Searching \ for '[OT] Religious rubbish' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=religious+rubbish
Search entire site for: 'Religious rubbish'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Religious rubbish'
2004\10\05@221738 by Peter Crowcroft

flavicon
face
>Notwithstanding that incisive analysis, "prayer alone" is greatly
appreciated. If I wasn't asking >for "prayer alone" then an email request
in the middle of my night wasn't going to be any use at >all. N'est pa? And
if prayer is no use at all then nothing else is any use either ?
(sounds >familiar).
>       Russell McMahon

Am I the only one who does not want the Piclist to be a pulpit for Russels
religious views.

I would like to propose the OT in the piclist  is for Off topic ELECTRONICS
related matters, not about bipolars mouthing off, or Iraq or religion or
the power of prayer (sic.) There are many other forums for those topics.

By rough estimate OT now is 25% or so of the digest form of the Piclist.

peter crowcroft
Hongkong
regards,
                DIY Electronics (HK) Ltd
      PO Box 88458, Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong
Factory: voice 852-2304 2250    Fax: 852-2729 1400
      M/F, 97 Fuk Wa Street, Sham Shui Po, HK
Home: voice 852-2720 0255,       Mobile: 852-6273 2049
Web:  http://www.kitsrus.com     Email: spam_OUTpeterhkTakeThisOuTspamkitsrus.com
               MSNv6.2:  .....peter5998KILLspamspam@spam@hotmail.com

   Chinese/Thai language emails to  peter5998spamKILLspamnetvigator.com
---------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\05@230507 by fred jones

picon face
=========================================================
Am I the only one who does not want the Piclist to be a pulpit for Russels
religious views.
=========================================================
YES
=========================================================
I would like to propose the OT in the piclist  is for Off topic ELECTRONICS
related matters, not about bipolars mouthing off, or Iraq or religion or the
power of prayer (sic.) There are many other forums for those topics.
=========================================================
Proposal denied
=========================================================
By rough estimate OT now is 25% or so of the digest form of the Piclist.
=========================================================
So what????  then simply don't read it...
=========================================================
peter crowcroft
Hongkong
regards,
                DIY Electronics (HK) Ltd
      PO Box 88458, Sham Shui Po, Hong Kong
Factory: voice 852-2304 2250    Fax: 852-2729 1400
      M/F, 97 Fuk Wa Street, Sham Shui Po, HK
Home: voice 852-2720 0255,       Mobile: 852-6273 2049
Web:  http://www.kitsrus.com     Email: .....peterhkKILLspamspam.....kitsrus.com
               MSNv6.2:  EraseMEpeter5998spam_OUTspamTakeThisOuThotmail.com

   Chinese/Thai language emails to  peter5998spamspam_OUTnetvigator.com
---------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@014839 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> >Notwithstanding that incisive analysis, "prayer alone" is greatly
> appreciated. If I wasn't asking >for "prayer alone" then an email request
> in the middle of my night wasn't going to be any use at >all. N'est pa?
> And if prayer is no use at all then nothing else is any use either ?
> (sounds >familiar).

> Am I the only one who does not want the Piclist to be a pulpit for Russels
> religious views.

Russels -> Russell's :-)

No. I don't intend it to be a pulpit either, or at least not in the manner
that I perceive you to mean it. The original was tightly focussed and I did
not intend it to spread into anything more general. I was genuinely pleased
to have a group of awake friends to turn to at a time when I perceived it
useful. Causing offence or preaching were not on my list of desired
outcomes. I was aware that the potential was there to annoy some people. I
had hoped that the OT tag and introductory explanation would be acceptable
to most. You are in the poistion of receiving the digest which complicates
matters somewhat.

In retrospect it would have been smart for me to have subsequently not
commented on the extension to my original thread. BUT the extension was
almost completely non-religious. It DID indeed cover the area "bipolars
mouthing off " in the sense that you meant it although the issue that I
raised had no relationship whatsoever to bipolar disorder. I agree that a
primary aim of the PICLIST OT tag probably isn't a social services support
network.

> I would like to propose the OT in the piclist  is for Off topic
> ELECTRONICS related matters,

That proposal 'don't hunt'. As a long time member of the list you will be
well aware that the idea of the OT tag is specifically intended to be FAR
wider than electronics alone. There are certainly things it is NOT meant to
be but it is specifically intended by design to be broad.

I have suggested recently onlist and off that the addition of a [TECHO] (or
tec or whatever) tag would be useful to provide a better division of topics.
I suggested this to James with a list of typical things that might fit in
each class. Add to this a [WOT] or [WAYOT] tag and you have, I think, a
usable range that accomodates most needs and desires. Even [WAYOT] is not
generally a channel for general discussion of politics, religion, sex and
similar. But it would for instance accomodate the philosphical discussions
which arose from my "Russian soldiers storm school' type post. That was
originally meant to be entirely informative about a factual event that many
may have been interested in. As such it belonged in OT as I conceive it.
When it became philosophical it would have best migrated to WAYOT.

James feels that more tags lead to more confusion as to what to use and is
happy with what we have now.

A problem that you have, I suspect by choice, is that the digest includes
ALL posts. I personally find the digest method so inflexible (quite apart
from the non realtime aspect) that it is unisable for me. You are finding
the same thing. Trying to reduce the proper and intended use of OT because
you don't like the file size is not an overly good reason to inflict your
desires on others. (At least in my opinion).

> not about bipolars mouthing off, or Iraq or religion or the power of
> prayer (sic.) There are many other forums for those topics.
>
> By rough estimate OT now is 25% or so of the digest form of the Piclist.

[OT] % varies with time and has significant peaks and troughs.
Taking a sample of the last 100 posts, 20 are [OT].
As OT posts are probably on average larger than others your 25% figure by
volume is probably about right.

A solution would be to have the digest filter by tag - this would allow you
to exclude OT posts, as you said you were going to do a few weeks ago.
I don't know if the new system can handle this but the admins may be able to
comment.




       Russell McMahon

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@032422 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 5, 2004, at 10:32 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

>> Am I the only one who does not want the Piclist to be a pulpit
>> for Russell's religious views?
>>

No, but I don't think the current request counts as preaching.
Russell is normally nicely discreet about his religious views, and
when the conversations DO touch on religion ("life, the universe, and
everyhing", for instance), I appreciate his abilities to discuss things
without becoming either offended or offensive.  People who can do that
are a credit and an asset to whatever religion they belong to...

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@040521 by dr. Imre Bartfai

flavicon
face

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004, William Chops Westfield wrote:

> On Oct 5, 2004, at 10:32 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:
>
> >> Am I the only one who does not want the Piclist to be a pulpit
> >> for Russell's religious views?
> >>
I think the sentence is inappropriate because of Piclist IS NOT a pulpit
for Russell's (or others) religious views even if they touch such part of
their internal life. The thread started with a very exceptional situation
and was correctly marked by WOT. I did not believe but read some evidence
that multiple praying could help (even somatic) disorders (I am atheist
but like Khirshnah's way of thinking). And if there is
a non-zero probability prayer could help (or zero probability AND lack
of definite impossibility) then we should try to help keeping in mind "One
who saves a man saves the whole world." And, finally, the man did not
commit suicide. It is the only thing which counts, isn't it?

Imre


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@041739 by Peter Moreton

flavicon
face
But, it's the PICLIST, not the ANYTHINGLIST. I think that most people want
to hear about PICs, AVR's, Electronics and technology, and perhaps the
occasional off-topic posting. I have seen really useful groups (I'm think of
sci.astro...) completely ruined by off-topic postings.

I'm not criticising Russel's posts in general; they are usually amusing,
informative and fun, I just respectfully suggest that we might do well avoid
contentious topics such as religion, politics, guns etc

Peter Moreton


{Original Message removed}

2004\10\06@044637 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>James feels that more tags lead to more confusion as to
>what to use and is happy with what we have now.

I would agree with that. As to what Peter suggested, I always understood
that EE was off topic electronics (as in it is not PIC related, which is the
list topic), and OT was non-electronics.

As to all the replies to Russell's original post, I was surprised that so
many actually posted, and that in the spirit of the "no religion" request of
the list administrators, people would have just gone and done what Russell
requested, without replying as well.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@061351 by techy fellow

picon face
Well, in this day and age, "where is the love......" (black-eye-peas).


William Chops Westfield <@spam@westfwKILLspamspammac.com> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2004, at 10:32 PM, Russell McMahon wrote:

>> Am I the only one who does not want the Piclist to be a pulpit
>> for Russell's religious views?
>>

No, but I don't think the current request counts as preaching.
Russell is normally nicely discreet about his religious views, and
when the conversations DO touch on religion ("life, the universe, and
everyhing", for instance), I appreciate his abilities to discuss things
without becoming either offended or offensive. People who can do that
are a credit and an asset to whatever religion they belong to...

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

               
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@080201 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Well, in this day and age, "where is the love......" (black-eye-peas).

I was initially totally bamboozled by that post. Then something far away in
the back of my brain made a little sense of  "black-eye peas" and google did
the rest.

   http://www.romantic-lyrics.com/whereislove.shtml

I'd not heard of it before. Maybe not totally profound, but worth looking at
if you don't know it.

A small sample:

"...
It just ain't the same all ways have changed
New days are strange is the world the insane?
If love and peace so strong
Why are there pieces of love that don't belong
Nations dropping bombs
Chemical gases filling lungs of little ones
With ongoing suffering
As the youth die young
So ask yourself is the loving really strong? ..."

Not religious per se, although there are a few Christian allusions thrown
in.


       Russell McMahon


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@093637 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I am not familiar with other browsers, but IE lets me filter subjects and
people with ease. There are several people and a few subjects that go
directly to the bit-bucket.

I find the views of those on the piclist especially interesting because we
have a great deal in common.
I don't wish to impose on others but I am hoping for a better understanding
of why our world must live in conflict.

