through my picture-window last winter,
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4021/4471900817_b617b850b8_o.jpg
> I was showing it everyone's usenet-posted crapshots.
NEAT! And, NEAT! 8^)
--DR
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hpp3ch$cpc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.sensor-film.com/cleaning.html
> Paint on a rubber stuff then peel off, clean.
> Sounds like a good idea, I need to use at least a dozen swabs to get it
> clean for f/22 macro type shots, plus the bellows pumps dust like crazy.
> --
> Paul Furman
This one (Dust-Aid) looked really easy to use --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFAGwI_afY0.
Has anyone tried it?
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041108450023810-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-11 05:46:24 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>> news:hpp3ch$cpc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> http://www.sensor-film.com/cleaning.html
>>> Paint on a rubber stuff then peel off, clean.
>>> Sounds like a good idea, I need to use at least a dozen swabs to get it
>>> clean for f/22 macro type shots, plus the bellows pumps
>>> dust like crazy. --
>>> Paul Furman
>> This one (Dust-Aid) looked really easy to use --
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFAGwI_afY0.
>> Has anyone tried it?
>> --DR
> http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3008
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Thanks!
--DR
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq27ig$ere$1@news.albasani.net...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
[...]
>> Yet a "pretend marriage" is exactly what a same-sex "marriage" is,
>> obviously, and evidently that doesn't "seem pathetic" to you at all. You
>> have a very odd sense of pathos.
> Unreal... Yes I would consider a marriage based on people that have no
> sexual interest in each other "pathetic", especially if it was purely to
> appear heterosexual. But I would never consider saying they shouldn't be
> allowed to get married if they wanted to.
>
> See Neil the difference is while I may not agree with another person's
> choices, I accept they have a right to do what they want to do as long
> as it doesn't hurt other people. If a same sex couple wants to get
> married, it couldn't possibly hurt you. Allowing people to do what they
> want, if it doesn't hurt others, is called FREEDOM. What you seem to
> feel (and much of the right wing) is that people only have a right to do
> something if THEY think it's OK that they do it. And then say they
> promote freedom at the same time!
>
> Stephanie
I've begun to call those on the right "members of the Hypocritical
Party" since they tend to prat on about "individual freedom" and
"get the government off our backs" (among many other similar
things), but then they want the government to limit the freedoms
of those who do not share their beliefs or values (which are
often patently bigoted) - and they do want the government in our
bedrooms (and in our lives when it is needed - but just don't call it
"Socialism"!). Consistency, empathy, compassion, understanding of
others' points of view, fairness, and similar characteristics are ones
that I do not generally attribute to those on the right - but greed,
selfishness, small-group self-interest, narrowness of point of view
(and similar), are... Therefore, the right appears to currently "own"
the descriptive term "hypocritical"... And, I've noticed that those
on the right also tend to value *beliefs* over facts. If recent poll
numbers weren't indicative that a dangerous percentage of the
population of the US now holds completely irrational and easily
disproved views, I would tend to just ignore them - but I think
that would be very unwise at this point. A case in point is the rise
of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
within reach of the presidency - with another more able one having
recently left that position after eight years of destructive "leadership".
We are also in a time when those on the right in high positions
think nothing of using deception and outright lies in public policy
communications, where truthfulness can be easily checked (but
they think we are too stupid or uncaring to check - and they may
be correct...). I hate stupidity, hypocrisy, and the generally anti
intellectual, anti public wellbeing, anti environment, pro corporate,
pro militaristic views of those on the right (and I often doubt that
they have a temporal awareness that extends backward or forward
more than a month, maximum - or have much of any concept of the
negative effects of their actions, or care if they do...).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>A case in point is the rise
>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>within reach of the presidency
> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
8^), 8^), 8^)!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:brudnX_Fyolrn1jWnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq2do3$5ba$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq27ig$ere$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> Yet a "pretend marriage" is exactly what a same-sex "marriage" is,
>>>> obviously, and evidently that doesn't "seem pathetic" to you at all. You
>>>> have a very odd sense of pathos.
>>> Unreal... Yes I would consider a marriage based on people that have no
>>> sexual interest in each other "pathetic", especially if it was purely to
>>> appear heterosexual. But I would never consider saying they shouldn't be
>>> allowed to get married if they wanted to.
>>>
>>> See Neil the difference is while I may not agree with another person's
>>> choices, I accept they have a right to do what they want to do as long as
>>> it doesn't hurt other people. If a same sex couple wants to get married,
>>> it couldn't possibly hurt you. Allowing people to do what they want, if
>>> it doesn't hurt others, is called FREEDOM. What you seem to feel (and
>>> much of the right wing) is that people only have a right to do something
>>> if THEY think it's OK that they do it. And then say they promote freedom
>>> at the same time!
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>> I've begun to call those on the right "members of the Hypocritical
>> Party" since they tend to prat on about "individual freedom" and
>> "get the government off our backs" (among many other similar
>> things), but then they want the government to limit the freedoms
>> of those who do not share their beliefs or values (which are
>> often patently bigoted) - and they do want the government in our
>> bedrooms (and in our lives when it is needed - but just don't call it
>> "Socialism"!). Consistency, empathy, compassion, understanding of
>> others' points of view, fairness, and similar characteristics are ones
>> that I do not generally attribute to those on the right - but greed,
>> selfishness, small-group self-interest, narrowness of point of view
>> (and similar), are... Therefore, the right appears to currently "own"
>> the descriptive term "hypocritical"... And, I've noticed that those
>> on the right also tend to value *beliefs* over facts. If recent poll
>> numbers weren't indicative that a dangerous percentage of the
>> population of the US now holds completely irrational and easily
>> disproved views, I would tend to just ignore them - but I think
>> that would be very unwise at this point. A case in point is the rise
>> of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>> within reach of the presidency - with another more able one having
>> recently left that position after eight years of destructive "leadership".
>> We are also in a time when those on the right in high positions
>> think nothing of using deception and outright lies in public policy
>> communications, where truthfulness can be easily checked (but
>> they think we are too stupid or uncaring to check - and they may
>> be correct...). I hate stupidity, hypocrisy, and the generally anti
>> intellectual, anti public wellbeing, anti environment, pro corporate,
>> pro militaristic views of those on the right (and I often doubt that
>> they have a temporal awareness that extends backward or forward
>> more than a month, maximum - or have much of any concept of the
>> negative effects of their actions, or care if they do...).
>> --DR
> Speak for others.....I am a libertarian, and not a religious nut. I don't
> want to restrict the rights of anyone else to do anything else they damn
> well want to do as long as it doesn't directly affect me. You sound like a
> libertarian yourself....Why don't you, "come out of the closet" and admit
> it?
8^) Yuh got me! ;-) In spirit, I am a libertarian, but in practice (given
human nature), I am not since I understand its limitations. To simplify,
no government = chaos; libertarianism = a return to the conditions
present with robber barons and massively corrupt politicians (with few
safeguards against polluted water, air, and soil, and unsafe cars, food,
and working conditions, and for the rights and wellbeing of the less
able) - in other words, I regard libertarianism as unrealistic in practice,
as much so as was communism with its over-controlling of every
aspect of citizen activity. BTW, I'm not so afraid of socialism as
some are, since it has been proven to work well in some countries.
So, there! ;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:rPWdnQ4o-NndJ1nWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq27ig$ere$1@news.albasani.net...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hq12ba$b78$1@news.albasani.net...
[About two opposite-sex individuals getting married, with one
or both being homosexual...]
>>>> If it was to appear heterosexual then it IS a sham and that isn't being
>>>> a bigot. And yes "most people" don't consider it a real marriage until
>>>> it has [been consummated]
>>> They were married. No ifs, ands or buts. Doesn't matter whether
>>> small-minded nosy people like yourself "consider it a real marriage"
>>> since it's none of your business.
>> Just as it's none of my business if a same sex couple wants to get
>> married. See Neil the difference here is I would never say those people
>> shouldn't be allowed to be married.
> I never said that either. It's not a case of "shouldn't be allowed,"
I seem to recall that you have presented quite strongly the point of
view that gay marriage should not be legal. Am I not correct?
> any
> more than the impossibility of a cabbage becoming a cantaloupe is a matter
> of its not being "allowed" to.
>
> I have now made this point in about as many ways as it's possible for me to
> make it, Stephanie, so I guess I will just wish you luck in whatever dingbat
> causes or projects you undertake next, and that's that.
Oh, so it is not a legal or a recognition of relationship status issue, but
some sort of, well, what issue??? Start with this premise, "homosexuals
exist" (I know this well - I am one). Then this premise, "some homosexuals
wish to be in committed relationships with like people" (I know this is true,
since I'm in a relationship of 21 years). Followed by this premise, "state
***AND/OR*** religious recognition (no one forces ANY religious
institution to marry homosexuals) of the relationship may be desired by
the members of the couple". Finally, this one, "state recognition of the
relationship has distinct and advantageous tax, inheritance, SS-collection,
common-ownership, insurance, hospital visitation rights, right of
determination of end of life issues for the mate, parental-rights, etc., etc.,
etc., etc., etc....." This leaves for the "what issue???" above the most
likely, which is bigotry, a not very "pretty" or useful thing to maintain...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:So6dnZRKGdkfJVnWnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Again: in one of the few small, liberal, politically correct New
> England states, in which same-sex marriage was made legal by the
> state legislature, there was such strong popular feeling against it
> it was repealed on referendum. So when you say "Most of us are
> OK with same sex marriages" you must be using "us" to refer to
> some very small category of people.
This brings up the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to
have a referendum on the rights of a segment of the population
possessed by all but a minority. If we had depended on the
referendum in the past in this way, the country would not have
desegregated the races, nor permitted interracial marriage. But,
as a matter of fact polls do generally indicate that the gay marriage
opinion of the public is fairly evenly split, and deceptive "scare ads"
before elections have tended to tilt the balance inappropriately.
The direction is toward more states in the US moving to legalize
gay marriage - and even Iowa unexpectedly legalized it. If we can
get past a 5 to 4 right-leaning supreme court, the issue may be
decided in a positive direction there.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:SsudnW6jDengJVjWnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ZradnTFFQMRUnFjWnZ2dnUVZ_o4AAAAA@giganews.com...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:kqqdnXR3P6pCWV7WnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> You can marry someone that fits your sexual preference. Not an option
>>>> for a homosexual person.
>>> I suppose there are lots of things "not an option for a homosexual
>>> person," but them's the breaks. A dwarf has little chance of fulfilling
>>> his dream to be a basketball star. Sometimes life is hard.
>> But there is no law that prohibits him from becoming a basketball star.
> Right, Bill. Neither can any law declare him a basketball star, and though I
> suppose some state supreme court might do that it wouldn't really mean
> anything. The same applies to same-sex "marriage."
Your "logic" escapes me...;-) The more you persist with irrelevant
examples and faulty logic, the more I wonder about what you are
"protecting"...
>> His right to do so is only subject to a ball team's owner's right to pick
>> the best players he has available. But there are laws in many states that
>> prohibit a homosexual's right to marry, even though their doing so doesn't
>> infringe on anyone else's rights at all.
> What states have laws "that prohibit a homosexual's right to marry"?
Ummm, you yourself have already pointed out that the vast majority
of states in the US prohibit homosexual marriages. Yuh, I know, you
mean the silly, "Gee, homosexuals can marry members of the opposite
sex." Golly, how w o n d e r f u l l . . . . . !
> I daresay there are a lot of married homosexuals in every state.
Yes, likely so, in "protective" sham marriages. The "marriages" may
be real, but the wisdom of having entered into them may be very
questionable... I guess you don't really understand the meaning of
"marriage" (as a union of a loving couple) after all..........
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:weKdnaZmP4-pMFjWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq2gmd$9q6$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:So6dnZRKGdkfJVnWnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Again: in one of the few small, liberal, politically correct New England
>>> states, in which same-sex marriage was made legal by the state
>>> legislature, there was such strong popular feeling against it it was
>>> repealed on referendum. So when you say "Most of us are OK with same sex
>>> marriages" you must be using "us" to refer to some very small category of
>>> people.
>> This brings up the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to
>> have a referendum on the rights of a segment of the population
> It wasn't a referendum on any segment's "rights," but rather on whether the
> meaning of the word "marriage" can be radically changed by a state
> legislature for reasons of political correctness.
>
> Homosexuals continue to have the same rights as anyone else as far as
> marriage is concerned. No more and no less. I have not heard of anyone's
> being denied the right to marry on the grounds that he or she is a
> homosexual. Have you?
YES!!!!!! Gosh, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT, DO YOU?!?!?!
Marriage is a HUMAN right, and it brings with it legal and financial
advantages and responsibilities. Maybe you would see this more clearly
if, until recently, no blond-haired people (or people with any other
inherent characteristic such as homosexuality) could marry, and then
only in a few areas of the country, with their marriages not being
recognized in most others. THINK ABOUT IT!!! You would deny
some people equal rights due to your "beliefs" (which sounds kinda
familiar, doesn't it, from our recent past...?).
>> possessed by all but a minority. If we had depended on the
>> referendum in the past in this way, the country would not have
>> desegregated the races, nor permitted interracial marriage.
> How do you know that?
Oh, COME ON!!!!!! You know of the court decisions, followed
eventually by legislative decisions, that were required to make this
happen. (I may think you're an idiot, but I don't think you're stupid! ;-)
> What you are saying, in other words, is that "the people" are too stupid or
> mean to decide these things for themselves, but need to have unpopular laws
> shoved down their throats by elites who "know better." Eh?
Not "elites", but legislative representatives and courts whose duty it
is to protect and advance the rights of minorities to bring them to the
level of the majority. It's called "representative democracy", and it was
chosen for a reason - it tends to minimizes mob rule...
>> But,
>> as a matter of fact polls do generally indicate that the gay marriage
>> opinion of the public is fairly evenly split, and deceptive "scare ads"
>> before elections have tended to tilt the balance inappropriately.
>> The direction is toward more states in the US moving to legalize
>> gay marriage - and even Iowa unexpectedly legalized it. If we can
>> get past a 5 to 4 right-leaning supreme court, the issue may be
>> decided in a positive direction there.
> Only four of the nine SCOTUS justices are conservative. In the past we have
> had an excessively LEFT-leaning high court, which has caused all sorts of
> mischief such as school busing to supposedly improve racial "equality,"
> which has been a complete and expensive failure as far as I can see.
It depends on your point of view, I guess... Certainly the recent court's
activist decision that overturned a century of precedence by rendering
corporations not just legally "people" (as they were before), but declared
that they also possess ALL of the rights of people shows the absurdity
of rightist thinking on the court.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8e2dnTR9CaKlmVjWnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq2gmd$9q6$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:So6dnZRKGdkfJVnWnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Again: in one of the few small, liberal, politically correct New England
>>> states, in which same-sex marriage was made legal by the state
>>> legislature, there was such strong popular feeling against it it was
>>> repealed on referendum. So when you say "Most of us are OK with same sex
>>> marriages" you must be using "us" to refer to some very small category of
>>> people.
>> This brings up the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to
>> have a referendum on the rights of a segment of the population
>> possessed by all but a minority. If we had depended on the
>> referendum in the past in this way, the country would not have
>> desegregated the races, nor permitted interracial marriage. But,
>> as a matter of fact polls do generally indicate that the gay marriage
>> opinion of the public is fairly evenly split, and deceptive "scare ads"
>> before elections have tended to tilt the balance inappropriately.
>> The direction is toward more states in the US moving to legalize
>> gay marriage - and even Iowa unexpectedly legalized it. If we can
>> get past a 5 to 4 right-leaning supreme court, the issue may be
>> decided in a positive direction there.
>> --DR
> Be careful what you ask for.....The socialists will take away all your money
> and give it to the "Poor", unless they are true libertarians........
8^)
The right always needs "bugaboos"...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZradnTdFQMRVnFjWnZ2dnUVZ_o4AAAAA@giganews.com...
> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq0cqp$b4k$1@news.albasani.net...
>>R Davis wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:55:37 -0400, "stephe_k@yahoo.com"
>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>> Homosexuals have EXACTLY the same right to marry as anyone else does.
>>>>> No more and no less. That's as it should be.
>>>> But only if said homosexual marries someone of the opposite sex like you
>>>> feel is proper instead of someone of the same sex.
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>> That's why he's thinking along those lines. Using his own sham and lie of
>>> a hetero-married life as an example. Taking what he needs on the "down
>>> low".
>> I don't know about his life but people who "hetero marry" for appearances
>> aren't helping themselves or their partners. It's one of the reasons this
>> needs to end. I don't see why people like Neil find this being a threat to
>> their own lives so much as to insist they control who someone else can
>> marry.
>>
>> Stephanie
Ever noticed that those who try to "hide" the most also tend to "holler"
the most, as with big-time fundamentalist preachers who turn out to be
gay, right-wing legislators who turn out to have affairs, "clean" politicians
and businessmen who are found to have had their hands in the till? It's
human nature, I guess...;-)
> What I can't understand is why anyone, of either sex or political orientation,
> would want to "control" what anyone else does in any way. Which
> is why I am a libertarian. I could care less who anyone marries, or lets
> into their bar to smoke or not. I just want the law out of my face, and I
> know that the only way to insure this is to keep it out of everyone's face.
> Unfortunately, my world is becoming heavy with people who want to control
> what everyone else does, and make others do what they like to do. For some
> reason, they want to live like a colony of ants, where everyone is exactly
> the same, even down to their genetic code. Their attitude is, "I don't
> smoke, so nobody should smoke, and by God, we should make a law that
> prohibits it." Or, "I wouldn't marry someone of the same sex as myself, so
> nobody should marry someone of the same sex as themselves, and by God, we
> should make a law against it." What they can't understand is that some day
> there will be a law that says, "We lawmakers don't like to do (whatever it
> is that they like to do) and by God, here is our laws against it" And the
> chickens will have come home to roost.