I really don't fit especially well at my church either. I have a lot of
questions there but they tolerate me.

There are many aspects of our lives that cannot be explained by science and
technology.

No offense intended, please accept my personal apology.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Crowcroft" <KILLspampeterhkKILLspamspamkitsrus.com>
To: <RemoveMEpiclistTakeThisOuTspammit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: [OT] Religious rubbish


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@101000 by M. Adam Davis

flavicon
face
I agree with you, but with a twist.

"I have seen really useful groups ... completely ruined by off-topic
postings."

The OT tag is a pressure release valve.  If the admins were to cap OT
more than they loosely cap it now then the Piclist would become just as
useless.

IMO, OT and way OT conversations are going to take place, like it or
not.  The admins have their hands full managing the list as is.  If we
cap OT any further then not only will inappropiate OT posting take place
in other tags, but the admins would get burned out much /much/ more
quickly chasing down all those normal OT conversations that you simply
can't preemptively stop on such a large list.

It's enough that offtopic threads generally move to OT with some
occasional nudging.

Originally the EE tag was concieved as an offtopic but still technical tag.

Therefore you should be satisfied to turn off OT and leave EE and PIC
turned on.  If you insist on leaving OT turned on, then please be aware
that it contains off topic subject matter, including the occasional (but
friendly, especially when compared to other lists) religious or
political discussion.  I know this is painful since the three topics
overlap somewhat, but I bet that if you turn OT off you'll get used to
it in no time.

If your primary fear is that such discussions will destroy the list,
fear not.  Our hard working admins have for many years prevented such
list decay and I expect the trend to continue.  Fortunately, for us, our
admins are of the type, "Those who do not wish to serve are pressed into
service," and do not wield their power maniacally. ;-)

-Adam

Peter Moreton wrote:

{Quote hidden}

>{Original Message removed}

2004\10\06@110301 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 04:18, Peter Moreton wrote:
> But, it's the PICLIST, not the ANYTHINGLIST. I think that most people want
> to hear about PICs, AVR's, Electronics and technology, and perhaps the
> occasional off-topic posting. I have seen really useful groups (I'm think of
> sci.astro...) completely ruined by off-topic postings.

If you only want PICs then why are you subscribing to the topic tags
OTHER then PIC?

FWIW I don't personally agree with some of the content in the OT realm
on this list, but since the consensus was that OT is OT and acceptable I
abide by it. I at least have the excuse that since I'm an Admin I HAVE
to read all messages, what's your excuse?

> I'm not criticising Russel's posts in general; they are usually amusing,
> informative and fun, I just respectfully suggest that we might do well avoid
> contentious topics such as religion, politics, guns etc

Why? The group consensus as of a few months ago was this topics were OK,
and if you didn't like them you should just turn off the OT channel,
what has changed with the list to suggest that still doesn't apply?

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@113947 by Peter Moreton

flavicon
face
Err... Olin - is that you?....


-----Original Message-----
From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamBeGonespammit.edu [TakeThisOuTpiclist-bouncesEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu] On Behalf Of
Herbert Graf
Sent: 06 October 2004 16:03
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject: RE: [OT] Religious rubbish

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 04:18, Peter Moreton wrote:
> But, it's the PICLIST, not the ANYTHINGLIST. I think that most people
> want to hear about PICs, AVR's, Electronics and technology, and
> perhaps the occasional off-topic posting. I have seen really useful
> groups (I'm think of
> sci.astro...) completely ruined by off-topic postings.

If you only want PICs then why are you subscribing to the topic tags OTHER
then PIC?

FWIW I don't personally agree with some of the content in the OT realm on
this list, but since the consensus was that OT is OT and acceptable I abide
by it. I at least have the excuse that since I'm an Admin I HAVE to read all
messages, what's your excuse?

> I'm not criticising Russel's posts in general; they are usually
> amusing, informative and fun, I just respectfully suggest that we
> might do well avoid contentious topics such as religion, politics,
> guns etc

Why? The group consensus as of a few months ago was this topics were OK, and
if you didn't like them you should just turn off the OT channel, what has
changed with the list to suggest that still doesn't apply?

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@115639 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 11:40, Peter Moreton wrote:
> Err... Olin - is that you?....

Uhh, no, why do you ask?

-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@121236 by cisco J. A. Ares

flavicon
face
I'm sorry if I contributed to originate this discution.

It won't happen again

Francisco
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@143805 by Peter Moreton

flavicon
face
Errr... Olin, is that you?

{Quote hidden}

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@144152 by Peter Johansson

flavicon
face
M. Adam Davis writes:

> I agree with you, but with a twist.
>
> "I have seen really useful groups ... completely ruined by off-topic
> postings."
>
> The OT tag is a pressure release valve.  If the admins were to cap OT
> more than they loosely cap it now then the Piclist would become just as
> useless.

The important thing to remember here is that anyone capable of
programming a PIC should also be capable of setting up some sort of
mail filtering.  And, for the most part, people are pretty good about
using the proper tag.  I don't think I've ever seen a post initiated
with an improper tag, and it typically only happens when a topic
wanders off topic.

But even if this were not the case, I'd still be willing to cut a lot
of slack on this particular topic -- I once received a phone call in
the middle of the night from a friend who had already swallowed a
whole bottle of pills and I happened to know that was more than the
LD50.  To make matters worse, this person lived some 500 miles away,
in a different country, the only contact info I had was the phone
number, and I happened to know what she was growing in her bedroom.
Fortunately, everything did work out ok in the end, but it was a rough
couple of weeks there for everyone involved.

-p.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@144726 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face

> As to all the replies to Russell's original post, I was
> surprised that so many actually posted, and that in the
> spirit of the "no religion" request of the list
> administrators, people would have just gone and done what
> Russell requested, without replying as well.

We always pray out loud so as to get the credit with our peers.

James.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@151531 by Alexandre Guimaraes

face picon face
Hi,

> > As to all the replies to Russell's original post, I was
> > surprised that so many actually posted, and that in the
> > spirit of the "no religion" request of the list
> > administrators, people would have just gone and done what
> > Russell requested, without replying as well.
>
> We always pray out loud so as to get the credit with our peers.

   It is not a matter of "getting credit"... It is a matter of our peers
knowing that they are not alone in hard times. Myself I am not sure so much
that the prayer helped the guy not commiting suicide but it did not cost me
anything to pray and get my family to pray with me and the email response
was just to show Russel that he was not alone in a hard time... I do not
care if that gives me "credit" or not but making someone that I like, even
not knowing him in person, fell a little more comfortable at a hard time is
what really matters to me. My mistake and I guess the mistake of some others
was to respond at the list when we should have made that directly to Russel.
For that I am sorry and i hope I will not repeat the mistake. But...
Thinking better... It probably was nice to others to know that we have
friends at the list and that this is not just about helping to get the job
done...

Best regards,
Alexandre Guimaraes



_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@201247 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> Why? The group consensus as of a few months ago was this topics were OK,
> and if you didn't like them you should just turn off the OT channel,
> what has changed with the list to suggest that still doesn't apply?

The problem that originally started this is that Peter C gets the digest
version and apparently can't turn off OT or filter out specific people. As
OT occupies a significant percentage of all posts he has to at least skip
over these to get to what he wants. It would be nice if the digest mode
allowed such filtering, but this may not be easily done.


       Russell McMahon





_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@201250 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I'm sorry if I contributed to originate this discution.
> It won't happen again
> Francisco

Don't be sorry - it's useful (in my opinion anyway :-) ).
It was a bit marginal for a while when it looked like people may get
extremely upset about the discussion rather than the points being made but
it seems to have settled down to a reasonable discussion. I consider that
such discussions are OCCASIONALLY useful to show what people's feelings are,
whether there is a consensus etc and provide a guide for all concerned in
future.



       Russell McMahon

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\06@201251 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> We always pray out loud so as to get the credit with our peers.

Naughty naughty. Snide comments not allowed :-)
FWIW anyone significantly involved in Christianity will be aware that such
"credit" is all you get if credit is your aim. (This precise point is
explicitly addressed in the Bible fwiw).

The knowledge that people have actually responded to such a request can be
useful - it certainly encouraged me.


       RM

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\07@000624 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
Then why not respond off list? I know I usually respond to things on list so
that thousands of people can see what a cool dude I am.

Ok, ok, it might just be because the list automatically sets the reply
address to the list itself...

...and yes, I am in fact just being snide. Part of my personal feelings
about (against) religion I suppose. Sorry.

---
James.



> {Original Message removed}

2004\10\07@080525 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
> The problem that originally started this is that Peter C gets the digest
> version and apparently can't turn off OT or filter out specific people. As
> OT occupies a significant percentage of all posts he has to at least skip
> over these to get to what he wants. It would be nice if the digest mode
> allowed such filtering, but this may not be easily done.

If the digest version doesn't allow for this, maybe gmane.org helps. This
is a news server that carries mailing lists, among others the piclist.
Instead of receiving a single mailing with all messages in a now very
useful order, you can go there once a day (or set your news reader up to do
that automatically) and retrieve only the messages you want (for example
filter out anything with [OT in the subject).

Another option in this age with free email addresses en masse is to get an
email address for the piclist and check this email address only once a day.
Essentially the same as digest mode (you don't get distracted by messages
coming in all day on your main email address), but allows using the list's
tag filtering and also allows following threads in a more comfortable
manner as with digests.

Both methods, as a side effect, make responding much easier than digest
mode. I'm not sure there are situations, with the possibilities we have
these days, where digest mode actually makes still sense. (I'm not really
advocating against it, but if somebody uses it and finds it limited, I
think there are enough options that provide the advantages without the
disadvantages.)

Gerhard
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\07@185918 by Rich

picon face
Russell has never imposed his views on anyone or stated them without
courtesy.  I cannot say that I have ever known a more fair-minded, highly
intelligent, well informed respectful person than Russell.   He is one of
those rare people that command respect by their high integrity.  It is
unlikely that Russell's views could be rubbish.   Censoring Russell is like
throwing out the encyclopedia.

Rich


{Original Message removed}

2004\10\07@193143 by ath Ekanayake

flavicon
face
Well said Rich,

JC

Dr. Jagath C. Ekanayake
BSc (Eng Hon), PhD MIPENZ, ASCE
Scientist, Landcare Research
P.Box 69, Gerald street
Lincoln , 8152
New zealand
Ph +64 3 325 6701 Ext 2210
Fx+64 3 325 2418

>>> EraseMErgrazia1spamrochester.rr.com 8/10/2004 11:52:32 a.m. >>>

Russell has never imposed his views on anyone or stated them without
courtesy.  I cannot say that I have ever known a more fair-minded,
highly
intelligent, well informed respectful person than Russell.   He is one
of
those rare people that command respect by their high integrity.  It is
unlikely that Russell's views could be rubbish.   Censoring Russell is
like
throwing out the encyclopedia.

Rich


{Original Message removed}

2004\10\07@215217 by Rich

picon face
Does it seem that we are moving into an anti-religious age and out of a
religious tolerance age?  Can we really pretend that modern populism has
more value and wisdom than John Locke offered in his Essay On Religious
Toleration.  Have we become wiser since the seventeenth century or have we
really gotten so lost that we cannot tell the difference between political
populism and wisdom.  What will happen when start seeking truth as political
bombast?  Will we be better off?  As a people, I think not.

{Original Message removed}

2004\10\07@234616 by Anand Dhuru

flavicon
face
Agreed, in toto.

Anand.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich" <RemoveMErgrazia1EraseMEspamEraseMErochester.rr.com>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 4:22 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Religious rubbish


> Russell has never imposed his views on anyone or stated them without
> courtesy.  I cannot say that I have ever known a more fair-minded, highly
> intelligent, well informed respectful person than Russell.   He is one of
> those rare people that command respect by their high integrity.  It is
> unlikely that Russell's views could be rubbish.   Censoring Russell is
like
{Quote hidden}

mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

----------------------------------------
My Inbox is protected by SPAMfighter
1163 spam mails have been blocked so far.
Download free http://www.spamfighter.com today!
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@020329 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 7, 2004, at 6:52 PM, Rich wrote:

> Does it seem that we are moving into an anti-religious age
> and out of a religious tolerance age?

Well, yes and no.  I think we're seeing some of the less common
religions
starting to want their share of tolerance as well.  The USA has a lot of
tolerance written into their laws, but historically it's been pretty
dependent on "all" religions being some brand of Judeo-Christian faith.
There's that paying in school, the "under God" in the pledge, and the
swearing on a bible in court, and so on.  "It's OK because jews,
catholics, and protestants ALL pray and ALL have the bible and the
same God, more or less..."  I suppose a large influx of non-european
immigrants has helped expand the horizons...  The "minority religions"
include atheism and agnosticism...

Also, I think there is growing knowledge of some of the atrocities
committed in the name of one religion or another.  The nightly news
doesn't help much there, either.  People feel more justified in putting
down a religion, or religions in general, when they run up against them.
It's not so much less tolerance, as less willingness to keep silent
whenever someone feels mildly offended.

I think it's a bit of an overreaction, sorta like not being able
to put up with being insulted when you ask a dumb question on piclist...

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@081340 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
The state religion of the United States is "secular humanism", the premise
of which is "mankind can take care of itself with or without a God that may
or may not exist".

This is the world view that is taught in our schools by the simple expedient
of eliminating conventional religious expression from them, plus the
generally highly liberal slant of most teachers.

:-(

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

{Original Message removed}

2004\10\08@085758 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 08:11:45AM -0400, Bob Ammerman wrote:
> The state religion of the United States is "secular humanism", the premise
> of which is "mankind can take care of itself with or without a God that may
> or may not exist".
>
> This is the world view that is taught in our schools by the simple
> expedient of eliminating conventional religious expression from them, plus
> the generally highly liberal slant of most teachers.
>
> :-(

Bob,

I think I'm going to have to go with Bill on this one. I think he hit the
nail on the head below. The state religion of the US is that there is
no state religion. And as Bill pointed out below those of different
believe systems are now insisting that they be heard and respected.

But I think that's a separate issue from secular humanism, which actively
works to remove the concept of Deity from the equation.

The concept of a state religion only works when there are no heretics.
When from a belief system standpoint everyone is on the same page and
when society shunned those who don't subscribe to that belief system.

Those days are gone. There simply isn't a consistent belief system anymore.
Religious expression has transformed from being ubiquitious to being
conventional as you alluded to above.

The really sad thing is that many of the religious based cultural
mores have evaporated just as quickly. Concepts of "Love Thy Neighbor"
and "Do Unto Others" have been replaced by "I'll get mine, so screw you"
and "I'll do what I want as long as I don't get caught." It's this type
of hedonism that will lead to an eventual societal breakdown.

So I agree that ;-( is in order.

BAJ
>
> Bob Ammerman
> RAm Systems
>
> {Original Message removed}

2004\10\08@085907 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> The state religion of the United States is "secular humanism", the premise
> of which is "mankind can take care of itself with or without a God that
> may or may not exist".
>
> This is the world view that is taught in our schools by the simple
> expedient of eliminating conventional religious expression from them, plus
> the generally highly liberal slant of most teachers.


If I may have another attempt at the same old violin ...
The principal problem with the teaching of secular humanism, whether overtly
or covertly, intentionally or by default, is that it is almost always taught
incompletely. The necessary logical implications (are there any other sort ?
;-) ) are avoided or purposefully hidden. A good exposure to Nietzche would
hopefully get people thinking about the hollowness of the premises on which
the whole system is founded. Nietzche loudly & triumphally paraded the
pointlessness and lack of foundation of the systems which people placed
their trust in. Then as now many accepted his premises, but ignored the
inescapable logic of his conclusions. Some, such as Hitler, appropriated
useful portions for their own use.

Systems *can* be hollow and still be true, but an exposure to the
baselessness of the systems of ethics and morality and more which people try
to build on the foundation of secular humanism alone, might lead more people
to think more deeply about the alternatives.

Or to go mad instead, as Nietzche did :-( *

The problem is that people seem to demand the framework which is built on
the so called Judeo Christian foundation without accepting the fundamental
premises or the foundation itself, and without replacing them with anything
substantive (or with anything at all).





       Russell McMahon

* Nietzche's ultimate insanity does not destroy the inescapable logic of his
earlier conclusions. The attraction is to simply dismiss his arguments
without attempting the very possibly impossible task of to rebutting them.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@093457 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Perhaps I misused the term "secular humanism", but the point I was making is
that the government, in its effort to ensure a wide "separation of church
and state" has actually encouraged and supported the "religion" of not
having religion in our lives. That is thus the 'established' religion in the
US.

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@100713 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 09:33:19AM -0400, Bob Ammerman wrote:
> Perhaps I misused the term "secular humanism", but the point I was making
> is that the government, in its effort to ensure a wide "separation of
> church and state" has actually encouraged and supported the "religion" of
> not having religion in our lives. That is thus the 'established' religion
> in the US.

I think that's an overreach, though I see your point. The problem is the
"zero, one, infinity" problem. Ideally all the conflicting religions
should be equally respected and celebrated (infinity). However since that's
virtually impossible and there no longer exist a single point of focus
(one) from the religious aspect, the state is forced to enforce (zero).

I mean it's kind of hard to accept everything. So the alternative is to
back none at all.

BAJ
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@105441 by Lawrence Lile

flavicon
face
Is it time to put an end to this thread and get back to Electronics?  

-- Lawrence Lile, P.E.
Electrical and Electronic Solutions
Project Solutions Companies
http://www.projsolco.com

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.762 / Virus Database: 510 - Release Date: 9/13/2004


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@110007 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>I think that's an overreach, though I see your point. The problem is the
>"zero, one, infinity" problem. Ideally all the conflicting religions
>should be equally respected and celebrated (infinity). However since that's
>virtually impossible and there no longer exist a single point of focus
>(one) from the religious aspect, the state is forced to enforce (zero).

Except where they don't.

You can get married, but only under a select few religions.
You can live with someone, but we have significant benefits if you're married.
But don't try the mormon thing, we don't allow that either.

We separate church and state all right, especially when the church isn't judaeo-christian.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@114917 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 8, 2004, at 5:57 AM, Byron A Jeff wrote:

> The really sad thing is that many of the religious based cultural
> mores have evaporated just as quickly.

Yeah; it doesn't at all follow from "religious people still do
horrible things" to "religions CAUSE people to do horrible things",
and even less to "people who don't have a religion WON'T do horrible
things."  Sigh.

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@115628 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 8, 2004, at 7:07 AM, Byron A Jeff wrote:

>> the point I was making
>> is that the government, in its effort to ensure a wide "separation of
>> church and state" has actually encouraged and supported the
>> "religion" of
>> not having religion in our lives.

Does that equate to "the state should teach morality (largely through
its
schools) because (or 'in case') the parents and families don't" ?  Yuch.

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@120523 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 8, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Dave VanHorn wrote:

> You can get married, but only under a select few religions.
Nonsense;   You can get married under any religion you want, as long
as you also get married via the state mechanisms (Justice of the peace,
or whatever.)

> You can live with someone, but we have significant benefits
> if you're married.

And there's also 'common law' marriage.  The "significant benefits if
you're married" is one of those remarkably religious bits for a secular
humanist state; I sorta expect it to go away any day now...


> But don't try the mormon thing, we don't allow that either.

But it can be accepted to greater or lesser degrees to have a spouse
and additional Lovers.  Although the non-spouses wouldn't get those
state "marriage benefits."