I'm sorry to do this (since you are basically on my side regarding gay
marriage), but I think libertarians forget one VERY BIG thing, which is
human nature - and if we returned to the conditions when libertarianism
essentially ruled (during the industrial revolution and for quite a while
after), we would be back again with unsafe food, cars, work places
(and, yes, smoky restaurants and bars), inability to unionize for decent
wages, and have acceptably unpolluted water and soil (let alone some
attempt to control the causes for a heating earth that could kill us all, and
at least token attempts to reign in the worst of financial rapaciousness),
and some form of public support for welfare, old age income, and health
care. It's not a world I would like to live in. VERY few of us could enjoy
an idyllic life on one of those mythical nostalgic farms we imagine existed...
Even for the issue at hand here, without state protections, gay marriage
would be impossible and only well-hidden relationships could exist. So,
I prefer the advantages of being realistic.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:kb6dnYJomvx3KVjWnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq2fic$8bq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:rPWdnQ4o-NndJ1nWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hq27ig$ere$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hq12ba$b78$1@news.albasani.net...
>> [About two opposite-sex individuals getting married, with one
>> or both being homosexual...]
>>>>>> If it was to appear heterosexual then it IS a sham and that isn't
>>>>>> being a bigot. And yes "most people" don't consider it a real marriage
>>>>>> until it has [been consummated]
>>>>> They were married. No ifs, ands or buts. Doesn't matter whether
>>>>> small-minded nosy people like yourself "consider it a real marriage"
>>>>> since it's none of your business.
>>>> Just as it's none of my business if a same sex couple wants to get
>>>> married. See Neil the difference here is I would never say those people
>>>> shouldn't be allowed to be married.
>>> I never said that either. It's not a case of "shouldn't be allowed,"
>> I seem to recall that you have presented quite strongly the point of
>> view that gay marriage should not be legal. Am I not correct?
>
> I've been saying that there is no reason to change the DEFINITION of
> "marriage" to accommodate a few people who want to make it mean something it
> didn't mean before. I have said this so many times in so many ways I don't
> see how I could have been misunderstood.
Well, you see, WE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND YOU! But we see that
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND US! THAT is the problem! You have no
problem with the status quo, since it does you no harm - but for others,
IT DOES DO HARM!!!!! Like to the 18,000 gay people who got married
in California during the brief period when it was legal, and to the thousands
more in California who were prevented from getting married after an
inappropriate vote of the public on their basic rights occurred (which was
about 50-50 until *illegally* in church, many fundamentalist pastors spoke
against it, and lying scare-tactic ads were plastered all over TV). I agree
that the *BASIC* definition of marriage need not be changed by any religion,
but the state MUST remove parts that discriminate against some of its
citizens. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DO YOU
FINALLY GET IT???????????
>>> any more than the impossibility of a cabbage becoming a cantaloupe is a
>>> matter of its not being "allowed" to.
>>>
>>> I have now made this point in about as many ways as it's possible for me
>>> to make it, Stephanie, so I guess I will just wish you luck in whatever
>>> dingbat causes or projects you undertake next, and that's that.
>> Oh, so it is not a legal or a recognition of relationship status issue,
>> but some sort of, well, what issue???
> Definition. Words MEAN things.
Yes, and we modify definitions when they are no longer appropriate.
Or, where is "misogyny" now in the definition of legal marriage?
>> Start with this premise, "homosexuals exist" (I know this well - I
>> am one).
> Fine.
>> Then this premise, "some homosexuals
>> wish to be in committed relationships with like people" (I know this is
>> true, since I'm in a relationship of 21 years).
> Fine.
>> Followed by this premise, "state
>> ***AND/OR*** religious recognition (no one forces ANY religious
>> institution to marry homosexuals) of the relationship may be desired by
>> the members of the couple".
> What someone DESIRES does not necessarily change any particular reality. A
> dwarf may DESIRE to be a basketball star, but it's unlikely he ever will be,
> nor can any imaginable change in the law make him one.
But it MUST NOT make marriage for a small person illegal, either to
another small person or to anyone else of choice. Nor can it legally prevent
him/her from attempting to join a basketball team. Hey, I thought you
were better than this...
> What you DESIRE is for the rest of the world to be forced to accept a
> radical change in the familiar and common definition of "marriage" that they
> don't want to accept. Marriage has long been defined as "the legal union of
> a man and a woman." The overwhelming majority of people the world over are
> perfectly satisfied with that definition, always have been, and see no good
> reason why it should be radically changed to satisfy some very small
> minority.
Golly, I have actually encountered a real, stick-in-the-mud, never
improve, bigot who just blindly and steadfastly refuses to see the other
side. Gee.
>> Finally, this one, "state recognition of the
>> relationship has distinct and advantageous tax, inheritance,
>> SS-collection,
>> common-ownership, insurance, hospital visitation rights, right of
>> determination of end of life issues for the mate, parental-rights, etc.,
>> etc., etc., etc....." This leaves for the "what issue???" above the most
>> likely, which is bigotry, a not very "pretty" or useful thing to
>> maintain...
> The issue is still one of definition. The vast majority of the world's
> population do not, and are not likely to anytime soon, accept the notion of
> same-sex "marriage."
The vast majority of the world's population did not accept the notion
that the earth was a sphere - but did that make them right? Definitions
change with greater understanding, but you do not appear to be
capable of that.
> It isn't a matter of "bigotry" no matter how hard you
> try to put that self-serving spin on it. You don't want marriage, what you
> want is a different kind of relationship to be CALLED "marriage." Why should
> it be?
Already covered...
BTW, some items related to the word "bigotry" that probably won't
interest you, but should --
- "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her
own opinions and prejudices.", and, "The origin of the word bigot and
bigoterie in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French,
and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite". (Wikipedia)
- "A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her
own opinions and prejudices." (The Free Dictionary)
- "http://www.newsweek.com/id/234836"
> All the advantages of marriage you've listed above can be obtained where
> necessary by changes in the law recognizing civil unions, and I believe in
> at least some states this has been done. I don't know of anyone who is
> against that.
I am against that as the only option, and so are most gay people and also
others who are not, but who "get it" that a second class marriage is inherently
not equal, even if it differs only in name. It does not hold the same status.
How would you like to be limited to a "civil union" - and where does that
leave you if you want a religious ceremony?
> But you aren't satisfied with that; for some reason you want
> some chimerical pretend-"marriage" to be recognized for what it is not, and
> you want other people to be forced by law to recognize it for something they
> know it is not.
>
> And that, you see, is the issue. Nothing to do with "bigotry."
It has everything to do with bigotry.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hq4907017le@news7.newsguy.com...
> On 4/14/2010 4:07 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2010-04-14 00:22:03 -0700, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> said:
>>> In message <ZradnTpFQMRanFjWnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> writes
>>>>>> And no homosexuals/Gays do NOT have the same rights as others.
>>>>> Sure they do. What rights do I have that a homosexual man doesn't have?
>>>> The right to become an officer in the military service of your country,
>>>> and, at your commissioning ceremony, introduce your, "wife" to your
>>>> commander and his wife.
>>> And the problem is?
>>>
>>> There have been homosexuals in the military for millennia
>> With our insular thinking in the USA, we have the notorious "Don't ask,
>> don't tell" policy, because our sensitive military is overly protective
>> of all that stuff below the waist.
>>
>> In this case Bill is correct.
> You know that eccentricity in the military is seldom rewarded.
> Introducing a person of the same gender as your "wife" will for a long
> time be regarded as eccentricity and unlikely to be career-enhancing.
In the US, it is "career-ending". ANY admission of being gay is
grounds for expulsion from the US military (we have lost a lot of
expensively-trained people with much needed skills this way). The
policy has been recently changed to "soften" the policy to possibly
permit those who did not willingly come out to stay (oh, BIG
improvement! ;-). BTW, I heard an interesting side thing on this.
Apparently, back when Eisenhower was in charge of the military,
he told his secretary of his plans to expel homosexuals from the
military. She piped up with something like, "Very well, sir, but you
will have to begin with me." No more was heard about it for a while.
A recently heard joke (maybe somewhat true...;-), "If you kick out
all the homosexuals, how can you fight a war without the Lesbians?!".
8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:8YSdnc5OeLb7JFjWnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> They DO HAVE THE RIGHT, Bill. (I am getting SO tired of saying this.)
I have heard of "thick-headed people" before, but this takes the cake!
Yuh, YOU can marry anyone you want, since if you are really heterosexual
(I'm beginning to wonder...) you are likely to prefer someone of the opposite
sex (still legal in most places...;-), but a homosexual can (in most places) still
marry only someone of the opposite sex. GOLLY, GEE, WHY DON'T I
THINK THAT SOLVES ANYTHING ***AT ALL*** FOR GAYS
WHO WISH TO MARRY!?!?! Dunderhead......
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:8YSdnc5OeLb7JFjWnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> They DO HAVE THE RIGHT, Bill. (I am getting SO tired of saying this.)
I have heard of "thick-headed people" before, but this one takes the cake!
Yuh, YOU can marry anyone you want, since if you are really heterosexual
(I'm beginning to wonder...), you are likely to prefer someone of the opposite
sex (still legal in most places...;-) - but a homosexual can (in most places)
still marry only someone of the opposite sex. GOLLY, GEE, WHY DON'T
I THINK THAT SOLVES ANYTHING ***AT ALL*** FOR GAYS
WHO WISH TO MARRY!?!?! Dunderhead......
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:F-OdnX4rXO40q1vWnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq4e91$fok$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:8e2dnTR9CaKlmVjWnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hq2gmd$9q6$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:So6dnZRKGdkfJVnWnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> Again: in one of the few small, liberal, politically correct New
>>>>> England states, in which same-sex marriage was made legal by the state
>>>>> legislature, there was such strong popular feeling against it it was
>>>>> repealed on referendum. So when you say "Most of us are OK with same
>>>>> sex marriages" you must be using "us" to refer to some very small
>>>>> category of people.
>>>> This brings up the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to
>>>> have a referendum on the rights of a segment of the population
>>>> possessed by all but a minority. If we had depended on the
>>>> referendum in the past in this way, the country would not have
>>>> desegregated the races, nor permitted interracial marriage. But,
>>>> as a matter of fact polls do generally indicate that the gay marriage
>>>> opinion of the public is fairly evenly split, and deceptive "scare ads"
>>>> before elections have tended to tilt the balance inappropriately.
>>>> The direction is toward more states in the US moving to legalize
>>>> gay marriage - and even Iowa unexpectedly legalized it. If we can
>>>> get past a 5 to 4 right-leaning supreme court, the issue may be
>>>> decided in a positive direction there.
>>>> --DR
>>> Be careful what you ask for.....The socialists will take away all your
>>> money and give it to the "Poor", unless they are true
>>> libertarians........
>> 8^)
>> The right always needs "bugaboos"...;-)
>> --DR
> My bugaboo is my bank account, and the fact is, that with all of his talk,
> Obama hasn't made one law that changes anything that would protect it from
> what happened in 2008. The exact same thing could happen again
> today.....Chris Dodd and Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi are still trying to
> get the banks to lend money to people who can't afford to pay it back, and
> no new regulations on Wall Street have been adopted. The democrats have
> done, in a word, nothing......Except give themselves the right to spend one
> hell of a lot of our money.
Hmmm, a "me first" right-wing attitude...;-)
But, really, the Democrats have passed some financial form legislation
in the House, but are now encountering the usual "'Bublican't" "Hell No!"
reaction (as in, "reactionary"...) response in the Senate, with their usual
"extreme stretching" of the truth about what is in the bill. It is not Obama
who is impeding reform, but as usual, it is the Republicans who vote as
a block against anything Obama wants, whether or not the Republicans
originally submitted and cosponsored it(!). This is quite irresponsible
"politics-first, the country's welfare be damned" behavior. The proposed
reforms are needed now, and they move toward restoring the regulations
that were weakened or removed, resulting in the near-disaster we just
escaped (I hope...).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:vqvas5l35d66u79df2k18ugnosilh5pdsv@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:12:37 -0400, "stephe_k@yahoo.com"
> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I have zero interest in owning a hand gun, personally I don't like them
>>but at the same time I think you have every right to own one if YOU
>>want. What you don't seem to grasp is you feel it's OK to limit the
>>freedoms of other people if you don't feel the same way they do but at
>>the same time don't want anyone telling you what you can and can't do.
> Doesn't that define Republicanism?
Almost - but it leaves out the word "hypocrite", an important part
of the definition (but I guess "stephe k" gave a good illustration
instead...;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message news:hq6vsf$mtl$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq6s92$nqn$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Hmmm, a "me first" right-wing attitude...;-)
>> But, really, the Democrats have passed some financial form legislation
>> in the House, but are now encountering the usual "'Bublican't" "Hell No!"
>> reaction (as in, "reactionary"...) response in the Senate, with their
>> usual
>> "extreme stretching" of the truth about what is in the bill. It is not
>> Obama
>> who is impeding reform, but as usual, it is the Republicans who vote as
>> a block against anything Obama wants, whether or not the Republicans
>> originally submitted and cosponsored it(!). This is quite irresponsible
>> "politics-first, the country's welfare be damned" behavior. The proposed
>> reforms are needed now, and they move toward restoring the regulations
>> that were weakened or removed, resulting in the near-disaster we just
>> escaped (I hope...).
>> --DR
> Please, stop blaming the Republicans, that argument holds no water. The
> Democrats have a mojority in both the Senate and the House, they are in
> control and have the votes to pass anything they want.
Oh - I guess you haven't been paying attention to what has
been going on in the last year or so. It took only one Republican
to potentially block final vote on the Health Care Reform bill
in the Senate, and ***ONE*** Republican, acting *alone*, to
block extended unemployment benefits. Not to mention the
threatened fight over the next Supreme Court member (*before
the nominee has even been named!*), and resistance to financial
reform passage in the Senate, using some of the same type of
misrepresentations of what is actually in the bill, as was done
with the Health Care Reform bill (remember "death panels",
"gov'mint control of health care", "socialization of health care",
"putting people in jail for not buying health care", etc.?). All to
fire up an unsuspecting public (or one misled by Fox "news")
to get pressure against passage of anything good for the country
(but *potentially* bad for Republican vote strategies). Do wake
up..., please....., and note how the government actually does
work (or does not, when one party decides to "gum up the
works', and can, even if it is the minority party).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:D5GdncR1YcMupVvWnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> It is the job of the US Constitution to protect the rights of the minority
> from the tyranny of the majority, and it is apparent to me that this means
> that eventually, all states will allow marriage to be available to same sex
> couples. It is only a matter of time. What is amazing to me is that the
> concept of constitutional law is still, at this late date, so difficult for
> so many people to understand. Why don't they teach it in grammar school?
> That's where I learned it.
Thank you for so succinctly clarifying this.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>> It is the job of the US Constitution to protect the rights of the minority
>> from the tyranny of the majority,
>
> And you really believe "the tyranny of the majority" is more onerous than
> the tyranny of a tiny minority (and their enablers)? How exactly do you
> think democracy is supposed to work?
Again, do you consider 48% a "tiny minority" because that's how many
people voted to approve this the last time it was voted on. You keep
spouting this "tiny fraction" when it is anything but.
If you don't think "the tyranny of the majority" is a problem, you might
think about revisiting the civil rights issues in the 50's and 60's. If
the "majority rules" about minority rights, they basically will never
have any.
Stephanie
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:GO6dnasX27edrVvWnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
> news:weKdnaZmP4-pMFjWnZ2dnUVZ_uOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq2gmd$9q6$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:So6dnZRKGdkfJVnWnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> Again: in one of the few small, liberal, politically correct New England
>>>> states, in which same-sex marriage was made legal by the state
>>>> legislature, there was such strong popular feeling against it it was
>>>> repealed on referendum. So when you say "Most of us are OK with same sex
>>>> marriages" you must be using "us" to refer to some very small category
>>>> of people.
>>> This brings up the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to
>>> have a referendum on the rights of a segment of the population
>> It wasn't a referendum on any segment's "rights," but rather on whether
>> the meaning of the word "marriage" can be radically changed by a state
>> legislature for reasons of political correctness.
> But the government did that years ago, when they yielded to the religious
> lobbyists and wrote the word, "marriage" into their laws. Now, you guys (You
> religious types) are suffering for that indiscretion. Next time, keep your
> religious dogma out of my laws. Look at the trouble you caused with the
> change in the pledge of allegiance. (adding, "under God") I still know
> people who refuse to say it, or remove their hats when others say it. You
> turned what I was always proud to say into another religious
> ritual.....Someday that chicken too, will come home to roost.......
Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
universal and "true" can be oppressive.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7okb$6e0$2@news.albasani.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>> --DR
> While I do believe in God and go to church every sunday, I also don't
> think it has any place in the government because who knows if what
> "Their God wants" is the same as my view of God. Clearly in this case we
> are discussing it isn't and given the wide range of denominations, there
> are a variety of ways He is viewed.
>
> Stephanie
Or "It", since a single god has no need for gender...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T9edncC6MtSGoVvWnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq4hi8$kci$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZradnTdFQMRVnFjWnZ2dnUVZ_o4AAAAA@giganews.com...
>>> What I can't understand is why anyone, of either sex or political
>>> orientation, would want to "control" what anyone else does in any way.
>>> Which is why I am a libertarian. I could care less who anyone marries, or
>>> lets into their bar to smoke or not. I just want the law out of my face,
>>> and I know that the only way to insure this is to keep it out of
>>> everyone's face. Unfortunately, my world is becoming heavy with people
>>> who want to control what everyone else does, and make others do what they
>>> like to do. For some reason, they want to live like a colony of ants,
>>> where everyone is exactly the same, even down to their genetic code.