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@120852 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 10:49 AM 10/8/2004, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>On Oct 8, 2004, at 5:57 AM, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
>>The really sad thing is that many of the religious based cultural
>>mores have evaporated just as quickly.
>
>Yeah; it doesn't at all follow from "religious people still do
>horrible things" to "religions CAUSE people to do horrible things",

Forced conversions?  It's amazing what you can justify doing to someone, if you're going to "save" him..

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@121944 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 11:05 AM 10/8/2004, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>On Oct 8, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Dave VanHorn wrote:
>
>>You can get married, but only under a select few religions.
>Nonsense;   You can get married under any religion you want, as long
>as you also get married via the state mechanisms (Justice of the peace,
>or whatever.)

Which is pretty heavily Christian-oriented.

Then we go to court, and get to swear on the bible..
Then we have "blue laws" in many communities, closing down businesses on "the lord's day"..



>>But don't try the mormon thing, we don't allow that either.
>
>But it can be accepted to greater or lesser degrees to have a spouse
>and additional Lovers.  Although the non-spouses wouldn't get those
>state "marriage benefits."

Or any real claim on your estate..

It's pretty pervasive.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@123436 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 09:33:19AM -0400, Bob Ammerman wrote:
>> Perhaps I misused the term "secular humanism", but the point I was making
>> is that the government, in its effort to ensure a wide "separation of
>> church and state" has actually encouraged and supported the "religion" of
>> not having religion in our lives. That is thus the 'established' religion
>> in the US.
>
> I think that's an overreach, though I see your point. The problem is the
> "zero, one, infinity" problem. Ideally all the conflicting religions
> should be equally respected and celebrated (infinity). However since
> that's
> virtually impossible and there no longer exist a single point of focus
> (one) from the religious aspect, the state is forced to enforce (zero).
>
> I mean it's kind of hard to accept everything. So the alternative is to
> back none at all.

I think you are missing my point. The government is working so hard to avoid
'establishing' a specific religion that they are creating an unfriendly
environment for religion in general. That in effect 'establishes' the lack
of religion (which IMHO is a 'religion' in itself).

Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@123618 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Does that equate to "the state should teach morality (largely through
> its
> schools) because (or 'in case') the parents and families don't" ?  Yuch.
>
> BillW

I *strongly* believe that the schools should teach basic morality:
honesty, integrety, self-reliance, open-mindedness, and to not kill
your fellows.

These can be taught without religion being involved. And it is to the
benefit of society that these values should be taught.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,
RemoveMEjayKILLspamspamsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@124125 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> On Oct 8, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Dave VanHorn wrote:
>
> > You can get married, but only under a select few religions.

> Nonsense;   You can get married under any religion you want, as long
> as you also get married via the state mechanisms (Justice of the peace,
> or whatever.)

Well, in the US you must have one husband (male only) and one wife
(female only) for a federally sanctioned marriage.

> > You can live with someone, but we have significant benefits
> > if you're married.
>
> And there's also 'common law' marriage.  The "significant benefits if
> you're married" is one of those remarkably religious bits for a secular
> humanist state; I sorta expect it to go away any day now...

Actually common law marriages seem to be going away.

And I do agree with the benefits of a state sanctioned marriage. For
example a surviving spouse gets certain benefits upon the death of the
other spouse. Perhaps in an ideal society we won't need such things,
but...

> > But don't try the mormon thing, we don't allow that either.
>
> But it can be accepted to greater or lesser degrees to have a spouse
> and additional Lovers.  Although the non-spouses wouldn't get those
> state "marriage benefits."

Precisely. And yes, I know people who have or have had open marriages.
Frankly I can't understand it, but that's *my* decision.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,
jaySTOPspamspamspam_OUTsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@133312 by John Ferrell

face picon face
I hope not. I find it very enlightening.
Some observations:

 It seems that the US was founded by mainly Christians, Jews and Quakers.
The Constitution had to satisfy at least that level of diversity.

 Conflict seems greater where there are greater populations.

 Many of those professing a given religion fail to follow that religions
beliefs. They twist it into their personal wants.

Warren Buffet commented that even if you choose not to believe any of the
New Testament, you will not find a better guide for living your life.

 Conditions vary a lot with the state you live in. As near as I can tell,
the State of North Carolina will allow you to form your own religious groups
and perform binding marriages. You and your group do need to meet whatever
standards.

There is a great deal of diversity without conflict in my area. Buddhists,
Muslims, Christians of all flavors, Non-Denominational, Jews, Quakers,
Agnostics, and even atheists. We seem to get along well. The growing
Hispanic population is being perceived as opportunity to grow rather than as
a threat.

I believe it was Ted Turner who said that "Religion is the opiate of the
masses". I wonder a lot whether that is a good thing or a bad thing...

For those who choose to believe in nothing I like to ponder a rose. Look at
a simple wild rose. Look at a carefully cultivated rose with 38 petals.
Something gave mankind the ability to transform the simple into the complex.
There is just too much scientist and mathematician in me to believe that the
beautiful little wild rose "just happened" without the influence of a
greater being. And that is but one example.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2004\10\08@133427 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>I think you are missing my point. The government is working so hard to avoid 'establishing' a specific religion that they are creating an unfriendly environment for religion in general. That in effect 'establishes' the lack of religion (which IMHO is a 'religion' in itself).

Interesting point.

I see the whole abortion issue as primarily religious, and I wonder why my government is even taking a position at all.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@133517 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>I *strongly* believe that the schools should teach basic morality:
>honesty, integrety, self-reliance, open-mindedness, and to not kill
>your fellows.
>
>These can be taught without religion being involved. And it is to the
>benefit of society that these values should be taught.

Absolutely!  I don't need a great guy in the sky, to tell me to do right by others.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@133705 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>Precisely. And yes, I know people who have or have had open marriages.
>Frankly I can't understand it, but that's *my* decision.

Exactly!  So many people seem to think that just because THEY wouldn't choose it, that YOU shouldn't even have the option.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@133951 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 09:49 AM 10/8/2004, Lawrence Lile wrote:

>Is it time to put an end to this thread and get back to Electronics?  

Show me one engineer, who deep down, doesn't believe that our projects are all, to one degree or another, possessed by evil spirits. :)


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@135251 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 09:49:56AM -0500, Lawrence Lile wrote:
> Is it time to put an end to this thread and get back to Electronics?  

I don't think so yet. It's generating interesting discussion. And it's
properly tagged as off topic.

Once it gets boring again I'll stop posting to it.

It'll die "the ignoble death that it so richly deserves!" soon enough.

BAJ
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@140821 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:36:23PM -0400, D. Jay Newman wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 2004, at 7:59 AM, Dave VanHorn wrote:
> >
> > > You can get married, but only under a select few religions.
>
> > Nonsense;   You can get married under any religion you want, as long
> > as you also get married via the state mechanisms (Justice of the peace,
> > or whatever.)
>
> Well, in the US you must have one husband (male only) and one wife
> (female only) for a federally sanctioned marriage.

Almost. Marriage is still in the hands of individual states. As pointed
out in the VP debate by Edwards, there's no obligation for one state to
sanction another state's marriage

{Quote hidden}

On the last two there is a solution and a pretty simple one that in fact
separates state and church on the subject: civil unions. "Marriage" from
the civil standpoint should be the domestic equivalent of a coporation
where a group of adults enter into a legal binding contract that grants
certain priviledges and obligations to its members. So if 13 Wiccans in
a coven (I think that's right) want to enter a civil union, then so be it.
Children are automatically registered into the union that the mother is
a part of, and divorce from a current union or reunion (union merge?)
should have analogs to todays divorce and remarriage.

But enough pipe dreaming, as that'll never happen.

BAJ
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@140944 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> >Precisely. And yes, I know people who have or have had open marriages.
> >Frankly I can't understand it, but that's *my* decision.
>
> Exactly!  So many people seem to think that just because THEY wouldn't choose it, that YOU shouldn't even have the option.

Ayup. I'm primarily a live and let live type of guy.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,
spamBeGonejaySTOPspamspamEraseMEsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@141817 by D. Jay Newman

flavicon
face
> Show me one engineer, who deep down, doesn't believe that our projects are all, to one degree or another, possessed by evil spirits. :)

Not necessarily evil, merely mischevious.
--
D. Jay Newman           ! DCX - it takes off and lands base down,
KILLspamjayspamBeGonespamsprucegrove.com     !       as God and Robert Heinlein intended.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@143348 by Eisermann, Phil [Ridg/CO]

flavicon
face
piclist-bounces@mit.edu wrote:
> I believe it was Ted Turner who said that "Religion is the opiate of
> the masses". I wonder a lot whether that is a good thing or a bad
> thing...
>

you mean Karl Marx, of course...
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@143625 by Byron A Jeff

face picon face
On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:29:55PM -0400, Bob Ammerman wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I do understand. We just have a different perspective. You're saying that
zeroing out religion negates religions, while I'm saying that zeroing it out
simply makes the playing field level.

The problem is intractable. Something as simple as the Ten Commandments
in a courthouse raise the hackles of the civil liberties folks. Though
folks like O'Reilly say that it should be allowed because it reflects the
Judeo-Christian tradition upon which the courts were founded, it's
difficult to argue.

I think I've reached my limit on this dicussion as anything further requires
delving into religion and sprituality proper. And I've learned from
experience, that's not a place where you really want to steer a
conversation.

BAJ
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@151300 by Wouter van Ooijen

face picon face
> Is it time to put an end to this thread and get back to electronics?

No, that's not allowed under [OT].

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: http://www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: http://www.voti.nl/hvu


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@160410 by Bob Ammerman

picon face
Bob Ammerman:
>> I think you are missing my point. ...

BAJ:
> I do understand.

Bob Ammerman:
No, I am afraid you do not.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@164814 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspamEraseMEmit.edu [@spam@piclist-bounces@spam@spamspam_OUTmit.edu]On Behalf
> Of John Ferrell
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:33 PM
>
>   It seems that the US was founded by mainly Christians, Jews and
> Quakers.
> The Constitution had to satisfy at least that level of diversity.
<snip>

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) are very much Christians.
See http://www.quaker.org/friends.html

Paul

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@165733 by Roberts II, Charles K.

picon face


>-----Original Message-----
>From: spamBeGonepiclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu [.....piclist-bouncesspam_OUTspammit.edu] On
Behalf Of >Byron A Jeff
>Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 2:08 PM
>To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
>Subject: Re: [OT] Religious rubbish
>
>
>On the last two there is a solution and a pretty simple one that in
fact
>separates state and church on the subject: civil unions. "Marriage"
from
>the civil standpoint should be the domestic equivalent of a coporation
>where a group of adults enter into a legal binding contract that grants
>certain priviledges and obligations to its members. So if 13 Wiccans in
>a coven (I think that's right) want to enter a civil union, then so be
it.
>Children are automatically registered into the union that the mother is
>a part of, and divorce from a current union or reunion (union merge?)
>should have analogs to todays divorce and remarriage.
>
>But enough pipe dreaming, as that'll never happen.
>
>BAJ

I agree 100% Byron. I wish more people would want the same thing. There
should be minimal government interference in folks lives. And taking
government out of the business of marriage should be top on peoples
priorities.

The whole "Marriage Liscence" is part of a state sponsored religion, a
weak pseudo state sponsored religion. Anyone who can enter a civil
contract should be able to marry whom ever they want.

Chuck

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@171540 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 8, 2004, at 9:19 AM, Dave VanHorn wrote:

>> You can get married under any religion you want, as long
>> as you also get married via the state mechanisms

> Which is pretty heavily Christian-oriented.
>
Is it?  Seems to add a couple of sentences to the assorted odd
weddings I've been to, although I don't recall actually reading
the fine print on the marriage license...

I'm not sure you have to do ANYTHING to have a common-law marriage,
other than tell people that you're married...

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@172412 by Matt Redmond

picon face
>>>But it can be accepted to greater or lesser degrees to have a spouse and additional Lovers.  Although the non-spouses wouldn't get those state "marriage benefits."<<<


Utah recently prosecuted a guy who had multiple wives.  His defense was that they were 'girlfriends'.  The state was able to convince the judge/jury that he was in fact common-law married to them - and got a polygamy conviction.  It struck me as kind of wrong - I mean, a guy can have multiple girlfriends - and even kids with them.  Makes him a bit of a roue, but he can still do it.  


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@172704 by Matt Redmond

picon face
>>I'm not sure you have to do ANYTHING to have a common-law marriage, other than tell people that you're married...<<

Both parties have to have the intention of being married.  For example, you could hold yourself out as married to a hotel clerk to avoid embarrassment or something, but that likely wouldn't be enough to support a common law marriage.  ...and you have to consummate the marriage too :-)



_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@173145 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 04:24 PM 10/8/2004, Matt Redmond wrote:

>>>>But it can be accepted to greater or lesser degrees to have a spouse and additional Lovers.  Although the non-spouses wouldn't get those state "marriage benefits."<<<
>
>
>Utah recently prosecuted a guy who had multiple wives.  His defense was that they were 'girlfriends'.  The state was able to convince the judge/jury that he was in fact common-law married to them - and got a polygamy conviction.  It struck me as kind of wrong - I mean, a guy can have multiple girlfriends - and even kids with them.  Makes him a bit of a roue, but he can still do it.  

As long as all the parties are happy with the arraingement, and the kids are loved and cared for, WHO CARES?  (answer, the government, who will throw you in jail for it.)


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@173611 by Mike Hord

picon face
> I'm not sure you have to do ANYTHING to have a common-law marriage,
> other than tell people that you're married...
>
> BillW

It's a local law thing.  IIRC, back in Virginia, a man and woman who had
co-habitated for 7 years were considered common-law spouses.

Mike H.
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@174230 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Chops <TakeThisOuTpiclist.....spamTakeThisOuTmit.edu> wrote:

> I'm not sure you have to do ANYTHING to have a common-law
> marriage, other than tell people that you're married...

   Depends on the state, although filing your income-tax return as
   "Married" is a pretty dependable way to get common-law married.

   One big problem, often unforeseen by people who enter into that
   arrangement, is that there's no such thing as common-law divorce.
    When a common-law-married couple splits up, the two spouses have
   to get a REAL divorce; if they don't, they expose themselves to
   all sorts of trouble, including bigamy charges if they ever marry
   again.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- TakeThisOuTaiwKILLspamspamspamcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@175217 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 14:15:48 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

In England for as long as I can remember you have been able to get married in churches and registry offices,
and these days in lots more places (football pitches and the London Eye are examples that come to mind).  My
sister got married a month ago, in a registry office.  There was no religious content whatsoever, but the
registrar did mention that under English law a marriage can only take place between one man and one woman.  
She had quite a sense of humour:  "You may kiss the bride.... that's enough!"  :-)

> I'm not sure you have to do ANYTHING to have a common-law marriage,
> other than tell people that you're married...

In England you have to live together *as if you are married*, and I believe there is a minimum time for this
to have been going on before it would be accepted.  But being actually married certainly holds more sway with
the law than a common-law marriage, especially when it comes to things like inheritance.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@180429 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 8, 2004, at 9:29 AM, Bob Ammerman wrote:

> The government is working so hard to avoid 'establishing' a
> specific religion that they are creating an unfriendly environment
> for religion in general.

I dunno.  Seems like a transition effect going from the current state
of excessive friendliness to Judeo/Christian faiths to a more truly
neutral environment.  The Christians are losing privlidges so it looks
less friendly to religion to them, but how many Nth generation pagans
have you talked to to see whether they think the current environment
is more or less friendly to their religion than 2 generations ago?

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@181307 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 05:04 PM 10/8/2004, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

>On Oct 8, 2004, at 9:29 AM, Bob Ammerman wrote:
>
>>The government is working so hard to avoid 'establishing' a
>>specific religion that they are creating an unfriendly environment
>>for religion in general.
>
>I dunno.  Seems like a transition effect going from the current state
>of excessive friendliness to Judeo/Christian faiths to a more truly
>neutral environment.  The Christians are losing privlidges so it looks
>less friendly to religion to them, but how many Nth generation pagans
>have you talked to to see whether they think the current environment
>is more or less friendly to their religion than 2 generations ago?

Exactly.
Freedom of religion still is pretty much the freedom to practice any religion as long as it's judaeo-christian, and even then you better not get too far out there..

Granted we have to have SOME limitations.. Human sacrifice, IMHO should be banned, but I have no problem with the ritual cannibalism in christianity.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@181553 by Alex Harford

face picon face
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 14:46:28 -0700, Andrew Warren <.....aiwspamRemoveMEcypress.com> wrote:
> Chops <RemoveMEpiclistspamspamBeGonemit.edu> wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure you have to do ANYTHING to have a common-law
> > marriage, other than tell people that you're married...
>
>     Depends on the state, although filing your income-tax return as
>     "Married" is a pretty dependable way to get common-law married.
>
>     One big problem, often unforeseen by people who enter into that
>     arrangement, is that there's no such thing as common-law divorce.
>      When a common-law-married couple splits up, the two spouses have
>     to get a REAL divorce; if they don't, they expose themselves to
>     all sorts of trouble, including bigamy charges if they ever marry
>     again.

Interesting.  In BC, you are considered common-law if you are living
together for 6 months.  But, there is no splitting of assests if the
couple separates.  Child custody is a different matter.

Things get interesting now that same-sex marriages are now legal in
BC... what happens when two male roommates live together for more than
6 months.  Are they common law?  How do you prove/disprove it? :)

Alex
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@181857 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 8, 2004, at 2:52 PM, Howard Winter wrote:

>> I'm not sure you have to do ANYTHING to have a common-law marriage,
>
> In England you have to live together *as if you are married*,

I wonder what THAT means?  I know some married couples that spend
less time together than the average highschool "dating" couple.
And we all know (even though it's wrong) that married couples have
less sex than unmarried couples.

It gets thorny when one religion actively pursues things that another
religion considers "evil."  I had the (a?) fundamentalist christian
view of
magic (WRT the Harry Potter controversy) explained to me; seems that
humans can't do magic themselves.  They can pray for miracles, or they
can invoke demons to do things for them.  In that light, I can see why
they would object to magic.  (Of course, most fiction that has magic
challenges the first assumption, that humans can't do magic themselves,
rather than saying that invoking demons is OK, so the overall objections
to HP/etc seem a bit silly to me, but I can sort of understand the
uneasiness about magic in general...)

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@182133 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>Things get interesting now that same-sex marriages are now legal in
>BC... what happens when two male roommates live together for more than
>6 months.  Are they common law?  How do you prove/disprove it? :)

A college education could have interesting side-effects!

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@182619 by David Koski

flavicon
face
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:31:51 -0500
Dave VanHorn <spamBeGonedvanhorn@spam@spamspam_OUTdvanhorn.org> wrote:

> At 04:24 PM 10/8/2004, Matt Redmond wrote:

<snip>

{Quote hidden}

But does it *ever* work out that way? I, for one, care. The
dynamics doom it to failure, or at least make it very, *very*
difficult to result in emotionally healthy offspring.

>  (answer, the government, who will throw you in jail for it.)

David

--
David Koski
TakeThisOuTdavidspamspamKosmosIsland.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@182711 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>It gets thorny when one religion actively pursues things that another
>religion considers "evil."  I had the (a?) fundamentalist christian view of
>magic (WRT the Harry Potter controversy) explained to me; seems that
>humans can't do magic themselves.  They can pray for miracles, or they
>can invoke demons to do things for them.  In that light, I can see why
>they would object to magic.  (Of course, most fiction that has magic
>challenges the first assumption, that humans can't do magic themselves,
>rather than saying that invoking demons is OK, so the overall objections
>to HP/etc seem a bit silly to me, but I can sort of understand the
>uneasiness about magic in general...)