>>> Their attitude is, "I don't smoke, so nobody should smoke, and by God, we
>>> should make a law that prohibits it." Or, "I wouldn't marry someone of
>>> the same sex as myself, so nobody should marry someone of the same sex as
>>> themselves, and by God, we should make a law against it." What they can't
>>> understand is that some day there will be a law that says, "We lawmakers
>>> don't like to do (whatever it is that they like to do) and by God, here
>>> is our laws against it" And the chickens will have come home to roost.
>> I'm sorry to do this (since you are basically on my side regarding gay
>> marriage), but I think libertarians forget one VERY BIG thing, which is
>> human nature - and if we returned to the conditions when libertarianism
>> essentially ruled (during the industrial revolution and for quite a while
>> after), we would be back again with unsafe food, cars, work places
>> (and, yes, smoky restaurants and bars), inability to unionize for decent
>> wages, and have acceptably unpolluted water and soil (let alone some
>> attempt to control the causes for a heating earth that could kill us all, and
>> at least token attempts to reign in the worst of financial rapaciousness),
>> and some form of public support for welfare, old age income, and health
>> care. It's not a world I would like to live in. VERY few of us could enjoy
>> an idyllic life on one of those mythical nostalgic farms we imagine existed.
>> Even for the issue at hand here, without state protections, gay marriage
>> would be impossible and only well-hidden relationships could exist. So,
>> I prefer the advantages of being realistic.
> You may very well be correct, but this assumes that Libertarianism has
> remained in the state it was in 100 years ago, and I maintain that this
> isn't necessarily the case. One can envision a libertarian society that
> still contains the modern safeguards and advancements that have come about
> over the last 100 years. The world we are fast approaching is one where
> individual responsibility is being thrown out the window in favor of
> government assumed responsibility.....I am afraid of this, and all I want is
> a little personal responsibility to return to our society. If you don't like
> second hand smoke, then stay the hell out of a smoking bar. Is that too much
> to ask? If you are unable to read, then you might enter one and breathe a
> couple of lungfulls of second hand smoke before you can escape back outside.
> Do you really think that this situation is worth taking someone's own
> property rights away from him, so nobody in the society has to learn to
> read? All I want is some excuse to make reading an advantage, or some excuse
> to keep a semblance of freedom in our society, rather than having to live in
> and amongst a group of people who have to depend on government laws for
> everything.
Thanks for the clarifications of your position, and I don't want to get
bogged down in "nit-picking" with it - but one example is the bars
you mention. If there were no blanket limitations on smoking in them,
then we would return to the days when all bars were smoky. We do
reasonably control a bar keeper's rights in terms of service of alcohol
to minors, among other things (I don't go into bars, so I don't know the
details...;-) - but I do believe in using the minimum necessary legal
control to achieve the greatest good (for public and personal welfare and
safety), with a good balance with freedom and individual responsibility
maintained. Unfortunately, that balance is difficult to achieve and maintain,
and people will have differing opinions about where that balancing point is
(I suspect my point is more toward public protections than yours is...;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bMednb_-lv-IolvWnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq4ktc$otk$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:kb6dnYJomvx3KVjWnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@giganews.com...
[...]
>>> But you aren't satisfied with that; for some reason you want some
>>> chimerical pretend-"marriage" to be recognized for what it is not, and
>>> you want other people to be forced by law to recognize it for something
>>> they know it is not.
>>>
>>> And that, you see, is the issue. Nothing to do with "bigotry."
>> It has everything to do with bigotry.
>> --DR
> Yes. It is bigotry in the same way that separate restrooms for blacks was
> bigotry in most Southern cities back in the 60's. It didn't matter that the
> restrooms were the same, or just as good, or even better and more numerous.
> No black person had to wet his pants.....Just the fact that they were
> separate was an imposition on his liberty.
Yes - but this concept does seem to be difficult for some to grasp
(that "equal but separate" cannot represent equality under the law
and the constitution), and it was so decided long ago by the supreme
court. But we still see posts like NH's above, and PS's below who
fail to understand what "bigotry" means, and that permitting its
existence is not appropriate.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:897cs553furvmo02i01n19mldtmg54ib5f@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:59:17 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vqvas5l35d66u79df2k18ugnosilh5pdsv@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:12:37 -0400, "stephe_k@yahoo.com"
>>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>I have zero interest in owning a hand gun, personally I don't like them
>>>>but at the same time I think you have every right to own one if YOU
>>>>want. What you don't seem to grasp is you feel it's OK to limit the
>>>>freedoms of other people if you don't feel the same way they do but at
>>>>the same time don't want anyone telling you what you can and can't do.
>>> Doesn't that define Republicanism?
>>Almost - but it leaves out the word "hypocrite", an important part
>>of the definition (but I guess "stephe k" gave a good illustration
>>instead...;-).
> I don't think "Republican" or "Republicanism" needs the addition of
> either "hypocrite" or "hypocrisy". They are implicit. ;-)
Oh, that is SUCH a good point! 8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Wilba" <usenet@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:4bc6880c$0$8849$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Bruce wrote:
>> Wilba wrote:
>>> stephe_k@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> The only "point" you have made Neil is you feel you should control
>>>> what other people can do with their lives because you don't share their
>>>> desires.
>>> I think you've actually misunderstood Neil, and the above statement is
>>> only
>>> correct in one particular instance - Neil won't allow others to do is use
>>> the word marriage to refer to a legally sanctioned same-sex partnership.
>> Perhaps Neil has a point. Here in the UK, same-sex unions can be
>> legally recognised but the word "marriage" is not allowed. They are
>> called "Civil Partnerships".
> In what ways is that desirable, other than to avoid offending curmudgeons
> who insist that the world must conform to their prejudices?
>
> I'm very willing to pay the price of curmudgeon offence to make the world a
> more compassionate place. :- )
>> Of course it doesn't stop the tabloid press referring to the issue as
>> "gay marriage", but the legal distinction is clear. It doesn't mean
>> that a Civil Partnership is inferior to a marriage between a man and a
>> woman, but it recognises that there is a difference between the two.
> What's the pay-off for having that distinction?
Oh, "Wilba", your questions are just too logical for those
without much empathy... ;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ip7cs5hgc1cps2h6mp41c2rjls3hecati1@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:20:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>In spirit, I am a libertarian, but in practice (given
>>human nature), I am not since I understand its limitations. To simplify,
>>no government = chaos; libertarianism = a return to the conditions
>>present with robber barons and massively corrupt politicians (with few
>>safeguards against polluted water, air, and soil, and unsafe cars, food,
>>and working conditions, and for the rights and wellbeing of the less
>>able) - in other words, I regard libertarianism as unrealistic in practice,
>>as much so as was communism with its over-controlling of every
>>aspect of citizen activity. I'm not so afraid of socialism as some are,
>>since it has been proven to work well in some countries.
> Which countries, and what do you mean by "socialism"?
So, a-skeerd of "socialism, huh? Well, Norweegia and
Sveedin come quickly to mind...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PbednWiS8u2m3FvWnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> In this country is seems to breed generations of welfare puppies who just
> live off the government programs that were intended for those who are really
> disabled by birth or circumstance. Less than 2% of the people drawing
> welfare checks in this country have some disability, either mental or
> physical. I would like to get them off of the public dole and give the other
> 2% 50 times as much money as they are getting now. Is that such a bad thing?
Hmmm, what would you do with the (presumably mostly
unable to make a living at this point) 98%? I guess we could
leave them in the streets to beg, as many of them already do...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pNednWQ1Mdex21vWnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hq4mmo$rrt$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>>within reach of the presidency
>>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>> 8^), 8^), 8^)!
>> --DR
> Do I think Sara Palin is smarter than Barak Obama? - No, of course not. But
> she has a philosophy that believes in individual responsibility, and Obama
> believes in expansion of the welfare state. When I couple this with the
> generally weak powers of the presidency anyway, my choice is simple. I'll
> take her in a New York minute.....
Ummm, let's see... On the one side we have a candidate
who shamelessly "rabble-rouses" with easily-disproved lies,
who knew, when first appointed, N O T H I N G about
A N Y T H I N G in interviews (and has still demonstrated
no depth of understanding or practical grasp of what would
need to be done in any important area - excepting considerably
increasing her personal wealth ;-), who served as governor of
a minor state (in terms of governance skills required), and
even then, apparently found that too taxing and quit the job
half way through her first term. Gosh, this REALLY instills
confidence in me in her abilities to be president of the US! ;-)
On the other hand, though, we have a president who, while
being blocked *as a unit* by the opposition party, has still
seen the passage of the first comprehensive health care
legislation in, well, "forever", who may soon see much needed
financial reform enacted (if he can get it by the "party of no
on everything, whether they like it or not - so long as Obama
likes it"), and a good beginning for the reduction and control
of the world's nuclear materials. Not to mention that little
matter of saving the economy from complete collapse (great
depressions really are not much fun, and it is necessary to
spend the country out of them and trust that future prosperity
will pay off the debt, as it did last time...). Hollering about
"socialism" does no good when you prevent huge banks
from failing, along with a major car company (with all the
consequent failings that would have happened without the
support), and there is a good chance the government will
make money on these (as it has already, with much of the
bank buy-backs). In other words, think long-term, without
slogans - it is hard work, but the alternative would be a
disaster. And besides, I can't take her "whiney" voice
ANY MORE!!! 8^)
> Bear in mind that G. Bush only voted down
> one bill presented to him by the congress in his entire 8 years. (that was
> the one about stem cell research) So, he did essentially nothing either.
That is not quite true. Not only was the one he voted down
harmful (as was his general anti-scientific attitude), but many
of the bills he signed were also harmful, including the worst,
the one authorizing that stupid war in Iraq (guess where almost
a trillion dollars went in unfunded budgets that were not part
of the overall budget). The 'Bublican'ts spent VERY freely on
things like that and also unfunded tax breaks for the wealthy
They got us heavily into debt, and caused, with financial
deregulation and the failure to regulate derivatives, the nearly
disastrous mess we are now slowly emerging from under
Obama. Guess which candidate I would vote for - the very
able, intelligent, respected one in US politics and world
diplomacy, or the whiney, rather stupid, "power-above-all-
other-considerations" jerk...? ;-) No contest!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XOmdnSdpaeQPsVvWnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>within reach of the presidency
>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
> No, we are in a time when a near idiot has risen to the presidency. He is
> currently engaged in giving the whole ball park away to the visiting team,
> and putting our grandchildren (and theirs) into terrible debt. We have only
> one more chance to get rid of him, and that chance may be too late.
I guess I disagree with you on several counts. I think
no one else would call Obama an idiot. Hey, he actually
THINKS (amazing, I know ;-), and not just for the short
term (and about what will get him elected again), but for
the long term, and what is best for the country and its
people. (BTW, have you seen the graph of the rate of
change of unemployment for the last Bush year and the
first Obama year? It looks like a very deep "V", with
when Obama took office in the middle...;-) People with
your point of view may not realize that even Republicans
and conservative economists saw that we were on the brink
of a deep depression with REALLY serious unemployment,
loss of housing, etc. Bad as this recession has been, things
are now moving upward. Without throwing "tons" of money
at the problem, almost all serious economists agree that we
were at the edge of a VERY serious economic collapse.
Spending to get us out of this was necessary (and that
would have been less painful had the Republicans been
more financially responsible, having been left a surplus by
Clinton). While it appears the debt is huge (it is, but the
interest size compared with GDP is surprisingly small...),
by adjusting taxing, spending more efficiently, and
encouraging prosperity, we may work our way out of this
sooner than many people think (and I would rather have
a "big picture" president to lead us through this than one
who appears unable to take the long view on anything
[even her tenure as governor of Alaska...]).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041413323538165-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-14 10:40:49 -0700, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> said:
>> So find a priest who'll do the ceremony,
> Of which religious organization, The Roman Catholic Church? A Southern
> Baptist fundamentalist preacher? A good Presbyterian minister? A
> Lutheran? A CofE or Episcopalian vicar/priest? Let's move into Islam,
> do you know of an Imam who would accommodate this loving couple?
> Perhaps an understanding Rabbi? Maybe within the Church of The Gooey
> Death.
>> have him say the words, and you're married. The state won't recognized
>> it but what difference does that make if you truly love each other?
> The exceptions would be in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Iowa, Vermont,
> Connecticut, & DC, if the religious organization sanctions marriage
> without discrimination, and we know that is going to be tough to have
> happen. So in those States, a civic ceremony would be the best they
> could get.
>> No, what you want is a tax break.
> No, they want the same rights heterosexual married couples have, tax
> laws are just one element.
> They want visitation rights as a spouse at a hospital, they want
> security under property laws, they want to be able to obtain a mortgage
> in all 50 States, not just the 5 + DC which have codified same-sex
> marriage, and the handful which recognize domestic partnerships.
> With the exception of their sexual preferences they want their humanity
> recognized, and have the same rights as their fellow citizens.
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
Thanks.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq60c0$98l$1@news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Interesting how the right wing fights against -gay rights- and in the
>>> same breath talk about how people should be allowed to make their own
>>> choices and how important FREEDOM is..
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>> Don't make the mistake of throwing all conservatives into the "religious
>> right" bag. There are conservatives who are libertarians and not
>> religious nuts out there. - I happen to be one of them.
> Well believe it or not, I consider myself a conservative on most issues.
> But there is no way I can support what the "right wing" does. I don't
> like either party. They ALL are corrupt.
>
> Stephanie
I think that last is a dangerous (but easily arrived at) assumption
that leads to not voting. While some do appear to be corrupt (I
think mainly Republicans who demonstrably lie about important
issues and often appear to more often represent the interests of
lobbyists above the interests of the public - but Democrats are not
immune from "unseemly horse-trading" to secure sufficient votes [but
which would you rather see happen, that or nothing at all get done
due to the current obstructionism of the Republicans in congress?]),
I have found legislators that I have had contact with, both local
and national, to be helpful, honest, and very hard working - with
the interests of the public held highest. It is too easy to dismiss
these people, which is both unfair to them, and not useful in terms
of keeping good people in office. The lowest win when we let them
win...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq7q58$8q1$2@news.albasani.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hq60c0$98l$1@news.albasani.net...
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Interesting how the right wing fights against -gay rights- and in
>>>>> the same breath talk about how people should be allowed to
>>>>> make their own choices and how important FREEDOM is..
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>> Don't make the mistake of throwing all conservatives into the
>>>> "religious right" bag. There are conservatives who are libertarians
>>>> and not religious nuts out there. - I happen to be one of them.
>>> Well believe it or not, I consider myself a conservative on most
>>> issues. But there is no way I can support what the "right wing"
>>> does. I don't like either party. They ALL are corrupt.
>>>
>>> Stephanie
>> I think that last is a dangerous (but easily arrived at) assumption
>> that leads to not voting. While some do appear to be corrupt (I
>> think mainly Republicans who demonstrably lie about important
>> issues and often appear to more often represent the interests of
>> lobbyists above the interests of the public - but Democrats are not
>> immune from "unseemly horse-trading" to secure sufficient votes [but
>> which would you rather see happen, that or nothing at all get done
>> due to the current obstructionism of the Republicans in congress?]),
>> I have found legislators that I have had contact with, both local
>> and national, to be helpful, honest, and very hard working - with
>> the interests of the public held highest. It is too easy to dismiss
>> these people, which is both unfair to them, and not useful in terms
>> of keeping good people in office. The lowest win when we let them
>> win...
>> --DR
> I should have added I support the "least corrupt" :-)
>
> Stephanie
A-a-a-a-h . . . . ! 8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0eadnS3RmMsRSlrWnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> You know, this conflict might be avoided by redefining, "man" and "woman".
> If we allowed a psychological definition to substitute for the physical
> definition, the the whole problem would go away....Just let individuals call
> themselves whatever they really believe themselves to be, or would really
> like themselves to have been, instead of inspecting their genitalia and
> deciding it for them.
Ummmm, "nice try", but it doesn't hold water. There are
good reasons why "straight", "gay male", "Lesbian", "bisexual",
"transgender", and "cross-dresser" are considered distinct and
individual ways for describing various sexual characteristics,
but some of these may, or may not, be combined in any given
individual...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:6YGdnctP6eEyKVrWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Yes....Well, when the democratic congress pursues bank financial reform as
> avidly as they have pursued health reform, (and other ways of spending my
> money like water) then I will sit up and take notice....So far, all they
> have done is set up to spend one hell of a lot of my money. And I wonder
> when Obama will finally assist the Israel army in bombing the hell out of
> Iran's nuclear facilities with deep-penetration bombs.....It is quite
> apparent to me that that is the only way we can stop Iran from continuing to
> develop atomic bombs and se;;/give them to terrorists. Right now, all Obama
> is doing is pussyfooting around with Akmadinijad and giving him more time to
> finish making bombs and hiding them in different parts of his country. You
> do know that there a lot of us, "nuts" who think Obama is an Al Qaeda spy,
> don't you? What if us nuts are right, and he is? He sure doesn't show me how
> wrong I am.......
>
> To me, it is very simple.....You say to Iran, "Tell you what....We have many
> fine nuclear engineers....Why don't you let us build you a reactor and
> supervise its use as a power plant for your energy needs?" And when this is
> turned down, (as I'm certain it would be) then we should scramble the
> bombers bouquet fast......
Ooooops! My bad! I really thought you had some sense...
Dang! Really, begin to think, "sense", "consequences", and,
"long-term"! It will help us all.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041519333123810-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-15 18:06:33 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> said:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hq7546$6vo$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:GO6dnasX27edrVvWnZ2dnUVZ_sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> But the government did that years ago, when they yielded to the
>>>> religious lobbyists and wrote the word, "marriage" into their laws.
>>>> Now, you guys (You religious types) are suffering for that
>>>> indiscretion. Next time, keep your religious dogma out of my laws. Look
>>>> at the trouble you caused with the change in the pledge of allegiance.