That's fine, and I have no problem if someone prefers not to see the movie etc.
The problem starts when they want to ban the movie so I can't see it.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@183115 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
At 02:27 PM 10/8/04, you wrote:

>For example, you could hold yourself out as married to a hotel clerk to
>avoid embarrassment or something, but that likely wouldn't be enough to
>support a common law marriage.  ...and you have to consummate the marriage
>too :-)

Man, I'm never gonna consummate a marriage with a hotel clerk!

MD

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@183541 by Dave VanHorn
flavicon
face

>
>But does it *ever* work out that way? I, for one, care. The
>dynamics doom it to failure, or at least make it very, *very*
>difficult to result in emotionally healthy offspring.

The mormons, for one, would disagree with you.
Do a little reading on Polyamory and Polygamism

I see no fundamental reason why it wouldn't work.
A family with multiple earners and multiple care-givers should be intrinsically more stable than the conventional arrangement.

Not my choice, but I wouldn't stop someone else from choosing it.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@183632 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Alex Harford <piclistEraseMEspammit.edu> wrote:

> In BC, you are considered common-law if you are living together for
> 6 months.
> ....
> Things get interesting now that same-sex marriages are now legal
> in BC... what happens when two male roommates live together for
> more than 6 months.  Are they common law?  How do you
> prove/disprove it? :)

   Seems no different from the already presumably-common issue of
   opposite-sex roommates...

   Is it possible that your characterization of the law in BC is
   incomplete, and that two people must live together AS A MARRIED
   COUPLE for 6 months before they're considered common-law
   married?

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- RemoveMEaiwEraseMEspamspam_OUTcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@184029 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>    Is it possible that your characterization of the law in BC is
>    incomplete, and that two people must live together AS A MARRIED
>    COUPLE for 6 months before they're considered common-law
>    married?

Thorny distinction though, what does that little add-on mean exactly?


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@185436 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Chops <@spam@piclistRemoveMEspamEraseMEmit.edu> wrote:

> > In England you have to live together *as if you are married*,
>
> I wonder what THAT means?  I know some married couples that spend
> less time together than the average highschool "dating" couple.

   If that was a serious question, "living together as if you're
   married" can include things like:

   referring to yourselves as Mr. and Mrs.
   answering "Married" whenever asked your marital status
   opening a joint bank account
   sharing a credit-card account with her
   naming her as your beneficiary
   purchasing a house with her
   having children with her
   buying tampons, too, when you go to the store for beer
   etc.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- EraseMEaiwspam@spam@cypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@185854 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>    buying tampons, too, when you go to the store for beer
>    etc.

I know guys who would have trouble with that test! :)

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@190626 by Marcel Duchamp

picon face
At 03:58 PM 10/8/04, you wrote:
>    buying tampons, too, when you go to the store for beer
>     etc.

www.achewood.com/index.php?date=09092004
MD

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@191016 by Bob Axtell

face picon face
When I was growing up in Texas, common-law marriage was
not only legal, if you lived with a woman in the same house for
a year and a day then you were legally marriaged, license or not,
preacher or not, and a real divorce was required to end it.

----

BUT, while I am wasting bandwidth anyway, let me say my piece
on religious  rubbish. Religions, like most things man-made, have
both good and bad seasons. Militant Islam is at a particularly bad
stage, while Christianity and Catholicism are pretty tame nowadays.
Eventually, something else will be the bad apple.

What keeps the various religions going is the fact that the secular
alternative is so humdrum: no visions, no miracles, no absolutes,
just tired, listless shades of gray. Even the spark that Darwin began
with such blazing intuitiveness has turned out to be frustrating,
without a single piece of solid evolutionary evidence in 160 years
of straining at every possibility. Atheists just don't have enough
spark to be interesting. Period.

Personally, I think I have lived at least 3 previous lifetimes before;
and to my surprise, somebody has already made a religion out of it.
Curses!

My idea of a religious experience is a cozy evening curled up  with
a nice, warm, willing female.

--Bob



William Chops Westfield wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Note: Attachments must be sent to
@spam@attachspam_OUTspam.....engineer.cotse.net, and
MAY delay replies to this message.
       520-219-2363

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@191238 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 06:06 PM 10/8/2004, Marcel Duchamp wrote:

>At 03:58 PM 10/8/04, you wrote:
>>   buying tampons, too, when you go to the store for beer
>>    etc.
>
>http://www.achewood.com/index.php?date=09092004

ROTFLMAO! Been there, done that!

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@191719 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 06:10 PM 10/8/2004, Bob Axtell wrote:

>When I was growing up in Texas, common-law marriage was
>not only legal, if you lived with a woman in the same house for
>a year and a day then you were legally marriaged, license or not,
>preacher or not, and a real divorce was required to end it.
>
>----
>
>BUT, while I am wasting bandwidth anyway, let me say my piece
>on religious  rubbish. Religions, like most things man-made, have
>both good and bad seasons. Militant Islam is at a particularly bad
>stage, while Christianity and Catholicism are pretty tame nowadays.
>Eventually, something else will be the bad apple.

Oh yeah.. From Wikipedia
Vlad II Dracul received his title "Dracul" from his induction into the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon>Order of the Dragon. In <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1431>1431, he was titled into the "<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Dragon>Order of the Dragon" by <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund%2C_Holy_Roman_Emperor>Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund, a creed designed to gain political favor for the church and to protect the Hungarian-Romanian royal family from the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire>Ottoman Empire of the <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks>Turks. The Order of the Dragon was founded on <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_13>December 13, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1408>1408, with <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigismund>Sigismund (then King of Hungary) as an original founding member.

The ones that make me nervous lately are the scientologists.
Not so much the rank and file, as the upper management.
http://www.xenu.net for info.


>What keeps the various religions going is the fact that the secular
>alternative is so humdrum: no visions, no miracles, no absolutes,
>just tired, listless shades of gray.

Apparently this is why the christians co-opted the pagan holidays.
That bunny thing in easter? :)

>My idea of a religious experience is a cozy evening curled up  with
>a nice, warm, willing female.

Tantric Tendencies?


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@192306 by James Newtons Massmind

face picon face
Source = http://www.piclist.com/postbot.asp?id=piclist\2004\10\08\085907a

The problem is that, at least in my case, the alternatives that have been
presented are all... well... the kind word for it is: Mystic. If secular
humanism is... Hubris, and I tend to agree that it is, why does it seem the
only other options are supernatural? I was raised hearing, as I have heard
again from Russell, that to avoid the hollow baselessness of Nietzsche was
to throw reason to the wind and accept a religious god.

I have always felt that believing in something just to avoid the horror of
reality is insane. Isn't that pretty much the definition of the word? Or is
that merely crazy? "Yes I'm crazy, it keeps me from going insane." Nietzsche
may have gone mad, but so is Jimmy Swaggert. Or not, depending on how good
an actor you think he is. <WRY GRIN>

Why can't I turn away from secular humanism without flying into the arms of
the mumbo jumbo? And while I agree that the schools are teaching humanism in
many cases, turning to religion is NOT the answer for public education. They
need to tone down the "humanus uberallus" thing and just leave religion out
of it entirely. Teach science, the scientific method, and show the kids how
to predict what a system will do based on our understanding of it, then show
them that it does, in fact, do what we expect... in MOST cases. But ALSO:
admit that there are systems we can not (yet) predict or fully understand.
And tell them that this is THEIR job: To figure out what remains. That will
keep them busy for a while, no? <GRIN>

Understand the system, accept the reality, then work with it. And science is
NOT humanism. Most scientists are in awe of the subjects they study. I
collect knowledge, but I don't believe that humans are the only intelligent
thing. Rocks know how to be rocks; I marvel at the volume of learning they
have accomplished. The earth knows how to live. People who don't get this
should read and learn about ants or bees. It shows how "stupid" bugs can be
stunningly brilliant; some of the things they do will send chills up your
spine. And they work in the time scale that makes it easy for us to
comprehend what they are doing. Stars, rocks, atoms and quarks run at such
different speeds that we tend to dismiss their brilliance.

Here is what I believe in: Systemic repeatability through accurate modeling
and control on an ever expanding basis. <GRIN> Or, if you like, always
searching for "the fundamental interconnectedness of all things"

Nietzsche, Swaggert, Hitler, McMahon and all the rest of the inmates can
slam against the walls or pretend they are in a field full of pretty
flowers; I'll just be over here working on this lock.

Hummm... This turned out to be a pretty good draft of a credo for me...

---
James Newton, massmind.org Knowledge Archiver
spamBeGonejamesEraseMEspammassmind.org 1-619-652-0593 fax:1-208-279-8767
http://www.massmind.org What do YOU know?



> {Original Message removed}

2004\10\08@205040 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face
On Oct 8, 2004, at 3:15 PM, Alex Harford wrote:

> Things get interesting now that same-sex marriages are now legal in
> BC... what happens when two male roommates live together for more than
> 6 months.  Are they common law?  How do you prove/disprove it? :)
>
Like there were never similar situations with mixed sex roommates
before?
In order to have a common law marriage, you have to say you're married.

Interesting situations arise when there is a disagreement about the, um,
status of the relationship.  But then that also has always been true,
with or without the "marriage" label.

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@212706 by Cnc002

picon face
In a message dated 10/8/04 8:53:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ChopswestfwspamBeGonespammac.com writes:

> In order to have a common law marriage, you have to say you're married

Actually, it varies from state to state here in the U.S.A. as to what defines
a common law marriage.  Some states say living together for a certain amount
of time makes a common law marriage, some consider you married if you just say
in public you are married, other states have different requirements for it.  
I believe there are a few states where there is no such thing as a common law
marriage, at least there used to be.

Rick
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@212958 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>>Yeah; it doesn't at all follow from "religious people still do
>>horrible things" to "religions CAUSE people to do horrible things",

> Forced conversions?  It's amazing what you can justify doing to someone,
> if you're going to "save" him..

2.    The above is an example of 'what religious people do" not what
religion per se necessarily causes.

1.    Forced non-conversions?
In a number of countries it is illegal for people to change from the
religion that they were 'born into" even when the change is entirely the
voluntary choice of the person involved.


       RM

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@213001 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I believe it was Ted Turner who said that "Religion is the opiate of the
> masses". I wonder a lot whether that is a good thing or a bad thing...

He may well have. But Karl Marx said it first :-)


       RM

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@214251 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>>Forced conversions?  It's amazing what you can justify doing to someone, if you're going to "save" him..
>
>2.    The above is an example of 'what religious people do" not what religion per se necessarily causes.

Well, when it's specifically endorsed from the top down, I'd say it's systemic.
Scientology tries to get off this way as well. Whenever any of their folk are busted carrying out their policies, they are shown to the public as "one misguided person".. Hubbard disowned his wife, and other high rankers when they were busted in "operation snow white".
http://lisatrust.bogie.nl/scientology/snow-white/

After all, what they were doing was just clearing out some bad information so that Scientology can get on with "clearing the planet". That's worth any price! (snork)

>1.    Forced non-conversions?
>In a number of countries it is illegal for people to change from the religion that they were 'born into" even when the change is entirely the voluntary choice of the person involved.

Hmm.. That's interesting.

I always thought it was a little sleazy to take children and indoctrinate them into a religion before they are old enough to understand that there are many religions and the implications of making any particular choice.  Of course if it's YOUR religion, then you're only doing the "right thing" to keep them from making a choice that will cause the great guy in the sky (who loves you very much) to boil them in oil for eternity....


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@214704 by John Ferrell

face picon face
My error... Mr Turner was quoting Karl Marx. I have always been a fan of Mr.
Turner, especially his tenacity in sailboat racing. I know nothing of his
religious beliefs.

I said:
> I believe it was Ted Turner who said that "Religion is the opiate of the
> masses". I wonder a lot whether that is a good thing or a bad thing...
>



John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ferrell" <RemoveMEjohnferrell@spam@spamspamBeGoneearthlink.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclist@spam@spamEraseMEmit.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Religious rubbish


>I hope not. I find it very enlightening.
> Some observations:
>


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@215054 by John Ferrell

face picon face
My ignorence is showing, I will follow & study. Thank you.

John Ferrell    
http://DixieNC.US

{Quote hidden}

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@223028 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 8, 2004, at 6:42 PM, Dave VanHorn wrote:

>>> Forced conversions?  It's amazing what you can justify doing
>>> to someone, if you're going to "save" him..
>>
>> 2.    The above is an example of 'what religious people do"
>> not what religion per se necessarily causes.
>
> Well, when it's specifically endorsed from the top down,
> I'd say it's systemic.

Which religions endorse FORCED conversions?  That *is* distinct
from mere missionary tendencies, right?

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\08@232600 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>Which religions endorse FORCED conversions?  That *is* distinct from mere missionary tendencies, right?

Lately, it's not really a mainstream thing, at least around here.
The catholics did this to the Jews in Spain and elsewhere, and again in south america.
The christians as a whole, did this to native indians in north america.

The russians did it to catholics and jews until very recently, conversion to atheism.

According to this link: atheism.about.com/library/irf/irf03/blirf_comoros.htm
christians are sometimes subjected to forcible conversion to islam here, and in Sudan:
www.fact-index.com/d/di/discrimination_against_non_muslims_in_sudan.html#Forced%20Religious%20Conversion
And our friends the Saudis as well
http://www.fact-index.com/d/di/discrimination_against_non_muslims_in_saudi_arabia.html



Interestingly, scientology has a bit to say on this, through one of their web sites.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_tol1.htm  They also now run the Cult Awareness Network, through an interesting legal manuver.  CAN used to be a strong voice against scientology.


In scientology's world view, it's also there, but less obvious.
"clearing the planet" (conversion of everyone on the planet to scientology) is defined by scientology the highest goal, and worth any cost.
Anyone who opposes this goal is a "suppressive person" and is therefore "fair game".

It takes a bit of reading, they never come out and state it this cleanly, but according to scientology, you are either part of the solution, or part of the problem.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/Web/People/dst/Library/Shelf/xenu/scs.html#toc

According to scientology, only scientologists are entitled to human rights!
I can't find the link to the appropriate policy letter, but trust me on this.


HCOPL 18 October '67 Issue IV

..."SP order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed."

According to hubbard, such people are to be "disposed of, quietly, and without sorrow".

Additionally, there is "auditing process R2-45" which is to be used.
http://www.skeptictank.org/r2-45.htm

Though they say the practice was discontinued some time ago, actually all that was done was to stop calling it "fair game". Careful reading of the policy reveals that it is still in force. Here's a 1992 list.
http://www.benzedrine.cx/mirror/b-org/b-org-flag/scn/sea-org/flag-orders/FED.19920725.html

And a 2002 declare.
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/fair_game/flb-eo1448-2002-02-05.pdf

Although official policy requires you to be notified if you are placed on that list, the "SP declares" are rather scarce lately..  If I'm not on the list, I certainly should be.

The official public line is rather different, but I have seen the policy letters myself, and they are as summarized above.
http://www.authenticscientology.org/page38b.htm



_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@002727 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> The russians did it to catholics and jews until very recently, conversion
> to atheism.

It's an interesting day when the sins of atheism are laid at the doors of
religion - notwithstanding that atheism is indeed religion :-).



       RM


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@003350 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 11:26 PM 10/8/2004, Russell McMahon wrote:

>>The russians did it to catholics and jews until very recently, conversion to atheism.
>
>It's an interesting day when the sins of atheism are laid at the doors of religion - notwithstanding that atheism is indeed religion :-).

Just another sort of forced conversion, though I think the russians were rather more gentle than the catholics.

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@004902 by Rich

picon face
Why wonder if it is a good thing or a bad thing when it is but an illogical
hypothetical.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell McMahon" <.....apptechRemoveMEspamparadise.net.nz>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistSTOPspamspam@spam@mit.edu>
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2004 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Religious rubbish


{Quote hidden}

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@042831 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
muslims too afaikr

it would probbly make it *better* for the child if anything

unless your deffinition of "healthy" means the child shouldnt
choose the same life?

problem i have with the many wives part is
a) its sexist, what if the woman wants many husbands?
b) unless we get some funky hormonal things happening the
gender ballance is around 1:1 meaning a 1:4 marrage cant
happen for everybody

only "global" solution as i see it is for it to be freeform
if you love sombody then be with them,
no rules on any aspect of it other than if there are children
they must be cared for, if its by the mother or by the mothers
2 bisexual husbands and their other partners who cares so long
as it is loved and cared for.



> {Original Message removed}

2004\10\09@043945 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
At 03:28 AM 10/9/2004, Jake Anderson wrote:

>muslims too afaikr
>
>it would probbly make it *better* for the child if anything
>
>unless your deffinition of "healthy" means the child shouldnt
>choose the same life?
>
>problem i have with the many wives part is
>a) its sexist, what if the woman wants many husbands?
>b) unless we get some funky hormonal things happening the
>gender ballance is around 1:1 meaning a 1:4 marrage cant
>happen for everybody

Although mormon polygamy is 1H-nW, nH-nW is what I was thinking of.
The particular values of N would depend on the people involved, and would average to 1-1 hopefully.

>only "global" solution as i see it is for it to be freeform
>if you love sombody then be with them,
>no rules on any aspect of it other than if there are children
>they must be cared for, if its by the mother or by the mothers
>2 bisexual husbands and their other partners who cares so long
>as it is loved and cared for.

Again, not my choice, but I wouldn't stand in anyone's way, nor do I think that the government should, unless there is a public health concern with scientific basis.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@045203 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Bill,
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 19:30:37 -0700, William "Chops" Westfield wrote:

> Which religions endorse FORCED conversions?  That *is* distinct
> from mere missionary tendencies, right?

How about the Spanish Inquisition?  (I bet nobody expected that! :-)

There's even a word meaning "doing things that the religion-in-power doesn't approve of": Heresy.  And at
various times it's been illegal in various places, and still is in some.  Witch-hunting was rather popular
here at one time...

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@050128 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Jake,

Polygamy...

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 18:28:29 +1000, Jake Anderson wrote:

> problem i have with the many wives part is
> a) its sexist, what if the woman wants many husbands?

Well legally Polyany is as illegal as Polygamy!  But if
ones goal is to procreate, one man and four women can
create far more offspring than one woman and four men...

> b) unless we get some funky hormonal things happening
the
> gender ballance is around 1:1 meaning a 1:4 marrage
cant
> happen for everybody

That's not a problem for the "system" - it's just
annoying for the single men.  It does mean that if the
male dies there are plenty of spares to take over the
harem.  Perhaps if the 1:4 ratio was the popular
arrangement, the birth-rate of girls would increase?  
It's known that the birth-rate of boys increases after a
war, so there seems to be some natural feedback.

Cheers,


Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@050631 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>
>There's even a word meaning "doing things that the religion-in-power doesn't approve of": Heresy.  And at various times it's been illegal in various places, and still is in some.  Witch-hunting was rather popular here at one time...

Indeed. Look at all the laws around "obscenity" and nudity.
Mostly based on offending christians.

I can't remember the specific pope, but IIRC one of those guys decided (somewhat arbitrarily it would seem) that sex and anything that goes with it, is evil. And so here we are.

I will grant you that there are a depressing number of people, myself included, who SHOULD get a ticket for running around nude, but more on the lines of asthetic offences than "indecency". (Assuming you can define that) :)

Interesting thought, if it weren't so easy to hide, maybe we'd take better care of ourselves!