>>>> (adding, "under God") I still know people who refuse to say it, or
>>>> remove their hats when others say it. You turned what I was always
>>>> proud to say into another religious ritual.....Someday that chicken
>>>> too, will come home to roost.......
>>> Again thanks. I've always been annoyed by that intrusion of
>>> religion into the pledge, and also with the words, "in god we
>>> trust" on our money, as if that represents the views of all who
>>> use the money, and therefore of all US citizens. The tendency
>>> of a majority of people to believe that their *beliefs* are
>>> universal and "true" can be oppressive.
>>> --DR
>> This country was founded by religious people, and I have no desire to
>> change history. That is one reason why I do not object to the words,
>> "In God we trust" on our money. And, since I am not a historian, I will
>> assume that all the public references to God on our state buildings are
>> so motivated....But when it comes to adding MORE such references after
>> I am grown (in the 50's) then it disturbs me, because this tells me
>> that the religious are attempting to push their quaint myths further
>> and further into my private space......
> OK. History check, and First Amendment check.
>
> You have used the term "religious" to describe the founders. That is a
> broad brush you are painting them with. Some of those who would love to
> rewrite our history would love to have them as devote Christians, some
> were, but the great majority were something else, Deists.
> The Deist philosophy played the major role in formulating the First
> Amendment. That group of Founding Fathers included Jefferson, Franklin,
> Harnett, Morris, Williamson, Adams, Madison, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine,
> and Washington.
> Sure the Deists believed in a "God", However this was not the "God"
> some of today's Christians want us to think the Founding Fathers
> believed in.
>
> It might be time to reread Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" This almost
> cost him his head;
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/painethoetext03twtp410.pdf
>
> Jefferson thought of Christianity as "The Christian System" and wrote
> his interpretation of the New Testament, now known as the Jefferson
> Bible.
>
> I sincerely doubt that any of them would have place a trust in "God" or
> make such a statement of faith on something so symbolically unchristian
> as money. Even more so since currency is that direct link between our
> pockets (and some of those are atheist pockets) and the Government's
> treasury.
>
> As for the addition of "under God" to the pledge of allegiance. This
> was a political move in 1948 by the DAR & SAR, but not yet official. In
> 1954 a Presbyterian pastor George Docherty made the the proposal to
> Eisenhower who had recently been baptized as a Presbyterian (Ike was
> raised as a Jehovah's Witness, difficult to think of him handing out
> The Watchtower!) "under God" was incorporated by Joint Resolution on
> June 14, 1954. The false thinking was that it was a move on the part of
> HUAC and/or McCarthy as a statement of faith in the face of the Cold
> War.
>
> There are real issues of the Constitutionality, as this incorporation
> implies a State religion which excludes those not following the "God"
> of the pledge.
>
> Both "In God We Trust" and "under God" are unwelcome interlopers.
>
> What ever happened to "E pluribus unum"?
> That more fully represents what the United States of America should be.
> Secular and united.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Hey, thanks for the above!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p9WdnSzUqK8Ze1XWnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Dr.Smith" <jhnichols3@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:88WdnZUugKjJ3FXWnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:LMKdnTKT9_uZXFrWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> The ones I have met are not "unable to make a living". Take the lady that
>>> lived downstairs in our apartment building many years ago. She had two
>>> pre-schoolers, and was single. She was a competent short order cook. The
>>> state of California was giving her $350 a month for her rent, and a
>>> couple of hundred for her food, and if she had taken a short order
>>> cooking job, (and there were plenty available then) she would have lost
>>> all that, and had to pay for child care for her kids, and would have
>>> ended up worse off than she was. So, she stayed home and did nothing. I
>>> thought there should be some sort of sliding scale payments for her that
>>> would have encouraged her to work, but what do I know? Today the state of
>>> California (which is where this was) is over 20 billion dollars in
>>> debt......And I know why.......
>> THAT BITCH!!
>>
>> Seriously, I know what you mean. I go shopping after work and I see
>> people buying shrimp, steak, and crawfish (called crayfish, outside of the
>> south), which is an expensive delicacy with food stamp cards, wic, etc.,
>> while I buy cheap generic wieners and generic hot dog buns. I work with
>> prisoners from the local jail, who complain about their lunches. I don't
>> get a free lunch. A majority of the people I see on public assistance are
>> able to work, but that might mean manual labor. They are better off
>> sitting at home watching one of their three TV's, or hanging around a
>> vacant lot littering, and talking to each other about what a sorry, nasty
>> ghetto they live in, than actually getting a job. They always seem to
>> have money for cell phone cards? I have worked since I was 15, and have
>> had a full time job since I was 18. I am going to turn 43 next week and I
>> wonder if I have not been a stupid fool for being proud of my work ethic.
> Yes....My father told me that the government could not pay for my
> retirement, and I should save for it myself.....I saved 10% of my gross pay
> all of my working life, and also paid for my own health care. Today, the
> government is stealing from me to pay for the health care of others, and
> took $4000 of my money to buy that deadbeat down the block a new car, when I
> drove VW's and motorcycles all of my life because I couldn't afford the nice
> vehicles that the deadbeats were driving.....I just wish I could bring my
> dad back for a couple of hours and tell him what the Democrats have done
> with his, "good advice". I know he is rolling over in his grave.......
Somehow, the above seem to me to be exceptions at best, and
jealous fantasies of the right at worst... Living on welfare is no
"dream vacation", and the money is always tight. Fortunately,
sometimes necessities are provided for, and of course, there
are people who do misuse the safety net. Using those exceptions
as representative of the whole is not to understand the value to us
in general (any one of us may suddenly find ourselves broke and
without housing), and to us as a society (unless you like the sight
of homeless, starving, beggars about...). Sorry, I've never had
much sympathy for those who spout, "It's my money, and no
one else has a right to any of it". (Kinda reminds me of that
famous miserable critter, the Grinch! ;-) Or, "Ah, for the good
old days of poorhouses", and, "When I was a kid, people pulled
themselves up by their bootstraps!". Delusions, all...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Stuffed Crust" <pizza@spam.shaftnet.org> wrote in message
news:4bc9221e$0$10523$9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com...>
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I am not blaming her.....There is only one thing to blame, and that is the
>> god damned liberal democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing.
> If they're socialists, they're damn incompetent ones -- real socalists
> would have given us universal, single-payer health care.
8^) "The term "socialist", used by the right so carelessly for indicating
anything they consider "inherently really icky", is VERY often misapplied
to Democrats (kinda one of those indications of rigidity of thought and the
presence of strong bias, facts be damned...).
>> answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want an
>> exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in this
> Well, I have no reason to mail her, she's not my rep in congress.
> Instead, I have Bill "Birther" Posey (R), who isn't likely to be
> re-elected, and doesn't even bother to send me the "loookee what I"ve
> done for you!" mailers.
>
> - Solomon
Well, I do email my two US senators and my NY representative,
and all three respond with (ostensibly...;-) personal emails, and
they are generally to my points. They are Senators Gillibrand and
Schumer, and Representative Hinchey - all superb, in my opinion.
Even though my income is very small (consisting almost entirely of
"gov'mint" social security - which, BTW, *is* my money, now
being paid back to me monthly as long as I live, even if I live to
110...;-), I gave $50 to Senator Gillibrand when she was at risk of
being opposed in the primary. I also make a yearly contribution
to the ACLU, since its work is to help preserve and defend the
US Constitution in addition to civil liberties, rather important
work that.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:isudnfCS16YWdVXWnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> ...There is only one thing to blame, and that is the
> god damned liberal democrats, who are really socialists in sheep's clothing.
> they are the Robin Hooders who want to take the personal responsibility away
> from the people and turn them into a bunch of welfare puppies....The Barney
> Franks, Chris Dodd's, and Nancy Pelosi's that I have hated all of my adult
> life.....People like Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. They don't even
> answer my letters....Try emailing Nancy Pelosi sometime, if you want an
> exercise in futility.....We don't have a representative any more in this
> country. We are being run by a bunch of fellow travelers who make separate
> laws for us to follow, and won't even talk to us........This country is
> heading for a revolution....I only wish I could be around to see it (and
> help it) happen.
Y I K E S ! ! !
Sheesh, why don't you just try voting, huh? Stop
complaining that some people DID win 'cuz a majority
of us REALLY DID WANT THEM TO! So now you
are into overthrowing our elections?!?!? STUPID! And,
BTW, if you got thousands of letters, could you answer
them all, or even a lot of them, especially in detail, and
especially if they were generalized, "philosophical", and
maybe bordering on hate mail types? Get real... And,
BTW, so long as you are civil, you can actually visit your
representatives (either in DC, or when they visit their
local headquarters) since they do have office hours and
then say what's on your mind in person (which should
preferably be constructive, and not just a blast like the
above). Work for candidates you like, and contribute to
them, and don't be such a "baby" if your candidate loses!
Also BTW, often revolutions result in REAL tyranny,
since the institutions that protected the people are swept
away. Try thinking some, instead of just reacting with
prejudices...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aZCdndBf981QaVXWnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqa62t$j48$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:0eadnS3RmMsRSlrWnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> You know, this conflict might be avoided by redefining, "man" and
>>> "woman". If we allowed a psychological definition to substitute for the
>>> physical definition, the the whole problem would go away....Just let
>>> individuals call themselves whatever they really believe themselves to
>>> be, or would really like themselves to have been, instead of inspecting
>>> their genitalia and deciding it for them.
>> Ummmm, "nice try", but it doesn't hold water. There are
>> good reasons why "straight", "gay male", "Lesbian", "bisexual",
>> "transgender", and "cross-dresser" are considered distinct and
>> individual ways for describing various sexual characteristics,
>> but some of these may, or may not, be combined in any given
>> individual...
>> --DR
> Perhaps, but it strikes me as prejudicial, if these people can't change the
> way they think sexually.....Its kind of like discrimination for the color of
> their skin, isn't it?
Yes, of course! ;-) Funny that you "get" this so easily, but it appears that
you cannot conceive of others holding different political/social/economic
views and also being possibly right...;-)
> I remember being in Japan in the late fifties, (in the
> Navy) in the bars, there was only one rest room, used simultaneously by both
> men and women....It took about one trip to get used to it, and we never
> thought about it again. (and, they didn't have stalls, as we do.)
8^)
See, there *is* room for conceptual expansion! ;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:n9CdnfLUdp9YaFXWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> I believe that most pedophiles are heterosexual, simply because most people
> are heterosexual.....The incidence of pedophiles in the society is just as
> likely to be found in gays as straights.....
Without any statistics on this, I would still tend to agree with it...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:WYYDQXF+CbyLFAFZ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <hqbebm$3vq$2@news.albasani.net>, "stephe_k@yahoo.com"
> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> writes
>>I wonder if Neil has noticed NO ONE has backed him up on anything he
>>has said here, yet he still believes 99% of the world thinks like he
>>does...
> I have seen people argue this way before: You are ALL wrong! EVERYBODY
> supports me... it is just a quirk of fate that none of them are here.
> Ask in the real world...
>
> Then of course unless you can give an Internet URL that these people
> approve of it is all "liberal bias" and just propaganda.
>
> I have noticed that 99% (:-) of this sort of person also believe that
> the BBC, CNN and the other mainstream media are in a conspiracy and ONLY
> Fox news knows the truth.....
>
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
I call it "religious nuttery", and that does not necessarily refer to
religion but to a steadfast belief that something is true regardless
of any countering facts or logic presented that any reasonable
person would accept, or at least consider. There is far too much
of this these days, and IT IS REALLY ANNOYING that some
people seem to prize stupidity over the seeking of truth.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:g4zOoNBQyayLFAQ$@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> The problem with most US Libertarians (and extreme Republicans) is that
> their world only works if there is a society to give them the room to do
> it. IF all of us believed as they do I would be living in his house
> having shot him to get it...
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
This is a good summation of the inherent flaw of libertarianism in
its pure form (never "one for all and all for one", but always "all
for one that one can get"). In other words, the almost inevitable
result of pure libertarianism would be a societal return to primitive
rapaciousness and the loss of freedom and possessions by most
to the strongest. Good grief! 8^(
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gMydnZu8QZTEwVfWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqcj6j$i5e$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:p9WdnSzUqK8Ze1XWnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "Dr.Smith" <jhnichols3@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:88WdnZUugKjJ3FXWnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:LMKdnTKT9_uZXFrWnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>> The ones I have met are not "unable to make a living". Take the lady
>>>>> that lived downstairs in our apartment building many years ago. She had
>>>>> two pre-schoolers, and was single. She was a competent short order
>>>>> cook. The state of California was giving her $350 a month for her rent,
>>>>> and a couple of hundred for her food, and if she had taken a short
>>>>> order cooking job, (and there were plenty available then) she would
>>>>> have lost all that, and had to pay for child care for her kids, and
>>>>> would have ended up worse off than she was. So, she stayed home and did
>>>>> nothing. I thought there should be some sort of sliding scale payments
>>>>> for her that would have encouraged her to work, but what do I know?
>>>>> Today the state of California (which is where this was) is over 20
>>>>> billion dollars in debt......And I know why.......
>>>> THAT BITCH!!
>>>>
>>>> Seriously, I know what you mean. I go shopping after work and I see
>>>> people buying shrimp, steak, and crawfish (called crayfish, outside of
>>>> the south), which is an expensive delicacy with food stamp cards, wic,
>>>> etc., while I buy cheap generic wieners and generic hot dog buns. I
>>>> work with prisoners from the local jail, who complain about their
>>>> lunches. I don't get a free lunch. A majority of the people I see on
>>>> public assistance are able to work, but that might mean manual labor.
>>>> They are better off sitting at home watching one of their three TV's, or
>>>> hanging around a vacant lot littering, and talking to each other about
>>>> what a sorry, nasty ghetto they live in, than actually getting a job.
>>>> They always seem to have money for cell phone cards? I have worked since
>>>> I was 15, and have had a full time job since I was 18. I am going to
>>>> turn 43 next week and I wonder if I have not been a stupid fool for
>>>> being proud of my work ethic.
>>> Yes....My father told me that the government could not pay for my
>>> retirement, and I should save for it myself.....I saved 10% of my gross
>>> pay all of my working life, and also paid for my own health care. Today,
>>> the government is stealing from me to pay for the health care of others,
>>> and took $4000 of my money to buy that deadbeat down the block a new car,
>>> when I drove VW's and motorcycles all of my life because I couldn't
>>> afford the nice vehicles that the deadbeats were driving.....I just wish
>>> I could bring my dad back for a couple of hours and tell him what the
>>> Democrats have done with his, "good advice". I know he is rolling over in
>>> his grave.......
>> Somehow, the above seem to me to be exceptions at best, and
>> jealous fantasies of the right at worst... Living on welfare is no
>> "dream vacation", and the money is always tight. Fortunately,
>> sometimes necessities are provided for, and of course, there
>> are people who do misuse the safety net. Using those exceptions
>> as representative of the whole is not to understand the value to us
>> in general (any one of us may suddenly find ourselves broke and
>> without housing), and to us as a society (unless you like the sight
>> of homeless, starving, beggars about...). Sorry, I've never had
>> much sympathy for those who spout, "It's my money, and no
>> one else has a right to any of it". Kinda reminds me of that
>> famous miserable critter, the Grinch! ;-) Or, "Ah, for the good
>> old days of poorhouses", and, "When I was a kid, people pulled
>> themselves up by their bootstraps!". Delusions, all...
>> --DR
> Yes, it's very convenient for you libs to spout off about us unfeeling
> stingy Republicans. You sit in Sherwood forest, and when someone with money
> comes along, you steal it from them without asking how they got it, or why
> they have it. Your assumption is that everyone who has any money must have
> stolen it from the poor, and should have it stolen from them and given back
> to the poor. It's called, "spreading the wealth around". Well, you can take
> your own money and give it to the dead-beats, if you want....I won't
> complain. But leave your rotten filthy fingers off of my money! I worked
> hard for it, and warned my co-workers that they should be saving for their
> old age, because the governments social security program couldn't possible
> provide them with a decent living when they retire. Right now, my SS check
> only amounts to about 1/4 of my income.....If I had to live off of that, I
> would be living in a trailer court outside Tulsa instead of a two story,
> 3300 square foot house in West Salem, Oregon. But it won't be too long
> before you god damned liberals take every incentive to save and invest away
> from the people and generate a world full of welfare puppies.....When that
> happens, you will find out why socialism doesn't work......I am only sorry
> that I won't be around to say, "I told you so". I am already in my mid 70's,
> and I still have over a half million dollars, so I will be able to make it,
> even though I have not been able to travel during my retirement as my wife
> and I had hoped to do. But that's all right.....You guys have ruined that,
> too. My friend went to Italy last Summer, and he had to pay $17 for a coke
> in one of their restaurants! I can still buy it for 25 cents a can on sale
> at Walgreens.....So, I'll just stay home and drink my own cokes here, and
> let the airlines go out of business. My dad didn't travel overseas during
> his retirement either.....Now I know why. If you run short of money during
> your retirement, try getting some money from Barbra Streisand or one of your
> other rich communist buddies....See how far you get with that. They really
> had to work hard for their money, singing all those songs and all. I'm sure
> they will be glad to give some of it away....They sure are glad to give mine
> away.
You were lucky enough to make enough money and wise enough
to regularly save enough of it to have what you have now. Most others
"live on the edge" not by choice, but because they don't make enough
to put away anything. I never grossed more than $22k any year in my
life (and often far less), and with business expenses, the "take home"
portion was much smaller. But, with care (I've always been good with
money), I managed to own outright a decent 1100 sq. ft. house and a
cheap-but-OK car, and to amass $96k in investments. I had to stop
working about eight years ago when a "difficulty" hit me suddenly out
of nowhere. I wanted to continue working, but I couldn't be sure of
being able to meet with clients, let alone "perform" on the agreed-upon
dates. For the last two jobs I hired back-up photographers to fill in,
if needed, which left too little profit to bother with, so I went on SS
disability, and a few years later, that converted to a modest SS income,
essentially my only source of income (but it is sufficient for my needs).