I really wonder about the whole indecency thing.
After all, it's no secret what's under the kilt, (or blouse) and pretending that you don't have nipples is, when you think about it, pretty sick..  

The only reason it is such a big issue in the first place, is that we MAKE it one, by trying to hide it.

All that hooraw over the superbowl thing, two seconds of a nipple on their two hour show about sex, violence, and beer..

I was sort of half watching something on cable recently on the running of the conventions, they were covering what it's like to actually put one on, and all the logistics. I forget most of the specifics, but a big flap ensued when one of the delegates was observed to be breast-feeding her baby on the convention floor...  I just don't get what all the fuss is about.  To me, feeding human babies cow's milk seems more alarming.


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@052428 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
Dave,

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 04:06:37 -0500, Dave VanHorn wrote:

>...<
> I will grant you that there are a depressing number of
people, myself included, who SHOULD get a ticket for
running around nude, but more on the lines of asthetic
offences than "indecency". (Assuming you can define
that) :)

ROFL!  "You are charged that, being an Ugly Person, you
did venture out in public, to the disquiet of persons
observing you"  :-)

> Interesting thought, if it weren't so easy to hide,
maybe we'd take better care of ourselves!

Well I don't think *I* would - I'd just walk past
mirrors without looking...

> I really wonder about the whole indecency thing.
> After all, it's no secret what's under the kilt,

Doesn't stop people asking, though  :-)  I've worn a
kilt on three occasions, and someone *always* asks!

> pretending that you don't have nipples is, when you
think about it, pretty sick..  

I agree.

> The only reason it is such a big issue in the first
place, is that we MAKE it one, by trying to hide it.

Hit it right on the head - except it isn't usually "us"
who make it a problem, it's taught to us as such.

Cheers,



Howard Winter
St.Albans, England


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@083030 by Peter L. Peres

picon face

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Andrew Warren wrote:

>    One big problem, often unforeseen by people who enter into that
>    arrangement, is that there's no such thing as common-law divorce.
>     When a common-law-married couple splits up, the two spouses have
>    to get a REAL divorce; if they don't, they expose themselves to
>    all sorts of trouble, including bigamy charges if they ever marry
>    again.

This is interesting. Could you provide a search key or an incident's
keywords so one could search for it ?

thanks,

Peter
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@103754 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
> I *strongly* believe that the schools should teach basic morality:
> honesty, integrety, self-reliance, open-mindedness, and to not kill
> your fellows.

It seems there are a few strong currents who would disagree with you on
this list of "basic morality": honesty vs. legality, integrity vs. social
integration, self-reliance vs. team-oriented, open-mindedness vs. being a
"good American", not to kill your fellows vs. waging preemptive wars to
"save the country".

Not all of these pairs a contrasts in all minds, but some sure are in some
minds. Of course a school has to teach /something/, but it sure will teach
something that's going to be against what's considered basic morality by
some.

Gerhard
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\09@110228 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
> The principal problem with the teaching of secular humanism, whether overtly
> or covertly, intentionally or by default, is that it is almost always taught
> incompletely.

Pretty much everything in school is taught incompletely, not the least
because most students at that age are less than "incompletely interested"
in any subject that's being taught at school :)

But the principal problem with the teaching of "religion" in school is that
it necessarily will have to be much more incomplete... Which religion(s)
should they teach? Wicca? Siberian Shamanism? Tao? Zen Buddhism? Middle-Age
Catholicism? Sufi Islam? Yours? (Of course... but that's part of the
problem :)

> A good exposure to Nietzche

(Nitpicking: That's "Nietzsche" -- basically two syllables Nietz-sche )

> the hollowness of the premises on which the whole system is founded.

Any system that you don't found in yourself is hollow (for you) at some
point, whether based on religion or anything else. Conversely, if you found
it within yourself, you don't need anybody to prove it to you (or disprove
it), whether based on several thousand years old scriptures or not.

Gerhard
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\10@091421 by Rich

picon face
What is the fundamental necessity for the academic community to undertake to
instruct on religion, or moral and ethical issues?  Why should academia
extend its scope beyond a limited scope of intellectual abstraction, but
which could also include consideration of philosophical questions?  For my
part, I would prefer that the academic community focus on math, science,
literature, fine arts, industrial arts, logic and rhetoric.  History should
be limited to events and influences without the political spin.

No doubt there are many who disagree with this view point or it might be the
typical approach.  However, I am convinced that more social engineering and
less education is taking place in the American schools.  I will not include
other countries although I am not ignorant of the approaches.

Some people believe that social engineering is essential in the postmodern
world, and that the most effective forum to conduct it is in the academic
setting. I believe that social engineering is inevitable and in some form or
other has always existed. But I believe that the schools and governments are
not the agencies for determining the exact definition and extent of social
engineering.

I have probably said too much already because these are big issues crunched
into small bytes.


{Original Message removed}

2004\10\11@092020 by John Ferrell

face picon face
> What is the fundamental necessity for the academic community to undertake
> to
> instruct on religion, or moral and ethical issues?

Why Not?
The system is inclined to teach what sells and what they percieve as
neccessary to their goals.

One of my hang ups with MBA school was their treating "legal" and "ethical"
as synonyms.
I accept that an individual can make their own decision as to what kind of
life they choose but it is very important to all of us that it be an
informed decision.

There are some folks I deal with that I ask the price up front along with
all the details. There are others I just explain what I need. I know they
will be fair.

John Ferrell
http://DixieNC.US

{Original Message removed}

2004\10\11@135512 by Rich

picon face

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrellEraseMEspam@spam@earthlink.net>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <RemoveMEpiclistspamspamBeGonemit.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [OT] Religious rubbish


> > What is the fundamental necessity for the academic community to
undertake
> > to
> > instruct on religion, or moral and ethical issues?
>
> Why Not?
> The system is inclined to teach what sells and what they percieve as
> neccessary to their goals.

>
Because the academic community is not a disinterested agent and is not able,
therefore, to provide a basis for engendering informed views but rather
instructed principles.  There are some people who believe that there is no
difference between moral issues and issues of an amoral nature, either in
scope or in social impact.  In my view, they are instructed rather than
informed.

In the American school system no balance is offered.  Relativism and
situational ethics are taught as the fundamental principal of moral
judgment.  The concept of absolute moral codes is dispelled as myth.

It has nothing to do with what opinion or persuasion one holds.  It is a
question of whether they are given the opportunity for developing an
informed viewpoint if they begin with the premise that relativism and
situational ethics are the basis of decision.



> One of my hang ups with MBA school was their treating "legal" and
"ethical"
{Quote hidden}

undertake
> > to
> > instruct on religion, or moral and ethical issues?  Why should academia
> > extend its scope beyond a limited scope of intellectual abstraction, but
> > which could also include consideration of philosophical questions?  For
my
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>


_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\11@144219 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Peter L. Peres <spamBeGonepiclist@spam@spammit.edu> wrote:

> > When a common-law-married couple splits up, the two spouses have
> > to get a REAL divorce; if they don't, they expose themselves to
> > all sorts of trouble, including bigamy charges if they ever marry
> > again.
>
> This is interesting. Could you provide a search key or an
> incident's keywords so one could search for it?

   Throwing various combinations of "bigamy common-law divorce
   prosecuted" into Google should give you a few hundred pages to
   look at.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- RemoveMEaiwEraseMEspamKILLspamcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\11@174359 by William Chops Westfield

face picon face

On Oct 11, 2004, at 10:55 AM, Rich wrote:

>>> What is the fundamental necessity for the academic community to
>>> undertake to instruct on religion, or moral and ethical issues?

You can hardly call primary education "academia."  In my experience,
by the time you get to institutions that warrant the label, they are
pretty lacking in such instruction (thus recent cries for business
schools to at least say SOMETHING about ethical behavior, in light
of assorted recent debacles...)

BillW

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\12@230822 by Rich

picon face
This is undoubtedly controversial.  I hesitate to create a potential for
offending sensitive feelings.  But to reply to your reply, that is not the
point.  The question is whether or not the system of public education,
whether you call it pedagogy, or academia, or school or any other name, is
fundamentally capable of such preparation.  My position is that there are
basically two camps, (1) those who adhere to a moral relativity that posits
a situational ethics, i.e., arising out of the circumstances of the
situation under consideration, and (2) those that adhere to the concept of
an absolute or immutable moral code that is universal and applies to all
circumstances.  The public education system (and some private education
systems) do not support both viewpoints but only the relativity of ethics.
Many law schools in America have even dropped the course of ethics as a
requirement.

Fundamentally, I see the two positions as mutually exclusive.  The danger I
see in the relativist's point of view is partly the impact on precedence in
jurisprudence and partly to the continuous change which confirms one
practice as ethical and yet that same practice may be unethical at some
point in the more immediate future.  This is not like saying that "it was
ethical 5000 BCE to practice some behavior that is considered as barbaric
today.  Logic will dictate that social equivalencies must be considered.  As
a civilization, we are more homogenous than the social orders of 5000 BCE.

Regards,Rich

{Original Message removed}

2004\10\12@231336 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face

>Logic will dictate that social equivalencies must be considered.  As
>a civilization, we are more homogenous than the social orders of 5000 BCE.

If you want real fun, dig up a copy of "introduction to scientology ethics".

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

2004\10\13@231833 by Rich

picon face
Been There.  Don't get me started  :-))
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave VanHorn" <spamBeGonedvanhornspam_OUTspamRemoveMEdvanhorn.org>
To: "Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <.....piclistspamRemoveMEmit.edu>;
"Microcontroller discussion list - Public." <piclistspam@spam@mit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 11:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] Religious rubbish


>
> >Logic will dictate that social equivalencies must be considered.  As
> >a civilization, we are more homogenous than the social orders of 5000
BCE.
>
> If you want real fun, dig up a copy of "introduction to scientology
ethics".
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2004 , 2005 only
- Today
- New search...