Now, as it happened, I have come to meet many on welfare or disability,
and NONE is on it just because they don't want to work. There are
some who cannot afford even the inexpensive "Gadabout" transportation
service for the elderly and disabled, or modest meals away from where
they live (I set up a local "kitty" for $5 to be given such people when
needed, since they need the money more than I do), people who are
blind and/or have hearing difficulties, people who have mobility problems,
people who have various diseases (up to ALS), and people who "just"
have bipolar disorder (which can be just as crippling as any physical
problem). I have a form of autism, but I have managed with it since I
found a way to make money without having a regular job (my last
attempt was in 1962, I think...). So, quit with the "stingy" and the "if
I could do it, anyone could do it" attitude and look at the conditions
many real people live with who need the available extra help, and quit
fixating on the few exceptions (and one needs a treat ONCE in a while!),
and, BTW, my sister (long story...) uses a cell 'phone 'cuz it's cheaper
than any other type if used very sparingly. Please be more generous in
your outlook, if not with your money...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqeul0$k5u$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> You were lucky enough to make enough money and wise enough
>> to regularly save enough of it to have what you have now. Most others
>> "live on the edge" not by choice, but because they don't make enough
>> to put away anything. I never grossed more than $22k any year in my
>> life (and often far less), and with business expenses, the "take home"
>> portion was much smaller. But, with care (I've always been good with
>> money), I managed to own outright a decent 1100 sq. ft. house and a
>> cheap-but-OK car, and to amass $96k in investments. I had to stop
>> working about eight years ago when a "difficulty" hit me suddenly out
>> of nowhere. I wanted to continue working, but I couldn't be sure of
>> being able to meet with clients, let alone "perform" on the agreed-upon
>> dates. For the last two jobs I hired back-up photographers to fill in,
>> if needed, which left too little profit to bother with, so I went on SS
>> disability, and a few years later, that converted to a modest SS income,
>> essentially my only source of income (but it is sufficient for my needs).
>> Now, as it happened, I have come to meet many on welfare or disability,
>> and NONE is on it just because they don't want to work. There are
>> some who cannot afford even the inexpensive "Gadabout" transportation
>> service for the elderly and disabled, or modest meals away from where
>> they live (I set up a local "kitty" for $5 to be given such people when
>> needed, since they need the money more than I do), people who are
>> blind and/or have hearing difficulties, people who have mobility problems,
>> people who have various diseases (up to ALS), and people who "just"
>> have bipolar disorder (which can be just as crippling as any physical
>> problem). I have a form of autism, but I have managed with it since I
>> found a way to make money without having a regular job (my last
>> attempt was in 1962, I think...). So, quit with the "stingy" and the "if
>> I could do it, anyone could do it" attitude and look at the conditions
>> many real people live with who need the available extra help, and quit
>> fixating on the few exceptions (and one needs a treat ONCE in a while!),
>> and, BTW, my sister (long story...) uses a cell 'phone 'cuz it's cheaper
>> than any other type if used very sparingly. Please be more generous in
>> your outlook, if not with your money...
>> --DR
> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they find it
> impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people off.....As a matter
> of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a good statistic) who have
> all their fingers and toes and mental capabilities and could work, but
> don't, and give this money to those of whom you speak who can't work for one
> reason or another. The people of whom I speak, who could work but don't, ate
> (and have been) subsidized by the state of California all of my life....I
> have met many of them, and they didn't work because they were better off
> economically by just sitting and letting the California government cut them
> checks every month. There was no "sliding scale" payments that would (or
> might have) given them any incentive to work. I keep telling you this, but
> you keep reverting to my being, "An unfeeling conservative who doesn't
> understand the plight of others who are less fortunate than I." Lets take
> the idiot who lived next door to me in Menlo Park for about 5 years. He had
> a dozen children, and he lived in a three bedroom house. Je was on
> disability, because he had a "nervous condition that made him uncomfortable
> when he worked for a living" (No lie) All he did was sit home and drink
> beer.....After they moved out (owing 5 months rent) I met the owner's son,
> who was fixing up the place for re-renting to someone else, and needed me to
> help him install a new toilet. He showed me the back bedroom.....It was
> piled floor to ceiling with empty beer cans....This guy lived in a three
> bedroom house, with a dozen children, and he used one of the three bedrooms
> for a garbage dump for his beer cans! Incidentally, while they were living
> there, his wife had another ked, so there were thirteen kids when they
> skipped out of town.....The local police department knew all about this guys
> kids....They lived under a standing order curfew.....If any of them was seen
> by a Menlo Park policeman out after dark, he (or she) would be arrested
> immediately.....they got all their spending money by stealing whatever they
> could get their hands on, and selling it to whomever they could for whatever
> they could get for it.......
You do seem to generalize from only a few instances to "pasting"
your evident low regard for some of those in need to all such. As
I have pointed out before, there will always be exceptions who
may not be worthy of help - but that BY NO MEANS indicates
that most who receive it are not in need of it for basic living
resources, and who also use it to the best of their abilities. Few get rich
on welfare...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WPydne7XcNbOEFHWnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqhncg$75b$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:2cGdnYKPS8_3VVbWnZ2dnUVZ_rWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hqeul0$k5u$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> You were lucky enough to make enough money and wise enough
>>>> to regularly save enough of it to have what you have now. Most others
>>>> "live on the edge" not by choice, but because they don't make enough
>>>> to put away anything. I never grossed more than $22k any year in my
>>>> life (and often far less), and with business expenses, the "take home"
>>>> portion was much smaller. But, with care (I've always been good with
>>>> money), I managed to own outright a decent 1100 sq. ft. house and a
>>>> cheap-but-OK car, and to amass $96k in investments. I had to stop
>>>> working about eight years ago when a "difficulty" hit me suddenly out
>>>> of nowhere. I wanted to continue working, but I couldn't be sure of
>>>> being able to meet with clients, let alone "perform" on the agreed-upon
>>>> dates. For the last two jobs I hired back-up photographers to fill in,
>>>> if needed, which left too little profit to bother with, so I went on SS
>>>> disability, and a few years later, that converted to a modest SS income,
>>>> essentially my only source of income (but it is sufficient for my needs).
>>>> Now, as it happened, I have come to meet many on welfare or disability,
>>>> and NONE is on it just because they don't want to work. There are
>>>> some who cannot afford even the inexpensive "Gadabout" transportation
>>>> service for the elderly and disabled, or modest meals away from where
>>>> they live (I set up a local "kitty" for $5 to be given such people when
>>>> needed, since they need the money more than I do), people who are
>>>> blind and/or have hearing difficulties, people who have mobility problems,
>>>> people who have various diseases (up to ALS), and people who "just"
>>>> have bipolar disorder (which can be just as crippling as any physical
>>>> problem). I have a form of autism, but I have managed with it since I
>>>> found a way to make money without having a regular job (my last
>>>> attempt was in 1962, I think...). So, quit with the "stingy" and the "if
>>>> I could do it, anyone could do it" attitude and look at the conditions
>>>> many real people live with who need the available extra help, and quit
>>>> fixating on the few exceptions (and one needs a treat ONCE in a while!),
>>>> and, BTW, my sister (long story...) uses a cell 'phone 'cuz it's cheaper
>>>> than any other type if used very sparingly. Please be more generous in
>>>> your outlook, if not with your money...
>>>> --DR
>>> I am saying, and have said several times before, that the people I am
>>> talking about are not those who are disabled to the extent that they find
>>> it impossible to work. I never wanted to cut these people off.....As a
>>> matter of fact, I would like to cut off the other 98% (a good statistic)
>>> who have all their fingers and toes and mental capabilities and could
>>> work, but don't, and give this money to those of whom you speak who can't
>>> work for one reason or another. The people of whom I speak, who could
>>> work but don't, ate (and have been) subsidized by the state of California
>>> all of my life....I have met many of them, and they didn't work because
>>> they were better off economically by just sitting and letting the
>>> California government cut them checks every month. There was no "sliding
>>> scale" payments that would (or might have) given them any incentive to
>>> work. I keep telling you this, but you keep reverting to my being, "An
>>> unfeeling conservative who doesn't understand the plight of others who
>>> are less fortunate than I." Lets take the idiot who lived next door to me
>>> in Menlo Park for about 5 years. He had a dozen children, and he lived in
>>> a three bedroom house. Je was on disability, because he had a "nervous
>>> condition that made him uncomfortable when he worked for a living" (No
>>> lie) All he did was sit home and drink beer.....After they moved out
>>> (owing 5 months rent) I met the owner's son, who was fixing up the place
>>> for re-renting to someone else, and needed me to help him install a new
>>> toilet. He showed me the back bedroom.....It was piled floor to ceiling
>>> with empty beer cans....This guy lived in a three bedroom house, with a
>>> dozen children, and he used one of the three bedrooms for a garbage dump
>>> for his beer cans! Incidentally, while they were living there, his wife
>>> had another ked, so there were thirteen kids when they skipped out of
>>> town.....The local police department knew all about this guys
>>> kids....They lived under a standing order curfew.....If any of them was
>>> seen by a Menlo Park policeman out after dark, he (or she) would be
>>> arrested immediately.....they got all their spending money by stealing
>>> whatever they could get their hands on, and selling it to whomever they
>>> could for whatever they could get for it.......
>> You do seem to generalize from only a few instances to "pasting"
>> your evident low regard for some of those in need to all such. As
>> I have pointed out before, there will always be exceptions who
>> may not be worthy of help - but that BY NO MEANS indicates
>> that most who receive it are not in need of it for basic living
>> resources, and also use it to the best of their abilities. Few get rich
>> on welfare...;-)
>> --DR
> Hey! Show me these, "Most" of whom you speak.....I lived and worked in
> California for over 40 years, I knew many people who were welfare puppies. I
> have only known a very few who actually deserved some help from the
> taxpayers. My own experience tells me that the system is F***** up. The
> statistics of less than 2% I got from reading about the welfare system in
> papers and books....I didn't just pull it out of the air. Oh sure, there is
> some excuse they all have for taking the money....They are better off than
> they would be working, in some cases. But that is a fault of the system.
> There was no incentive for them to work at all. No sliding scale to give
> them some help in finding a job that would improve their situation. No end
> to the help they were getting, so they would have an incentive to learn a
> new trade and prepare to leave the welfare rolls. It was a clear case of
> giving them a fish every month instead of teaching them how to fish.....
I included it above, and also in my original post of 4/18 - but if you
cannot read it for some reason, I quote it below, "Now, as it happened,
I have come to meet many [as in, a couple of hundred] on welfare or
disability, and NONE is on it just because they don't want to work.
There are some who cannot afford even the inexpensive "Gadabout"
transportation service for the elderly and disabled, or modest meals
away from where they live (I set up a local "kitty" for $5 to be given
such people when needed, since they need the money more than I do),
people who are blind and/or have hearing difficulties, people who have
mobility problems, people who have various diseases (up to ALS), and
people who "just" have bipolar disorder (which can be just as crippling
as any physical problem). I have a form of autism, but I have managed
with it since I found a way to make money without having a regular job
(my last attempt was in 1962, I think...). So, quit with the "stingy" and the
"if I could do it, anyone could do it" attitude and look at the conditions
many real people live with who need the available extra help, and quit
fixating on the few exceptions (and one needs a treat ONCE in a while!),
and, BTW, my sister (long story...) uses a cell 'phone 'cuz it's cheaper
than any other type if used very sparingly. Please be more generous in
your outlook, if not with your money..." Also, those on disability ARE
given incentives to work - one can make a rather noticeable amount
of money for a period of time without losing the disability payments
so that one can train for and/or try out for work. And, many disabled
people I know do work. But, I'm now getting tired of reading and
responding to your repetitious and quite "ungenerous" views - I have
better things to do...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1ZednQ4Bz7B-GFHWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqflub$soh$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:EpSdnde2eMOQ71fWnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> [ The usual stuff about "it's My money, dammit, and no one has
>> a right to ANY of it" excised...]
>>> Yesterday I paid $18 for a 10 inch Pizza.....Eighteen F****** Dollars!! I
>>> don't know how old you are, but my dad only needed 100 grand for a
>>> comfortable retirement.....I needed a million, and my grandchildren will
>>> need 10 million.....Doesn't that mean anything to you? How much will you
>>> need? and, How are you going to get it?
>> Gee, I live comfortably on a taxable income of $1700 a year (no, I didn't
>> forget a comma and a zero...;-). I don't crave things I don't need, and
>> I do prefer that some of "my" money be spent for the public good. BTW,
>> I do look around for good pizza, and here the best in town (on sale...)
>> is a large (really...), thick one, made to order with "real" ingredients and
>> not made by one of the pizza chains, and it is $14 and it easily satisfies
>> two people for two meals each (with nothing else needed or wanted with
>> it...). Quit bellyaching about how hard it is to live on what must be a
>> considerable income with SS plus investment income from a million dollars,
>> with no money to spare for those blankitty-blank welfare slackers. Talk
>> about a demonstration of what a "Grinch" is - you do seem to define it as
>> yourself from your own writings here...
>> --DR
> I don't believe your taxable income is only 1700 a year.....What are you
> doing with a computer is you make that little?
That was in fact my taxable income this last year, and I paid exactly
$60 total in taxes to the Feds and NYS - and, as I said, I live well
(which for me is likely very different from what you consider important
for "good living" - but "Grinches" always seem to want more than they
already have, which I don't).
> But that's beside the point.
> Just because you saved so little, why do you think that everyone should save
> so little. Can't you imagine there are people in this world who aspire to be
> better off than you are, and are willing to save more and/or work harder
> than you do? Or, like a typical liberal, you think that everyone should live
> exactly as you do, and by God, we should make a law that forces them
> to.......
This is nonsense, as you would know if you had read my post in
which I listed my major assets. I have done very well, given my
modest lifestyle. I don't care what others want to do (whether wasting
their lives chasing money, or living life the best they can) - but I've noticed
that it does seem to be the conservatives who are most interested in telling
people how they should live, often while at the same time pratting on
about how the "gov'mint" is limiting their own rights, and using scare words
like "socialism" (words that don't apply to any real threat) to get people to
follow them. Anyway, enough...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gMydnZq8QZTEwVfWnZ2dnUVZ_t0AAAAA@giganews.com...
[Oh, I JUST can't resist..............! ;-]
> When Bush wanted to actually invest some of the SS income in
> American business, the uproar against it was deafening......:^) Oh, well
> there's no accounting for the stupidity of liberals.....
Ummm, that was *before* the recent "vagary" in the stock/bond
markets, I take it...;-) We would, as collectors of SS, "lost our shirts"
in such a stupid deal!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:mpCdneiv6tHzHlHWnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqf05v$mf2$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Well, if one catches a "news" network in enough deceptions,
>> outright lies, and in actually actively supporting a political party
>> and a fringe movement enough times, ALL its credibility is lost.
>> Some of us consider our time watching material that has been
>> proven worthless (or much worse) MANY times as time
>> foolishly spent... Or, for the simple, if "A", "B", "C", "D", and
>> "E" generally provide reliable news information, but "F"
>> demonstrably does not, then one ceases at some point
>> wasting time (except for entertainment, perhaps), watching "F".
>> --DR
> Only if you are a screaming, long-haired liberal who refuses to think for
> himself.....I find Fox a refreshing change from the "Obama is Jesus" crowd.
> At least Fox calls him out on his many mistakes. Are you aware that his
> administration is full of Marxists and fellow travelers from the 60's? Are
> you also aware that the democrats are trying to spend your grandchildren's
> money much faster than they will ever be able to pay it off? Fox seems to be
> the only ones who are concerned about this.....You certainly won't hear
> about it by watching Brian Williams and Katie Couric.
Y u h, r i g h t . . . .
Gosh, I guess the sky really is green, and grass really is purple.....8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LeidnY2VdoFR_FfWnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqcnje$q69$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:WYYDQXF+CbyLFAFZ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <hqbebm$3vq$2@news.albasani.net>, "stephe_k@yahoo.com"
>>> <stephe_k@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>I wonder if Neil has noticed NO ONE has backed him up on anything he
>>>>has said here, yet he still believes 99% of the world thinks like he
>>>>does...
>>> I have seen people argue this way before: You are ALL wrong! EVERYBODY
>>> supports me... it is just a quirk of fate that none of them are here.
>>> Ask in the real world...
>>>
>>> Then of course unless you can give an Internet URL that these people
>>> approve of it is all "liberal bias" and just propaganda.
>>>
>>> I have noticed that 99% (:-) of this sort of person also believe that
>>> the BBC, CNN and the other mainstream media are in a conspiracy and ONLY
>>> Fox news knows the truth.....
>>> --
>>> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>>> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
>>> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
>> I call it "religious nuttery", and that does not necessarily refer to
>> religion but to a steadfast belief that something is true regardless
>> of any countering facts or logic presented that any reasonable
>> person would accept, or at least consider. There is far too much
>> of this these days, and IT IS REALLY ANNOYING that some
>> people seem to prize stupidity over the seeking of truth.
>> --DR
> Is that why I watch all the news services, but you liberals refuse to watch
> Fox?
Well, if one catches a "news" network in enough deceptions,
outright lies, and in actually actively supporting a political party
and a fringe movement enough times, ALL its credibility is lost.
Some of us consider our time watching material that has been
proven worthless (or much worse) MANY times as time
foolishly spent... Or, for the simple, if "A", "B", "C", "D", and
"E" generally provide reliable news information, but "F"
demonstrably does not, then one ceases at some point wasting
time (except possibly for entertainment, perhaps) watching "F".
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:EpSdnde2eMOQ71fWnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[ The usual stuff about "it's My money, dammit, and no one has
a right to ANY of it" excised...]
> Yesterday I paid $18 for a 10 inch
> Pizza.....Eighteen F****** Dollars!! I don't know how old you are, but my
> dad only needed 100 grand for a comfortable retirement.....I needed a
> million, and my grandchildren will need 10 million.....Doesn't that mean
> anything to you? How much will you need? and, How are you going to get it?
Gee, I live comfortably on a taxable income of $1700 a year (no, I didn't
forget a comma and a zero...;-). I don't crave things I don't need, and
I do prefer that some of "my" money be spent for the public good. BTW,
I do look around for good pizza, and here the best in town (on sale...)
is a large (really...), thick one, made to order with "real" ingredients and
not made by one of the pizza chains, and it is $14 and it easily satisfies two
people for two meals each (with nothing else needed or wanted with it...).
Quit bellyaching about how hard it is to live on what must be a considerable
income with SS plus investment income from a million dollars, with no
money to spare for those "blankitty-blank welfare slackers". Talk about a
demonstration of what a "Grinch" is - you do seem to define it as yourself
from your own writings here...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqk63l$nub$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Your beliefs are your beliefs, religious or otherwise. By your measure you
> have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone else. You believe that gay
> marriage is OK, you have no right to impose that on anyone who believes
> otherwise.
When your *beliefs* interfere with my basic *rights*, I certainly
can (and should!) have my rights imposed on you - but you may
also choose (within your religious practices) not to recognize
(except legally) or to perform gay marriages. This is the point of
separation of church and state, and it should acceptably satisfy
both of us. But if you want to impose your religious views on
me through state action (or inaction) and thereby deprive me of
a basic human right, WATCH OUT!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bcdbd25$0$27708$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqkadt$98m$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:hqk63l$nub$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Your beliefs are your beliefs, religious or otherwise. By your measure
>>> you have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone else. You believe that
>>> gay marriage is OK, you have no right to impose that on anyone who
>>> believes otherwise.
>> When your *beliefs* interfere with my basic *rights*, I certainly
>> can (and should!) have my rights imposed on you - but you may
>> also choose (within your religious practices) not to recognize
>> (except legally) or to perform gay marriages. This is the point of
>> separation of church and state, and it should acceptably satisfy
>> both of us. But if you want to impose your religious views on
>> me through state action (or inaction) and thereby deprive me of
>> a basic human right, WATCH OUT!
>> --DR
> What "basic human right" does not have some genesis in religion.
> Basic human rights are supported by a system of laws.
> Some religions have, or had practices that are illegal in most current
> societies. Think Vestal virgins; multiple wives; human sacrifice. Our laws
> are constantly evolving. Few are aware that in New York and some other
> jurisdictions it is legal for a woman to walk around topless in most
> locations where men can walk around topless.
> http://www.gotopless.org/news.php?item.3.1
> No, I would not enjoy sitting at a sushi bar next to a topless person, or
> even worse some hairy guy in a muscle shirt, dripping with sweat. I would
> not support a law that banned such an action, but would exercise my option
> to leave, immediately.
>
> Religion is a set of beliefs based upon concepts of morality, some of which
> should be clearly imposed on others and some of which clearly should not.
> Its really where we draw the line that leads to difficulty.
>
> --
> Peter
The above appears quite reasonable - until we reach that
point where you may feel that (due to the religious precepts
that you go by) *legal* gay marriage (with its state-recognized
rights/privileges/responsibilities) should be prohibited, even
though gay marriage does you, your religion, and society no
demonstrable harm. You are, of course, free to ignore gay
marriages personally, as your religion can also do (and it can
choose to not perform them), but some of us consider working
to defeat legal equality in this area to be, to say the least, based
on bigotry and little else. It is time to recognize the legal equality
of our gay citizens (as we did with our racial minorities),
difficult as this appears to be for some to do or to accept...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bcdccec$0$18221$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqkg04$ikn$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bcdbd25$0$27708$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
[...]
>>> Religion is a set of beliefs based upon concepts of morality, some of
>>> which should be clearly imposed on others and some of which clearly
>>> should not. Its really where we draw the line that leads to difficulty.
>>> --
>>> Peter
>> The above appears quite reasonable - until we reach that
>> point where you may feel that (due to the religious precepts
>> that you go by) *legal* gay marriage (with its state-recognized
>> rights/privileges/responsibilities) should be prohibited, even
>> though gay marriage does you, your religion, and society no
>> demonstrable harm. You are, of course, free to ignore gay
>> marriages personally, as your religion also can do (and it can
>> choose to not perform them), but some of us consider working
>> to defeat legal equality in this area to be, to say the least, based
>> on bigotry and little else. It is time to recognize the legal equality
>> of our gay citizens (as we did with our racial minorities), difficult
>> as this appears to be for some to do or to accept...
> I was stating the problem of accommodation as I see it. Personally I don't
> give a rat's ass about: your sexual preference, religious beliefs, or lack
> thereof, or skin color. As human beings all of us must receive equal legal
> and moral treatment. To deny that there are sincere conflicts is to deny
> reality. The rub is how we deal with our conflict resolution.
>
> --
> Peter
Then we agree ('cept maybe the rat wouldn't, about its ass...;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010042008420946517-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-20 05:19:00 -0700, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> said:
>> Your beliefs are your beliefs, religious or otherwise. By your measure you
>> have no right to impose your beliefs on anyone else. You believe that gay
>> marriage is OK, you have no right to impose that on anyone who believes
>> otherwise.
Not "impose", but legally "provide for"...
> However the reverse should also be true.
> A religious lobby should not be able to impose dogmatic law and rules
> on an entire population which might not follow that religion, in a
> supposed secular nation.
>
> A change in Federal Code recognizing same sex marriage, does not mean
> religious groups would be forced to sanction such marriages. As such
> you would be able to maintain your status quo without anything being
> imposed on you.
>
> The sad thing is those homosexual catholics (yes there are quite a few)
> who have their loving relationships denied by their faith. They more
> than any others have been abandoned by their church.
>
> This country is not a theocracy, and we should be able to accommodate
> those who have chosen not to follow faiths they do not believe in. As
> far as those homosexual Catholics and other Christians, Jews and
> Muslims, who are in same sex marriages, civil unions, or domestic
> partnerships, I am sure they would love to have a degree of acceptance
> from their religion, not be forced to deny their faith. Especially from
> a religion which is supposed to be tolerant and charitable.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
I observed a difficult instance about 30 years ago in which a
Pentecostal kid was in the process of "coming out" as gay (he
was fully aware of who he was, and of how little his religion
accepted that integral and important part of his being), and
the struggle between his nature and his religion was obviously
painful for him. In the short run, his religion "won", and soon
after that, I lost contact. I do hope this choice didn't do too
much damage, or worse (teen suicides in this situation are not
uncommon...).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TaydnVY_u-H5B1PWnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:833p8cF5onU2@mid.individual.net...
>> You remind me of an old friend. After living for a year in my home
>> city he told me was fed up with it and going back to London. The
>> reason he gave was that it was a dreadful city, full of unemployed
>> benefit cheats who spent all their time working out how to swindle
>> more money out of the government. I said I hardly knew any benefit
>> cheats. He said yes you do, and named two we both knew. I pointed out
>> to him he had introduced me to them.
>>
>> In other words while he knew loads of benefit cheats, the only ones I
>> knew people he'd introduced me to. So it was clear that the question
>> wasn't why was the city full of benefit cheats. The question was why
>> he knew so many of them :-)
>>> My own experience tells me that the system is F***** up. The
>>> statistics of less than 2% I got from reading about the welfare system in
>>> papers and books....I didn't just pull it out of the air.
>> We have plenty of papers and books that say the same kind of thing
>> about the UK. And political parties too. But we also have official
>> statistics which show that the truth is quite different.
>>
>> How do the official statistics match up with these papers and books
>> you read?
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm
> I believe I already mentioned that fewer than 2% of those on welfare have
> some disability, either physical or mental. But it doesn't matter.....You
> are either a believer or you aren't, and there is no way I am going to
> change your mind.
Well, neutral statistics would help (not those gleaned from right-wing
publications with "an ax to grind"...). Show us your sources. ;-)
> I go by my own knowledge and experience.....I "escaped"
> from California to Oregon 13 years ago.....Now, I can see Oregon rapidly
> becoming another California, and the whole country rapidly becoming another
> California too.....
Hmmm.... You do know that we are currently in a very deep recession,
one causing wide-spread unemployment (which was basically brought
about by the fol-de-rol on Wall Street permitted by the ever-narrowing
regulation of financial institutions encouraged by the right), no?
> They are talking about adding a Value Added Tax to
> everything we buy. Our government is desperately grasping at any excuse to
> get more money from us anyway they can, and adding bureaucracy after
> bureaucracy to spend more and more of our incomes on more and more
> government employees.....I see no end to it, and obviously there is nothing
> I can possibly do about it,
Oh, it's so sad, that the "govmint" was forced to step in and spend
a huge amount to prevent a financial collapse, an attempt which appears
to have been successful - and guess what? The government has been
collecting a remarkable amount back from the institutions it saved from
destruction! There will be one heck of a lot of debt remaining, even if all
the TARP money were returned, but in times of recession, tax income is
down (with no other changes). If that ill-considered Bush tax break
for the rich were rescinded, the economy recovered, and the government
stopped spending us into debt, as Bush and the 'Bublicans did, that debt
may not seem quite so horrible as it does now as it is whittled away.
Remember that Clinton inherited debt, and left a surplus (it can be done).
> so I am just wasting my time trying to warn
> others about it. At this stage in my life, (I am 74) the best thing I can do
> is just pursue my hobbies and enjoy what life I have left, and let the next
> generation lie in whatever bed we have prepared for them. I can only hope
> that my private papers and letters tell them that I did my best to warn them
> of what was happening so they don't put too much of the blame on me.
Or, maybe we will - some of us believe that it is the right that tends to
make foolish short-term decisions, and to not look at the subtleties and
the long term "macro" effects of what they do. But, hey, why not do
something useful with your time to help "those welfare puppies" get off
welfare? Here there are many programs (mostly volunteer) that serve
to help people (I was astonished by the seemingly endless list I found
of these organizations!). Here is a local one a friend just joined --
http://www.learning-web.org. Choose an organization local to you, and
try helping people instead of complaining about them. You may learn
a few things that will challenge your prejudices...
> Not
> that I believe it will matter after I am gone anyway. I am a godless person,
> and do not believe in any afterlife. This country is only about 250 years
> old.....I doubt seriously if it will last another 100 years. It is obvious
> to me that human beings are incapable of sustaining a free existence
> indefinitely.....I guess we are too corrupt, or too lazy, or too uneducated,
> or all three.
Perhaps............ ;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqmr0o$4oo$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010042016372282188-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-04-20 15:54:53 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
>> said:
>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:51:57 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>>> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>> Gay rights cannot be equated with the civil rights struggle.
>>> Why not? We have a significantly large percentage of our population
>>> who are being treated differently because of something about them that
>>> is beyond their control. In one group it was skin color and in the
>>> other group it is sexual preference. Neither factor should make them
>>> unequal under the law.
>>>
>>> Neither group is guaranteed equal acceptance by society, but both
>>> groups should be guaranteed equal rights under the law.
A good summation.
>> There you go.
>> The 14th Amendment again. It worked for Brown v. Board of Education, the
>> Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>>
>> There is no reason why it shouldn't be applied to equal protection under
>> the Law for minorities discriminated against because of sexual preference.
> Right - they have made a choice. Blacks had no choice about their minority
> status
.
Let me make this perfectly clear (as someone who ***IS*** homosexual!),
I DID NOT CHOOSE TO BE HOMOSEXUAL (ask yourself why would
any one do that and accept the disadvantages - what, for the "style"...?! ;-),
I *****AM***** HOMOSEXUAL, which is a ***FACT*** regardless
of your incorrect "beliefs". Once you get over the anti-gay propaganda that
people "make this choice" (a stupid choice, it seems to me, if it were possible),
you may understand that homosexuality is an inherent characteristic for some
people. The consequence of this is that their basic rights need to be recognized
and protected by the state, which obviously includes the right to marry each
other.
When I was a kid in the '50s, my first awareness of the long trek ahead for
my rights was when my cousin told me that he and some friends had beaten up
someone outside a gay bar, without consequences. Again, in the 70's, I heard
during a visit to San Francisco that the police had raided and closed the gay
bars. In general, as with Blacks earlier, known gays had few protections from
police until relatively recently - and it was possible until very recently for
something like the Matthew Shepard murder to occur, with the participants
thinking that it was a "lark", and that there would be no consequences. Only
VERY recently have public figures begun to "come out" publicly, something
Blacks never had to do (hiding who they were would have been, um,
somewhat difficult...;-).
So, do try to get beyond your misinformation...!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqmqv3$4jj$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:rpbss5tcgs8g0siebke89pmm271qia0udi@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:51:57 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>Gay rights cannot be equated with the civil rights struggle.
>> Why not? We have a significantly large percentage of our population
>> who are being treated differently because of something about them that
>> is beyond their control. In one group it was skin color and in the
>> other group it is sexual preference. Neither factor should make them
>> unequal under the law.
>>
>> Neither group is guaranteed equal acceptance by society, but both
>> groups should be guaranteed equal rights under the law.
> Beyond their control? That is debatable.
NO, IT IS NOT!!! Yes, some self-hating homosexuals who would
rather stick with an unsympathetic religion and make heroic (and
psychically damaging) and generally unsuccessful attempts to go
"straight" (and some even fool themselves that they are "cured", as
if something like having blond hair needs to be "fixed"), but when
asked about it, the honest ones will admit that they do still have
physical attractions to members of their own sex, regardless of
the presence of marriages and kids (what an unfortunate and
inconsiderate situation to put them in - and I have known people
who finally did "come out" and left their straight families to be
themselves). Yuck!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:voass55rfe94sseuma28k61ent6b8k1s2m@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:32:44 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>When your *beliefs* interfere with my basic *rights*, I certainly
>>can (and should!) have my rights imposed on you - but you may
>>also choose (within your religious practices) not to recognize
>>(except legally) or to perform gay marriages. This is the point of
>>separation of church and state, and it should acceptably satisfy
>>both of us. But if you want to impose your religious views on
>>me through state action (or inaction) and thereby deprive me of
>>a basic human right, WATCH OUT!
>>--DR
> Being for or against gay marriage is not really a religious thing. I
> think it's a mistake to feel that all people who follow a religion
> oppose it and the only people who support it are non-religious.
>
> While the people who are most vocal against gay marriage are usually
> church-affiliated, they are really the minority. They're just the
> shit-stirrers.
>
> It's quite possible to have strong convictions for or against without
> those convictions being based on religion. Religion is not the only
> reason people oppose or support controversial issues.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Yes, you have put this well. But most conservative religions are
strongly anti-homosexual and anti-homosexual rights (although
it is sometimes amusing when occasionally a founder of a right
wing "mega-church" is caught in a gay relationship or in a straight
one outside his marriage...;-). Hypocrisy does seem to be
"owned" more often by those on the right than by those on the
left...;-) Denominations that accept and support homosexuals
tend to be the more liberal, open minded ones. While I'm not
religious, I have far more respect for those religions that are
more accepting of people as they are.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqkmf9$npg$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Being tolerant and charitable has nothing to do with a church accepting
> homosexuality. In most Christian denominations, homosexuality is viewed as
> sinful. Those denominations that don't hold that view are not in line what
> the scriptures have to say about it. The church can be no more tolerant of
> sin than Jesus was. He accepted sinners but not their sin. A person who
> decides to join a church and then expects the church to bend on matters of
> morality according to their wishes is wrong to expect that to happen.
Oh, this tired old stuff that made Blacks less than Whites (it says so
in the bible...), women subservient to men (it says so in the bible...),
interracial marriages a "no-no" (it says so in the bible...), gay people
"bad" (it says so in the bible...) - and, gosh, funny how with the
passage of time and greater understanding (and the rights-struggles
of those oppressed by such views), we tend not to hear about those
passages in the bible anymore... Just beware of being stoned to death
if you are a woman who wears a red dress ('cuz it says that's OK in
the bible...). And then there is that ridiculous matter of "accepting
sinners but not their sin" business (so long if one repents, and says
20,000 "Hail Marys" ;-) when homosexuality IS NOT A SIN, but an
inherent personal characteristic, as much so as skin color, adult height,
etc. BEING HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT A "MORAL" ISSUE!!!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:L8MEZSPo+dzLFAso@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> So whilst I am completely in favour of legal gay marriages i.e.
> Marriages by the state (which is all the state requires for a marriage)
> I do not think it is right to insist that any group, club, church,
> religion or other private organisation has to bless/celebrate/condone or
> perform rituals for that couple if the club, group, church etc rules do
> not approve of said union.
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
No one here has ever argued with the above - and I have never heard
anyone elsewhere argue against this, either. It is a non-issue...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Chase Urtale" <curtale@unspammed.net> wrote in message
news:omess556j5mnu1f58lvdem9etis23lvhqk@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 19:20:41 -0400, "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net>
> wrote:
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:oacss5t4jsjpv6v0k8jk0kjvctedm7nh9i@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:42:09 -0700, Savageduck
>>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>The sad thing is those homosexual catholics (yes there are quite a few)
>>>>who have their loving relationships denied by their faith. They more
>>>>than any others have been abandoned by their church.
>>> Aren't the homosexual Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mormons,
>>> etc also abandoned by their church? The Episcopalians, more than any
>>> other denomination, are having problems here. That's the only major
>>> player that I can think of where churches have divided over the issue.
>>In other religions it is well known that many of the ordained leaders are
>>gay, but they are not open about it.
>>In the Episcopalian church some of the ordained leaders are openly gay. I
>>think that is the cause of much division.
>>Indeed IIRC Gene Robinson recently stated that same sex acts are unnatural
>>only for non-gays.
> The ONLY unnatural sex-act is one that you cannot perform. That being, any
> act decreed by the physical laws governing the natural universe itself. Now
> unless your sex-act involves traveling faster than the speed of light (many
> women complain of their men doing exactly that), even then, if you have
> found a way to travel faster than the speed of light it is now then quite
> natural.
>
> The ONLY thing that is "unnatural" about ANY sex-act is that invented
> between your ears by your unnatural non-nature-worshipping religion. If
> your religion is not completely and wholly defined by the laws of nature
> and those laws alone then your religion, by very definition, is completely
> unnatural.
>
> I find it interesting how many people willfully choose a completely
> unnatural religion just so they can make everyone else's life a living
> hell. Talk about fuckingly inane and stupid.
>
> Think about it, I'm sure you have the time.
8^)
Ah, one of those GREAT posts! ;-)
Thanks!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bcf486f$0$27753$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
> news:uiZtObN$5zzLFApf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> Seriously, some people still think that homosexuality is a "faze you are
>> going through" however given the grief that a lot of gays go through,
>> and some never "come out" because of the problems I can't see why
>> anyone would choose such a road if there was a choice.
>>
>> The problem is you will never convince anyone who "knows" being gay is a
>> choice. They have been brainwashed and conditioned... often by child
>> abusing priests.
> Sometimes being gay is a choice, but that is a rare exception. I know one
> girl who moved in with her gay lover, then realized she wasn't gay at all.
> She just liked to experiment.
> --
> Peter
Ah, there are two issues here... It is easier to "pass" as straight
if you are female, and, bisexuality does exist (one could even
make a case for it plus gays being nearly in the majority if you
include all on the continuum between 100% gay and 100%
straight...;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bcf6336$1$27700$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqnidb$eph$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bcf486f$0$27753$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:uiZtObN$5zzLFApf@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> Seriously, some people still think that homosexuality is a "faze you are
>>>> going through" however given the grief that a lot of gays go through,
>>>> and some never "come out" because of the problems I can't see why
>>>> anyone would choose such a road if there was a choice.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is you will never convince anyone who "knows" being gay is a
>>>> choice. They have been brainwashed and conditioned... often by child
>>>> abusing priests.
>>> Sometimes being gay is a choice, but that is a rare exception. I know one
>>> girl who moved in with her gay lover, then realized she wasn't gay at
>>> all. She just liked to experiment. --
>>> Peter
>> Ah, there are two issues here... It is easier to "pass" as straight
>> if you are female, and, bisexuality does exist (one could even
>> make a case for it plus gays being nearly in the majority if you
>> include all on the continuum between 100% gay and 100%
>> straight...;-).
>> --DR
> There are straights, gays, bisexuals and experimenters. I say it doesn't
> matter.
> All are entitled to equal legal and ethical treatment.
I agree with that! ;-)
> Please note that I leave off pedophiles. IMHO they should be eunichized,
> preferably in some sort of painful manner such as hot tar after feeding them
> caffeine to intensify the pain.
Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this. While I'm wholly against ANY
forced sex (or even "enticed" sex), the issue of pedophilia can be
much more complex than most people are willing to think about or
consider (dang those prejudices and the willingness to jump to
untrue conclusions! ;-).
> As to morons & idiots, should they be sterilized?
> I say yes, with real safeguards!
> --
> Peter
'Pends on what you mean by "morons & idiots"...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:hqnjoc12q48@news5.newsguy.com...
> On 4/21/2010 1:19 PM, David Ruether wrote:
>> "Pete Stavrakoglou"<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:hqkmf9$npg$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Being tolerant and charitable has nothing to do with a church
>>> accepting homosexuality. In most Christian denominations,
>>> homosexuality is viewed as sinful. Those denominations
>>> that don't hold that view are not in line what the scriptures
>>> have to say about it. The church can be no more tolerant of
>>> sin than Jesus was. He accepted sinners but not their sin.
>>> A person who decides to join a church and then expects the
>>> church to bend on matters of morality according to their wishes
>>> is wrong to expect that to happen.
>> Oh, this tired old stuff that made Blacks less than Whites (it says so
>> in the bible...), women subservient to men (it says so in the bible...),
>> interracial marriages a "no-no" (it says so in the bible...), gay people
>> "bad" (it says so in the bible...) - and, gosh, funny how with the
>> passage of time and greater understanding (and the rights-struggles
>> of those oppressed by such views), we tend not to hear about those
>> passages in the bible anymore... Just beware of being stoned to death
>> if you are a woman who wears a red dress ('cuz it says that's OK in
>> the bible...). And then there is that ridiculous matter of "accepting
>> sinners but not their sin" business (so long if one repents, and says
>> 20,000 "Hail Marys" ;-) when homosexuality IS NOT A SIN, but an
>> inherent personal characteristic, as much so as skin color, adult height,
>> etc. BEING HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT A "MORAL" ISSUE!!!
> Sez you. The trouble is that that is not the consensus in our society.
> What you need to work on is making it the consensus instead of
> demanding your "rights" and pissing people off who if you hadn't pissed
> them off might have been persuaded to your viewpoint.
Oh, so I "piss people off" by telling the truth, whether or not it
runs counter to their prejudices? Golly, so-o-o sorrrreeee! 8^)
Just try telling a hulking muscular Black man that the bible
"says" he is less of a man than any White man. If you do this,
DUCK, NOW! 8^) (I say this figuratively, but no one with any
sense is going to stand for stupidity regarding one's worth based
on what is in some old book). NO religion determines the extent
of my rights in a just society - and the fact that referenda have
been used to curtail those rights is an indication of something
quite wrong here. The writers of the Constitution designed a
government that is a *representative* democracy, not a direct
democracy, intentionally to protect against tyranny by the
majority over minorities. And I do think here and in other ways
I do point out things about gay people that are factual rather
than mere opinions and beliefs, from my experiences of being
gay and from having known many who are also gay. For the
open-minded, this should be useful. But, yes, if someone doubts
the reality of my experience, I'm going "to let them have it!",
since they do not know what they are talking about! And,
BTW, Blacks finally achieved what they had not by being
"nicey-nice" and trying, for a couple of centuries to convince
people by cajoling them that they deserved equal rights as
citizens, but by going into the streets and marching, and by
using the courts (and also by hollering when they could ;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqpe4f$od1$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bcef0eb$0$13692$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:hqmr0o$4oo$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2010042016372282188-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2010-04-20 15:54:53 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
>>>> said:
>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:51:57 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
>>>>> <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Gay rights cannot be equated with the civil rights struggle.
>>>>> Why not? We have a significantly large percentage of our population
>>>>> who are being treated differently because of something about them that
>>>>> is beyond their control. In one group it was skin color and in the
>>>>> other group it is sexual preference. Neither factor should make them
>>>>> unequal under the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither group is guaranteed equal acceptance by society, but both
>>>>> groups should be guaranteed equal rights under the law.
>>>> There you go.
>>>> The 14th Amendment again. It worked for Brown v. Board of Education, the
>>>> Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>>>>
>>>> There is no reason why it shouldn't be applied to equal protection under
>>>> the Law for minorities discriminated against because of sexual
>>>> preference.
>>> Right - they have made a choice. Blacks had no choice about their
>>> minority status.
>> Would you feel differently if being gay was not a matter of choice, but
>> one of genetics?
> But it isn't so that is of no consequence.
You are being rather dense about this (and it is VERY annoying
and insulting to me personally!). As I have repeatedly pointed out,
from personal experience and from that of the MANY gay people
I have known over the last 40 years or so, BEING GAY IS NOT
A CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To claim otherwise is the
height of STUPIDITY and BIGOTRY! Try listening to those with
personal experience in this area for once, and also try asking yourself
why anyone would "choose" to be gay (which obviously makes no
sense, given the disadvantages). Whether it is a matter of genetics or
upbringing ("nurture or nature") or whatever is irrelevant. WE EXIST.
To question that or to deny that is to bury one's head in the sand.
Your denial (which seems oddly to be so necessary to you and to
many others) does have consequences for us, since if being gay is
simply a choice, then one can "change into being straight", and no
legal accommodations need be made toward gay equality. Try telling
people that Blacks, Asians, women, disabled people, etc. (all with
their own stories of their oppression and struggle for the basic rights
of their groups), and they would properly "laugh you out of the
room". Do try, at least, to see reality (and not be like the Germans
during WWII who didn't "see" what was going on around them
with the disappearance of Jews, homosexuals, and members of
several other identifiable groups...). Do try, at least, to recognize
and to struggle against your own bigotry...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqpsjl$5dn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> You are being rather dense about this (and it is VERY annoying
>> and insulting to me personally!). As I have repeatedly pointed out,
>> from personal experience and from that of the MANY gay people
>> I have known over the last 40 years or so, BEING GAY IS NOT
>> A CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To claim otherwise is the
>> height of STUPIDITY and BIGOTRY! Try listening to those with
>> personal experience in this area for once, and also try asking yourself
>> why anyone would "choose" to be gay (which obviously makes no
>> sense, given the disadvantages). Whether it is a matter of genetics or
>> upbringing ("nurture or nature") or whatever is irrelevant. WE EXIST.
>> To question that or to deny that is to bury one's head in the sand.
>> Your denial (which seems oddly to be so necessary to you and to
>> many others) does have consequences for us, since if being gay is
>> simply a choice, then one can "change into being straight", and no
>> legal accommodations need be made toward gay equality. Try telling
>> people that Blacks, Asians, women, disabled people, etc. (all with
>> their own stories of their oppression and struggle for the basic rights
>> of their groups), and they would properly "laugh you out of the
>> room". Do try, at least, to see reality (and not be like the Germans
>> during WWII who didn't "see" what was going on around them
>> with the disappearance of Jews, homosexuals, and members of
>> several other identifiable groups...). Do try, at least, to recognize
>> and to struggle against your own bigotry...
>> --DR
> I've been respectful yet you have now resorted to insults and name-calling
> and likening me to the Germans during WWII. If that isn't insulting, I
> don't know what is. And I'm a bigot too! You should try better to be
> respectful, you'll never get people to listen to you when you insult them
> for having an opinion different than yours. I've stopped listening to you.
"Stupidity - a poor ability to understand or to profit from experience",
and, "bigotry - a stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief,
or opinion that differs from one's own". How are these different from
what you have displayed here? As for the WWII reference, don't you
also refuse to see what is before you, and to act in a moral way to
change it (at least within yourself)?
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:hqpe6q$omo$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Bill W D" <billwd971610@apopularisp.net> wrote in message
>> YOU on the other hand CHOOSE a religion to teach everyone to hate gay
>> people. If only YOUR CHOICE were as reasonable.
> I can see that a civil discourse with someone you disagree with is
> impossible for you.
Ah, the "thinking" vs. the "non-thinking" - and I think you know
into which group I would place you. When someone challenges
your bigotry, you retreat into commenting on the format for the
discourse instead of on its substance...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bd03a04$0$27769$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqnrsd$rjm$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bcf6336$1$27700$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> There are straights, gays, bisexuals and experimenters. I say it doesn't
>>> matter.
>>> All are entitled to equal legal and ethical treatment.
>> I agree with that! ;-)
>>> Please note that I leave off pedophiles. IMHO they should be eunichized,
>>> preferably in some sort of painful manner such as hot tar after feeding
>>> them caffeine to intensify the pain.
>> Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this. While I'm wholly against ANY
>> forced sex (or even "enticed" sex), the issue of pedophilia can be
>> much more complex than most people are willing to think about or
>> consider (dang those prejudices and the willingness to jump to
>> untrue conclusions! ;-).
> I agree with you completely about forced sex, but as to enticement, we
> differ, provided both are emotionally and intellectually on an equal playing
> field. Indeed most of the fun of sex in in the hunt, or enticement.
>
> My big issue with pedophilia is that there is not an equal playing field. A
> young child simply is emotionally and intellectually incapable of granting
> consent.
Then, let's say, "enticed sex with minors"...;-) I'm with you also on
sex with most sub age-of-consent minors and what we would both
agree are children, but some few of those not-quite-legal are quite
eager for sex with those older than themselves for the information and
experience that they can get from it. Still, there are legal prohibitions
against this (with stiff penalties) in the US for sometimes good reasons...
>>> As to morons & idiots, should they be sterilized?
>>> I say yes, with real safeguards! --
>>> Peter
>> 'Pends on what you mean by "morons & idiots"...;-)
> I am using the generally accepted definition in the psychological sense.
> Intelligence Quotient Scale: [Moron] = 50-69 Imbecile = 30-49 [Idiot] = 29 &
> below.
> --
> Peter
This sounds rather a harsh solution for a problem that likely doesn't
exist. BTW, I have found those I've met with Down's Syndrome to
be among the nicest around, and one surprised me with the depth
of his knowledge about and understanding of art while at a good local
museum. I think one should be careful about making assumptions about
people, especially if they have possible consequences for them not in
their best interests...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4bcfd59d$0$1647$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> Neither group is guaranteed equal acceptance by society, but both
>>> groups should be guaranteed equal rights under the law.
>>Beyond their control? That is debatable.
> Just like being (let's assume) heterosexual is your choice and not
> beyond your control. You could choose to be aroused by naked guys if
> you wanted to.
>
> Right?
> --
> Ray Fischer
Oh, why don't I think of such great and "obvious" questions? 8^)
But I suspect that "PS", possibly having some doubts about his
own sexuality as evidenced by his steadfast avoidance of any
flexibility on the issue (yuh gotta keep th' lid on tight...! ;-), will
respond with a "duck and cover" insult...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4bd07eb4$0$1618$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> Neither group is guaranteed equal acceptance by society, but both
>>>>> groups should be guaranteed equal rights under the law.
>>>>Beyond their control? That is debatable.
>>> Just like being (let's assume) heterosexual is your choice and not
>>> beyond your control. You could choose to be aroused by naked guys if
>>> you wanted to.
>>>
>>> Right?
>>Oh, why don't I think of such great and "obvious" questions? 8^)
> I bet that we don't get an answer. He's an intellectual coward,
> incapable to any rational though, clinging to his bigotry out of
> fear of what it might reveal about him.
>>But I suspect that "PS", possibly having some doubts about his
>>own sexuality as evidenced by his steadfast avoidance of any
>>flexibility on the issue (yuh gotta keep th' lid on tight...! ;-), will
>>respond with a "duck and cover" insult...;-)
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8772014?dopt=Abstract
> The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively
> heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual
> individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n =
> 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to
> groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W.
> Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually
> explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual,
> and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were
> monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss
> & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile
> circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only
> the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male
> homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression.
> HOMOPHOBIA IS APPARENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH
> HOMOSEXUAL AROUSAL THAT THE HOMOPHOBIC
> INDIVIDUAL IS EITHER UNAWARE OF OR DENIES.
> --
> Ray Fischer
Oh, why am I not surprised by this...? 8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bd091b2$0$27714$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqq2ah$653$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4bd07eb4$0$1618$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
[...]
>>> HOMOPHOBIA IS APPARENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH HOMOSEXUAL
>>> AROUSAL THAT THE HOMOPHOBIC INDIVIDUAL IS EITHER
>>> UNAWARE OF OR DENIES.
>>> --
>>> Ray Fischer
>> Oh, why am I not surprised by this...? 8^)
>> --DR
> Me neither.
> Though I have seen some gay women who would arouse most healthy
> heterosexual men.
> --
> Peter
8^)
But I had more in mind people like anti-gay politicians (Larry Craig),
mega-church founders (Haggard), conservative supreme court nominees
(Carswell), Catholic priests, etc. who used their positions and/or the
anti-gay positions they took as cover until they were "outed". Seems
to me that if they had been more open about themselves, they would
not have helped create the social environment that made it more
difficult for them to be open about themselves...
"Catch 22", anyone? ;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NvidnYs10oY7ZE3WnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:hqmqv3$4jj$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Beyond their control? That is debatable.
> Only in the same way that Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is
> "debatable".....Any reasonable person knows that gayness stems from
> something that occurs before the first 5 years of a person's life.....I
> lived and worked in San Francisco for many years, and knew many gay
> people.....I have yet to know even one who says he (or she) "chose" to be
> gay.....In every case, they told me that they have been gay from their
> earliest memories.
This is certainly true in my own experience also.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hLudndK8h9LXbU3WnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bce384e$0$28132$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> In other religions it is well known that many of the ordained leaders are
>> gay, but they are not open about it.
>> In the Episcopalian church some of the ordained leaders are openly gay. I
>> think that is the cause of much division.
>> Indeed IIRC Gene Robinson recently stated that same sex acts are unnatural
>> only for non-gays.
>> --
>> Peter
> This is tantamount to saying that something is unnatural only if you don't
> want to do it.....If you want to do it, then it is perfectly natural.....:^)
If true (about Gene Robinson), this would be more than a little
weird - but I also think many subscribe to the idea that "what I do
is fine, but what you do, if different, is not..." ;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T6idnUo7yoT1bE7WnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bd18a78$1$27723$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:_cGdnRmAKMX-y0zWnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> The customers that were buying these derivatives were highly
>>> sophisticated gamblers. They should have known better. I certainly didn't
>>> buy them, because I don't play the markets that way. I have my retirement
>>> funds invested in much more stable instruments. I don't, in general
>>> gamble in the stock market, although I have been known to take a chance
>>> now and then, but always on a small scale. (relatively) And, when I do, I
>>> am never surprised when I lose.
I have been "lucky" in the stock market (dumb luck?), although I've
made my share of dumb moves (once buying a "penny" stock, and
being also impatient and selling a real winner or two far too soon...).
In the last year, if you couldn't make "a killing" almost by throwing a
dart at a list of stocks, well.... (and Ford and Apple were SO obvious!).
>> The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities
>> were pension fund managers who were duped into believing they were buying
>> AA rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bullshit.
>> --
>> Peter
'Course! A good example of an unregulated "hidden" market at work...
> Who rated them, "AA", and why isn't there a comfortable jail cell for those
> who have this power and misuse it?
'Cuz that wasn't illegal (but should have been - but that would have
been "socialistic" to have regulated these "securities", so.....;-).
> It seems to me that such things would be
> easy to regulate, and not something that has to be handled by rocket
> scientists. Has it become politicized?
You bet! The Democrats are for regulation of these markets that have
caused so much grief, and the Republicans are grudgingly now coming
along since they see what damage not doing so would do to their
election bottom line (not so much why these regulations are needed
for the economic health of the country, alas). But they again are not
above lying about what is in the proposed bill, and its consequences.
> does every "regulation" bill carry
> some sort of expensive "rider" that gives lots of money to some undeserving
> person or organization? Why can't our government handle even the simplest
> task without F****** it up?
Huh???
Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Albert Ross" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:t529t5dhe91l223hn1k7qcoka3mj2ltsoh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:10:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>Huh???
>>Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
>>it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
>>"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).
> If people were that bad at playing poker elsewhere (essentially what
> they were doing) the Goodfellas would have broken their kneecaps when
> they couldn't pay their debts.
>
> I can't help feeling this was a deliberate ploy to break the entire
> world's financial system before Bush Halliburton Inc. were voted out,
> and make it impossible for anyone else to fix
I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but one of them does
appear to stand out recently. The Republicans voted for the
VERY expensive *unfunded* Medicare "Advantage" plan,
and to me it appears likely to have been intended to bankrupt
Medicare much sooner (the Republicans are not normally
considered the party of public welfare...;-), and thus finally
eliminate that "socialistic" program. Much as I personally like
my Medicare Advantage plan (what's not to like about it,
except what it would do to the future of Medicare funding),
I would be quite willing to pay more for a "straight" form of
Medicare, without the deceptions and nonsense. With the
recent health care reform legislation, this change is likely to
happen. I tend to see the financial area nonsense as a "Gee,
how can we make it easy for our (rich) friends and us to
make even more money, the industry (and country) stability
be hanged!". Gosh, libertarian rapaciousness really CAN
still operate even in a "socialist" economy...! 8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:7aSdndejvpp9R0nWnZ2dnVY3goidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but one of them does
>>> appear to stand out recently. The Republicans voted for the
>>> VERY expensive *unfunded* Medicare "Advantage" plan,
>>> and to me it appears likely to have been intended to bankrupt
>>> Medicare much sooner (the Republicans are not normally
>>> considered the party of public welfare...;-), and thus finally
>>> eliminate that "socialistic" program. Much as I personally like
>>> my Medicare Advantage plan (what's not to like about it,
>>> except what it would do to the future of Medicare funding),
>>> I would be quite willing to pay more for a "straight" form of
>>> Medicare, without the deceptions and nonsense. With the
>>> recent health care reform legislation, this change is likely to
>>> happen. I tend to see the financial area nonsense as a "Gee,
>>> how can we make it easy for our (rich) friends and us to
>>> make even more money, the industry (and country) stability
>>> be hanged!". Gosh, libertarian rapaciousness really CAN
>>> still operate even in a "socialist" economy...! 8^)
>> To reform our Medicare system, just allow negotiation of drug prices. It
>> is outrageous that I can purchase my pharms in Canada for less money than
>> my co-pay here.
This would help, but do relatively little, unfortunately, overall.
Cutting back on the Advantage plan (as is likely to happen,
with its "free" gym memberships, "free" exams, "free" *yearly*
expensive colonoscopies, and in Florida, basically 100% coverage)
will also help.
> Toss in single-payer and strict control of medical services fees (as done in
> Japan, where medical expenditures are 1/3 (per capita) those in the US and
> quality of care is better) and we can begin to make a dent in the Bush
> deficit.
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
You point out a better system, but don't you realize that *we* can't
understand that *someone else* may actually have a demonstrably
better way of doing things?! And if it looks even remotely "socialistic",
the idea is dead on arrival. Americans are so unbelievably "insular",
short-sighted, and tied up with their mythologies for their own good...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
news:Uc-dndBPH77bqlvWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
[The usual nonsense from Neil Harrington is removed - and since
useful discourse with him is impossible, he is either a troll or he is
simply unable to understand or accept the truth of the experiences
of others (and of history), and will hold views harmful to others no
matter what... Therefore, <PLONK!>]
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T6idnUo7yoT1bE7WnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bd18a78$1$27723$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:_cGdnRmAKMX-y0zWnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> The customers that were buying these derivatives were highly
>>> sophisticated gamblers. They should have known better. I certainly didn't
>>> buy them, because I don't play the markets that way. I have my retirement
>>> funds invested in much more stable instruments. I don't, in general
>>> gamble in the stock market, although I have been known to take a chance
>>> now and then, but always on a small scale. (relatively) And, when I do, I
>>> am never surprised when I lose.
I have been "lucky" in the stock market (dumb luck?), although I've
made my share of dumb moves (once buying a "penny" stock, and
being also impatient and selling a real winner or two far too soon...).
In the last year, if you couldn't make "a killing" almost by throwing a
dart at a list of stocks, well.... (and Ford and Apple were SO obvious!).
>> The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities
>> were pension fund managers who were duped into believing they were buying
>> AA rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bullshit.
>> --
>> Peter
'Course! A good example of an unregulated "hidden" market at work...
> Who rated them, "AA", and why isn't there a comfortable jail cell for those
> who have this power and misuse it?
'Cuz that wasn't illegal (but should have been - but that would have
been "socialistic" to have regulated these "securities", so.....;-).
> It seems to me that such things would be
> easy to regulate, and not something that has to be handled by rocket
> scientists. Has it become politicized?
You bet! The Democrats are for regulation of these markets that have
caused so much grief, and the Republicans are grudgingly now coming
along since they see what damage not doing so would do to their
election bottom line (not so much why these regulations are needed
for the economic health of the country, alas). But they again are not
above lying about what is in the proposed bill, and its consequences.
> does every "regulation" bill carry
> some sort of expensive "rider" that gives lots of money to some undeserving
> person or organization? Why can't our government handle even the simplest
> task without F****** it up?
Huh???
Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Albert Ross" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:t529t5dhe91l223hn1k7qcoka3mj2ltsoh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:10:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>Huh???
>>Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
>>it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
>>"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).
> If people were that bad at playing poker elsewhere (essentially what
> they were doing) the Goodfellas would have broken their kneecaps when
> they couldn't pay their debts.
>
> I can't help feeling this was a deliberate ploy to break the entire
> world's financial system before Bush Halliburton Inc. were voted out,
> and make it impossible for anyone else to fix
I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but one of them does
appear to stand out recently. The Republicans voted for the
VERY expensive *unfunded* Medicare "Advantage" plan,
and to me it appears likely to have been intended to bankrupt
Medicare much sooner (the Republicans are not normally
considered the party of public welfare...;-), and thus finally
eliminate that "socialistic" program. Much as I personally like
my Medicare Advantage plan (what's not to like about it,
except what it would do to the future of Medicare funding),
I would be quite willing to pay more for a "straight" form of
Medicare, without the deceptions and nonsense. With the
recent health care reform legislation, this change is likely to
happen. I tend to see the financial area nonsense as a "Gee,
how can we make it easy for our (rich) friends and us to
make even more money, the industry (and country) stability
be hanged!". Gosh, libertarian rapaciousness really CAN
still operate even in a "socialist" economy...! 8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:7aSdndejvpp9R0nWnZ2dnVY3goidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but one of them does
>>> appear to stand out recently. The Republicans voted for the
>>> VERY expensive *unfunded* Medicare "Advantage" plan,
>>> and to me it appears likely to have been intended to bankrupt
>>> Medicare much sooner (the Republicans are not normally
>>> considered the party of public welfare...;-), and thus finally
>>> eliminate that "socialistic" program. Much as I personally like
>>> my Medicare Advantage plan (what's not to like about it,
>>> except what it would do to the future of Medicare funding),
>>> I would be quite willing to pay more for a "straight" form of
>>> Medicare, without the deceptions and nonsense. With the
>>> recent health care reform legislation, this change is likely to
>>> happen. I tend to see the financial area nonsense as a "Gee,
>>> how can we make it easy for our (rich) friends and us to
>>> make even more money, the industry (and country) stability
>>> be hanged!". Gosh, libertarian rapaciousness really CAN
>>> still operate even in a "socialist" economy...! 8^)
>> To reform our Medicare system, just allow negotiation of drug prices. It
>> is outrageous that I can purchase my pharms in Canada for less money than
>> my co-pay here.
This would help, but do relatively little, unfortunately, overall.
Cutting back on the Advantage plan (as is likely to happen,
with its "free" gym memberships, "free" exams, "free" *yearly*
expensive colonoscopies, and in Florida, basically 100% coverage)
will also help.
> Toss in single-payer and strict control of medical services fees (as done in
> Japan, where medical expenditures are 1/3 (per capita) those in the US and
> quality of care is better) and we can begin to make a dent in the Bush
> deficit.
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
You point out a better system, but don't you realize that *we* can't
understand that *someone else* may actually have a demonstrably
better way of doing things?! And if it looks even remotely "socialistic",
the idea is dead on arrival. Americans are so unbelievably "insular",
short-sighted, and tied up with their mythologies for their own good...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hqgs8o$prc$1@news.albasani.net...
> Larry Thong wrote:
>> Some are content to go on a wait list and wait for their favorite dealer to
>> send them their new Nikkor. Then there's the other type. You know the
>> ones. They go out of their way to be first in line, even jumping turn.
>> Some just can't stand the torment of the suspense that they will go as far
>> as living dangerously and put their head on the chopping block. Sometimes
>> they get lucky, this poor chap didn't..
>>
>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Head_Lost.jpg>
> I bought a yard sale "argus 75" tlr for $5 that made images this
> nauseatingly blurry.
>
> You could get the same look you "captured" in this image just focusing
> in front of the skull with the $300 version of the 24mm and let a touch
> of the DOF hit this skull. I'm not sure what you think this image
> proves? If this and that other image you posted is what you can produce
> with that lens, you wasted some serious money you should have spent on
> some photography classes.
>
> Stephanie
"Larry Thong" (formerly known as ""Rita Berkowitz")
generally posts ironically, so if you wish, learn the subtleties of,
um, the style of posting to best appreciate them....;-) As for the
sample, while I would not call it by any means a great photo, it is
remarkable for one shot with a *24mm* on *FF* (presumably)
and at *f1.4* (presumably). (The Canon 24mm f1.4 is excellent
FF by about f2.8, and OK-but-not-great at f1.4, as I recall...)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2010041812091816807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2010-04-16 12:54:09 -0700, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> said:
>> This week's portrait for discussion.
>>
>> http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/homepage/hp4-16-10f.jpg
>> (Jennifer Altman, Washington Post)
>>
>> It would be a delight if it could be discussed without reference to the
>> man's beliefs, politics or race.
>>
>> Let's focus on the portrait.
> Ghastly. He paid good money for this?
>
> The dark shadows, grim expression, poorly lit background, ill-fitting
> and crooked suit, horrible choice of colors for shirt and tie (not to
> mention that the tie is crooked), raccoon eyes, and emphasis on a weak
> chin and flabby jowls all combine to make the portrait something more
> appropriate for a zombie movie.
>
> Of course, a zombie movie in which the zombies were all famous people
> like this would be a big hit.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
I agree with your assessment of the "qualities" of this photo. It's
REALLY terrible! OK, it's time to point out, I guess, that I disliked
much of Karsh's work, too. My "favorite" of his is the one of a
sweating Khrushchev in a parka - although I guess that sweat did
add interest to his otherwise dull style...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This morning Vegas Pro 9d update appeared (free), which includes
XDCAM closed captioning, timeline DVD writing, the ability to import
multi-layered Photoshop files and break them out into separate Vegas
tracks, a simpler white balance adjust, improved MPEG-2 "Smart
Render", plus a few other things. See for more -
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/news/article.asp?articleid=92&keycode=67004
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXam@xplornet.com> wrote in message
news:82pnnsFqq0U1@mid.individual.net...
> Ty Ford wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:36:03 -0400, mike wrote
>> (in article
>> <9ae27b8e-1d8a-495e-9c7e-27b48806f1b3@u22g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>):
>>> On Apr 14, 10:06 am, Ty Ford <tyreef...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> We won it in a FIlm Festival competition.
>>>> We are a Mac shop.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ty Ford
>>> Ty, install Boot Camp and run Vegas that way.
>>> Who knows? You just might like some of it's many features :-)
>>>
>>> Mike
>> Mike,
>>
>> I'm too busy continuing to learn FCP, but thanks for the idea.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Ty Ford
> Ty, I know you're a die hard Mac user but I have to get in a plug for my
> favourite NLE any chance I get.
> Besides, Charlie T. on RAMPS likes it so it must be good :-)
>
> Mike
I will plug it, too. It is easy to learn, at least for the basics - see
the free online videos on the Sony website, at --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro
with some more advanced free instructional videos, at --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids-stroud.asp
and with on-disk instructions, at --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegasseminarseries.
Also, the program itself includes step-by-step tutorials for
many operations. For more on it, see my basic instruction guide,
at -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm.
The program is very versatile, includes free updates within
versions (Pro 9 is now up to 9d, which now includes closed
captioning), and, well, it's just plain ginger-peachy! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:dlk7s517kfucg7jenlp7p6qnal3qv2paq1@4ax.com...
> I'm thinking of adding a large hard drive (1TB or 2TB) to my computer
> as I'm running out of hard disk space when editing videos from my
> video camera. The drive I'm interestd in has a speed of 5400 - 7200rpm
> but I read that 7200rpm is needed for editing videos.
> The transfer rate of this drive was measured at 102 Mb/s when a test
> was done by a company on the internet.
> Would this drive be suitable for video editing?
>
> Regards Brian
Yes, as would likely be any drive made in the last 10+ years. The
data transfer rate required for compressed video is very moderate.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hqhlnf$4ok$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "bob callaway" <bob_callaway@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:-5adncV6b6nsa1fWnZ2dnUVZ_umdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>I want to convert my old VHS-c tapes to DVD. My old camcorder
>>has composite connections, but my computer still has a fire wire
>>connector. With minimal trouble how can I capture the film to my
>>computer.
> I have a Sony A-to-D/D-to-A converter that will take composite
> or "S" video (+ stereo audio) input and convert it to DV-AVI which
> can be sent via FireWire from the box to the computer. It can also
> dump DV-AVI from the computer back to an analogue recorder. In
> perfect condition, with box and instructions, $135 including shipping
> in the continental US. This is a "neat" highest-quality solution that
> should not "break the bank"...;-) BTW, you can also use it for TV
> monitoring while editing SD.
> --DR
> d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:7kr2t5debbbsskka5cscu11n36keis76kh@4ax.com...
[...]
> HDVSplit utility for HDV capturing with scene split - HDV capture
> utility
> http://strony.aster.pl/paviko/hdvsplit.htm
>
> Since HDVSplit has been known to work on systems where full-blown (and
> costly) NLE programs have failed to properly ingest HDV footage, maybe
> it will work for you.
> --
> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
HDVSplit does work better than the built-in utility in Vegas Pro 8
for accurately and cleanly capturing HDV from my Canon HV20.
It has been a superb, easy-to-use little program for my use...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"les" <idea@localnet.com> wrote in message news:ecOdnYsm0pzeuEjWnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@posted.localnet...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hqs9a5$ko0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
>> news:7kr2t5debbbsskka5cscu11n36keis76kh@4ax.com...
>> > HDVSplit utility for HDV capturing with scene split - HDV capture
>> > utility http://strony.aster.pl/paviko/hdvsplit.htm
>> >
>> > Since HDVSplit has been known to work on systems where full-blown (and
>> > costly) NLE programs have failed to properly ingest HDV footage, maybe
>> > it will work for you.
>> > --
>> > Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
>> HDVSplit does work better than the built-in utility in Vegas Pro 8
>> for accurately and cleanly capturing HDV from my Canon HV20.
>> It has been a superb, easy-to-use little program for my use...
>> --DR
> Well, the update is this...
> I tried to get the HDVsplit prgm running, and it acted as if nothing was
> connected, even
> though the DV monitor was indicating some handshaking with the computer.
> It seems the HV20 is fried, while the XH1A responds. (The HV20 doesn't even
> show any ack. with the 1394 connected.)
> The amazing thing is, that a program resident on the computer called ARCSoft
> ShowBiz comes up to record/edit the "new device", and it actually takes the
> HDV stream and converts to .AVI's. Even the transport buttons work.
> This is far from what I had intended. It's sloppy as I have to create avi's
> on-the-fly
Are the .AVIs HD?
> but the reasuring twist is the camera DOES work. (one anyway)
> Now I'm working if some other programs might fill that void of capturing
> that we haven't considered.
> This is truely weirder than I had anticipated.
> Les
> Thanks for your ideas to this point.
It used to be, anyway, that FireWire cards with only one chipset
always worked properly (Texas Instruments), and others were
hit-or-miss. BTW, it is usually recommended for safety reasons
that the camcorder and computer be hooked up *before* either
is turned on, and then first the computer, then the camcorder is
turned on (the latter preferably with the capture software already
running to allow the software to recognize the camera) - as I
recall... Although FireWire is supposed to be hot-swappable, it
sometimes isn't, especially if the ends have the 6-pin connectors
that include power, and there have been reports of fried
inputs/outputs.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~